https://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/w/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=Antidyatel&feedformat=atomA Closer Look On Syria - User contributions [en]2024-03-29T05:18:56ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.35.13https://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17/Zaroshchenskoye&diff=25153Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Zaroshchenskoye2015-10-20T06:02:29Z<p>Antidyatel: Clarifying question</p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:95th Brigade map Zaroshchenskoye BUK.jpg|thumb|Map used by the 95th Brigade from July showing a BUK battery at the alleged launch site in Zaroshchenskoye]]<br />
[[File:MH17 Zaro redeploy.png|thumb|Russian satellite image showing alleged BUK TELARs in Zaroshchenskoye on July 17th]]<br />
[[File:BUK flight paths from Zaroshchenskoye and Snezhnoye.jpg|thumb|BUK flight paths from alleged launch sites Zaroshchenskoye and Snezhnoye]]<br />
A number of Russian sources claim that [[MH17]] was shot down by a BUK missile fired by Ukrainian forces from '''Zaroshchenskoye''' south of Shakhtarsk.<br />
# Satellite photos of alleged Ukrainian BUK missile launchers in Zaroshchenskoye, presented by the Russian Ministry of Defense in their briefing on July 21, 2014.<br />
# Technical analysis of the shrapnel damage by Almaz-Antey that backtracks the flight path and launch site to within 1.5 km of Zaroshchenskoye.<br />
# Alleged anonymous Ukrainian sources, that claim MH17 was shot down by mistake during a training exercise in Zaroshchenskoye.<br />
# Alleged anonymous US sources, that claim that American satellites had seen an Ukrainian missile crew within firing range of MH17 (possible in or near Zaroshchenskoye.)<br />
# [[:File:95th Brigade map Zaroshchenskoye BUK.jpg|Tactical map]] of the 95th Brigade from July captured by DPR forces showing a BUK battery at the alleged launch site.<br />
<br />
== Sources ==<br />
* [http://archive.mid.ru//brp_4.nsf/0/ECD62987D4816CA344257D1D00251C76 Special Briefing by the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation on the crash of the Malaysian Boeing 777 in the Ukrainian air space, July 21, 2014]<br />
* [http://fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/07/ukrainian-military-acknowledges-it-may.html Ukrainian military acknowledges it may have shot down flight MH17] - Igor Korotchenko via Fort Russ, July 26, 2015 ([http://i-korotchenko.livejournal.com/1121415.html original])<br />
* [https://consortiumnews.com/2014/07/20/what-did-us-spy-satellites-see-in-ukraine/ What Did US Spy Satellites See in Ukraine?] - Robert Parry, July 20, 2014<br />
:''What I’ve been told by one source, who has provided accurate information on similar matters in the past, is that U.S. intelligence agencies do have detailed satellite images of the likely missile battery that launched the fateful missile, but the battery appears to have been under the control of Ukrainian government troops dressed in what look like Ukrainian uniforms.<br />
<br />
=== 2015 ===<br />
* [https://hectorreban.wordpress.com/2015/06/18/did-the-ukrainians-shoot-down-flight-mh17/ Did the Ukrainians shoot down flight MH17?] - Hector Reban, June 18, 2015<br />
* [http://kremlintroll.nl/?p=569 MH17 – Zaroshchenske] - October 18, 2015 ([https://www.dropbox.com/s/vql1k6guq7pwvk9/MH17%20Zaroshchenske%20101815.pdf?dl=0 PDF])<br />
<br />
=== Map ===<br />
* [http://dan-news.info/defence/na-karte-ukrainskix-silovikov-za-iyul-2014-goda-otmecheny-pozicii-zrk-buk-basurin.html На карте украинских силовиков за июль 2014 года отмечены позиции ЗРК «Бук» — Басурин] - DAN News, April 30, 2015<br />
* [https://02varvara.wordpress.com/2015/04/30/basurin-sez-captured-junta-maps-shows-positions-of-buk-sam-units-in-july-2014/ Basurin sez Captured Junta Maps Shows Positions of Buk SAM Units in July 2014] - ''Voices from Russia'', April 30, 2015<br />
* [http://off-guardian.org/2015/04/30/dpr-map-discovered-with-positions-of-ukrainian-buks-on-day-of-mh17-crash/ DPR: Map discovered with positions of Ukrainian BUKs on day of MH17 crash (updated)] - Systematic, ''OffGuardian'', April 30, 2015<br />
<br />
== Debunk attempts ==<br />
* [http://www.interpretermag.com/russia-update-challenges-to-engineers-report-in-novaya-gazeta-on-downing-of-mh17/ Russia Update: Challenges to Engineers’ Report in Novaya Gazeta on Downing of MH17] - Interpreter Mag Liveblog Team, May 7, 2015<br />
* [http://www.interpretermag.com/ukraine-live-day-451-pictures-posted-to-russian-social-media-prove-buk-that-shot-down-mh17-was-in-russia-before-the-incident/ Ukraine Live Day 451: Pictures Posted to Russian Social Media Prove Buk That Shot Down MH17 Was In Russia Before The Incident] - Interpreter Mag Liveblog Team, May 14, 2015<br />
* [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/06/12/july-17-imagery-mod-comparison/ New July 17th Satellite Imagery Confirms Russia Produced Fake MH17 Evidence] - Eliot Higgins, Bellingcat, June 12, 2015<br />
** Only compares images from Donetsk AA base. Does not address Zaroshchenskoye at all.<br />
* [https://www.bellingcat.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Zaroshchenske_EN_1.pdf Zaroshchens'ke Launch Site - ''Claims and Reality''] - Klement Anders, Nathan Patin, Bellingcat, July 2015<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:MH17]]<br />
<br />
That is interesting. Do you know if BUK is always marked with this sign on Ukrainian military maps? --[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 06:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)</div>Antidyatelhttps://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17/BUK_Tracking&diff=23882Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/BUK Tracking2015-08-17T11:18:22Z<p>Antidyatel: /* General Observations */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:MH17]]<br />
==Who Has the BUK Launchers in Ukraine?==<br />
=== Kiev's Holdings ===<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3MomxNHnUA#t=288 Ukrainian Buk in ATO area], 16 July 2014. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 23:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC) <br />
*[http://sputniknews.com/europe/20150607/1023057320.html Twitter users found an announcement on the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense website detailing the transfer of a Buk-M1 system to the Ukrainian military over a month before the MH17 disaster]--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 18:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
*[https://twitter.com/wowihay/status/489814576452878336 wowihay] И они говорят у них нет #БУК'ов ? Еще 08.05.14 в #Краматорск=And they say they have no Buks? Already on 08.05.14 in [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1Oztlf4nYM #Краматорск]<br />
: google gdata no longer seems to work--what happened? but a user posted gdata earlier: Олег Гинзбург 10 months ago Опубликовано=published 2014-05-09T03:02:09.000Z (но деревья голые=but trees have no leafs) Обновлено=reposted 2014-07-19T12:29:10.000Z. Has Ukrainian style markup 121. <br />
и еще= [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGYfFeGRh90 and also]<br />
:Ukrainian-style markup 332, and one more Buk in his company --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:07, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CBQbFC9loc#t=350 Captured map] of 1 battalion of UAF 95 air-mobile brigade, dated beginning of July 2014, show location of 2 positions of Ukrainian Buks. Basurin points them on the map; but video resolution is insufficient to see those. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 05:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
:Maps can be faked, but still I'm curious what it shows. I imagine there might be a flat image of the map somewhere. Resup, could you maybe have a look? It's too slow for me to try an image search with translated words. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
::I have not seen the map in news reports mentioning the finding; and now I see it says explicitly that they are not going to make it public, [http://real-info.info/novorossiya/13429-vlasti-dnr-ne-budut-obnarodovat-karty-vsu-do-okonchaniya-rassledovaniya-krusheniya-mh17 until MH 17 investigation is completed]--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 23:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::Here is a press conference report--with video but not the map --[https://vk.com/strelkov_info?w=wall-57424472_57351 (Basurin press conference)]--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 23:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
It is possible to understand what it means when they say Ukr army controlled territory. But what is rebel controlled territory. Even if we take the maximum estimate for rebel numbers in July 2014 of 10,000 fighters, it gives a fraction of a rebel per square km, if we assume uniform distribution. In reality rebels very concentrated in Lughansk, Donetzk, Saur Mogila, 2 cauldrons. So everything else is free for all territory. When MSM declares rebel controlled territory, they just rely on Kiev's maps. Very reliable source. --[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 13:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)-- Antidyatel June 6<br />
:That's a good point that really came into play with the [[Mariupol market shelling]] incident - turns out all this eastern fire form rebel-held areas is from areas listed by Kiev as places they don't have full control over, that any crazy thing could happen from and it's prob'ly not them. Might even be a section on that here, if not, could be. There is an apparent pass right through a checkpoint, basically where the Pari Match "photo" was taken. That at least is a problem for a simple slip-in op, but it can be done and otherwise the theory could explain a lot (like, everything maybe) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC) <br />
<br />
<br />
==== BUK 312 and comrades ====<br />
[[File:Buk 312 sbu.jpg|thumb|left|BUK 312 on a trailer. Photo shown on SBU website and later removed. – ''[[:File:Buk 312 sbu.jpg|more...]]'']]<br />
Part of the material the Ukrainian SBU released to suggest that "rebels" shot down MH17 with a BUK, was photo material showing a BUK TELAR numbered 312 on a trailer, alleging it has been photographed on its way back to Russia. This was quickly shown to be extremely questionable as evidence surfaced showing number 312 in Ukrainian hands. The SBU then removed the photos from their website while other material like a suggestive photo showing a "plume" remained there. <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Buk 321.png|thumb|TELAR 321 as posted by @MOR2537 to illustrate what he alleges to have witnessed]]<br />
This was outlined (and a screenshot saved) in more detail [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/07/21/the-mh17-investigation-and-buk-312/ over at Human Rights Investigations]. A [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bj-VZB0ZdEA video embedded there] shows BUK 312 in Ukrainian hands back in March. The other two TELAR's seen in the video are numbers 323 and 321. BUK 321 [http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Ukrainian+government+forces+maneuver+antiaircraft+missile+launchers+they+transported+north+west+from+Slavyansk+eastern+Ukraine+Friday+July+2014+Photo+Dmitry+Lovetsky/10004193/story.html has been seen] in Ukrainian hands just two weeks before MH17 crashed, transported close to "liberated" Slavyansk. <br />
<br />
Interestingly enough, one of the tweets [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com/2014/07/reconstruction-of-whereabouts-of-buk.html spoon-fed by Ukrainian loyalists to imaginative Dutch blogger Ukraine@War] to suggest that there have been eyewitnesses for a "rebel" BUK, is then [https://twitter.com/MOR2537/status/489709431467171841 followed-up by the alleged eyewitness] with a picture of BUK 321 to illustrate what he has seen. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::yep, he is a conduit for Kiev but seems to have outside info, too. Like originals of photos he can get geolocations off (he says). But also has good collection of very early photos etc which have since become hard to find.Not sure I trust him though. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 15:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::I hadn't seen that before, thanks. I'll be considering... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 22:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: More photos: [http://www.armyrecognition.com/images/stories/east_europe/russia/missile_vehicle/sa-11_gadfly/pictures/sa-11_gadfly_anti-aircraft_missile_to_armoured_tracked_vehicle_Russian_army_russia_011.jpg 321] - [http://rt.com/files/news/2a/b1/40/00/640x480.jpg 312] - [http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1870560.1405614701!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_970/correction-ukraine.jpg 321] --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:Buk 312 in Lugansk.png|thumb|left|According to alleged former operator "A", this is BUK 312 after relocation sometime in Spring 2014 in Metallist settlement of Lugansk, with Yubileynaya mines in the background]]<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmI2KCOt_sA Anatolii Sharii] version of events, shows that Buk blamed on Russia has number 312 and was earlier photographed as part of Ukrainian convoy. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 20:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Sharii interviewed a Ukrainian soldier who served on Buk 312; this can be found on [http://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/1947657.html Cassad]. The guy does not know about MH17; but recalls SBU claiming it was this Buk 312 responsible. From this interview, meaning of 312: 3 is division number, 1 battery number, 2 unit number in a battery (there are loading and command vehicles, not just launchers). This UAF Buk is initially from Luhansk; than relocated to Kramatorsk; than places in a field. A serviceman took it on a ride with hand break on, leading to a small fire affecting electrics and requiring repairs. So it was traveling on a trailer at some point. It was than moved to Dnepropetrovsk, village of Novogrigorievka (apparently for repairs, and after trailer photo was taken, but exact date was not given). Buks from Luhansk which were not broken were moved by UAF elsewhere (and according to the soldier, were photographed in variaous places including Gorlovka; while 3 broken Buks remained in Luhansk) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: Interesting. I see that the "[http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Ukrainian+government+forces+maneuver+antiaircraft+missile+launchers+they+transported+north+west+from+Slavyansk+eastern+Ukraine+Friday+July+2014+Photo+Dmitry+Lovetsky/10004193/story.html has been seen]" link to the Montreal Gazette is dead by now. If anything I'm surprised that it lasted that long. Minitrue at work. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 04:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: [http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2014/12/17/shooting-down-mh-17-buk-312-story-false- Here] (and mirrored [http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2014/12/17/buk-312-crew-member-says-rebel-shoot-down-of-flight-mh17-story-is-false-transcript/ here]) is an English translation of the interview. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: And [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2rRCSNp33I here] is the video itself with English subtitles. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 20:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:What you said about the accident and the photo showing the damaged BUK on a trailer is about the very photo the SBU showed on their website as "evidence" and later removed. Also adding that he says friends in Lugansk saw "rebels" trying to repair the units they had left behind, but he knows that "whole equipment units" were lacking so the remaining stuff was "unusable". And that he says that he asked his ex-comrades still operating the BUK if they dunnit, and they said they didn't. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Good to see this section expand. Interesting additions from the alleged operator, and reasonable-sounding (the photo might show smoke stains to the back left side). But in the end, this issue might be not so relevant. I doubt it was Kiev's unit 312 that was used, and seeing how Kiev always was eyeing a supposedly Russian unit 3x2, maybe 312 ... In fact, if the middle number connotes unit number, and it's done the same, the launcher is always 1 and it would be 312 (or is that mixed-up?) So maybe all this really shows is how Kiev knew but didn't want to say all along, implausibly picking their own 312 to illustrate that knowledge with an embarrassing but harmless "error", while awaiting ... as it turns out, the independent Bellingcat investigation that finds 3x2 somehow in Russia... That tracked this ludicrous Buk field trip, as presented and followed on this page, which almost seems tailor-made for them, but Kiev wants us to know they they were secretly on the ball too from the start. (all thoughts in progress, a bit distracted too) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::::If SBU wanted to point out they knew the TELAR had number 312, why would they publish the photo in [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmI2KCOt_sA such a low resolution] that the number could not be read? -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 21:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: As Resup summarized, 1 is the battery number. The leading 3 means it's from the Lugansk division. If this is true, the fact that 312, 321 and 323 have been seen together on video in March perfectly fits with what the alleged operator said: That they were removing units in usable state from (all batteries of the division) Lugansk early on, leaving the crap behind. And the view that the SBU just published everything they could find to fit their tale that the "rebels" used a BUK to down the plane, including this photo, cut-together and taken out of context audio tapes and that ridiculous "plume" pic, and the 3x2 bellingcat nonsense from lately is meant to distract from these facts, is much simpler and straight forward than what you tried to come up with here on the fly. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::Ah, I see it now, not when I was typing, sorrys. Middle number could be anything, bust mostly we always see low numbers, so odds are good it was a "1". 3 means from Lugansk if that's true (presuming so) and it's Ukrainian. Diff. number paintjob though, as noted below. But I'm sure the Ukies just faked this exact 312 to a different style of 312 and then painted it out partly, and just let it slip with the one photo of how it looked before...? We'll have a hard time agreeing here, as the stuff you just dismiss as "nonsense" looks kind of like possible evidence with details I'm sort of trying to consider. I don't see how you can just ignore it as if it must be wrong somehow, and all made up to distract from ... this 312 disguised as 3x2 theory? Where it wasn't even at the end of that fake plume anyway and might be totally irrelevant or entirely fake? Or, what am I missing? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::Didn't you say that you haven't even watched the videos and checked the geolocation/origin yourself, if they really are from Russia etc.? Well, I certainly won't. Because I have no reason to believe that the sources are more truthful with the "evidence" than they have been before, and that track record is well established. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::::Yeah, which is why I'm neither in a good position to say they aren't wrong/fake, nor to go against my usual presumption it will be sound (has been so far, on this subject anyway) And by the supposed stills compare to supposed satellite imagery, it looked like a good match (I did skim the site once I could). I don't like the implication either, and I want it to be wrong. And it may well be, but I'll want to see how. And hey, there's a whole other section or two about this below... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
:::: I watched the video [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bj-VZB0ZdEA with the Ukie BUKs in March] again. There are actually more than the three I mentioned earlier. It starts with 323, which is not a TELAR. Followed by the two TELARs 321 and 312. Then comes what is also not a TELAR but what looks differently than 323: Number 301. Followed by two more TELARs, 331 and 332. So they could all be from the Lugansk division, parts of batteries 0 to 3. But one would suspect that the batteries are internal always numbered the same way. "A" says:<br />
::::: ''BUK is a complex of 4 specialized military vehicles: command post, mobile target detection and assignment station, loading and starting station, self-propelled fire installation.''<br />
::::So if 1 and 2 are TELARs, why are there two of them and why is 301 what could be the detection station with a radar? Is 323 a loading station? --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::::Too rusty, but good questions. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::: Ah, I think we can sort this out [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SA-11 thanks to wikipedia]:<br />
:::::''A standard Buk battalion consists of a command vehicle, target acquisition radar (TAR) vehicle, six transporter erector launcher and radar (TELAR) vehicles and three transporter erector launcher (TEL) vehicles. A Buk missile battery consists of two TELAR and one TEL vehicle.''<br />
:::: So our "A" didn't mean that a battery consists of 4 vehicles, but that the whole BUK consists of 4 different kinds of vehicles, some more than once. From this I deduce that "0" is for command and detection units (here our main radar 301) of the Lugansk division 3, and the batteries 1,2 and 3 each consist of two TELARs (numbered 1 and 2, here 312,321,331 and 332) and one TEL (numbered 3, the first vehicle in the video, 323). Makes sense? --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 13:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::Russia said Ukraine had 27 BUK launchers in the crash area, i.e. one brigade, or what ever comes in the hierarchy above battalion. If all units are numbered the same way, from 101 to 333, then one TELAR in 18 should be numbered 312. Maybe [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:9K37_Buk_of_the_Ukrainian_military,_Independence_Day_parade_in_Kiev.JPG not.] Russian numbers seem to reach higher. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 01:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::::Good find. The existence of 114 and 115 makes it more complicated. The [http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buk_M1 German Wikipedia article] says, contradicting the English one, that one battery consists of one command vehicle, one main radar, four TELARs and four TELs. But if that's true, there's no logical place for Radar 301, and why would one TEL be number 3 and the other three TELs numbers 6 to 8? --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 10:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
How to read BUK numbers<br />
This is how you decipher 312:<br />
<br />
3 stands for the third (Lugansk) division,<br />
1 stands for the battery number, ours was no. 1,<br />
2 stands for one of the 2. service units in each battery, ours was no.2<br />
<br />
according to a Ukrainian who explains it was "his" bUK (but not in his hands at the time)that shot down MH17. One of th many reports [http://www.opednews.com/articles/Shooting-Down-MH-17--BUK-by-Michael-Collins-Buk-312_False-Accusations-Of-Terrorism_False-Flag-Attacks_Mh17-Airline-Crash-141217-104.html about this interview] This claim is now superceded by the Capt Voloshin air-to-air claims. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 15:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
That solder knew nothing about who shot the Boeing. He was talking to Sharii, who previously made a video showing that Buk shown on SBU website is actually Ukrainian Buk 312. Later, the soldier emerged, saying that Buk 312 was his. (Claim of this one shooting Boeing is not his, it is SBU early claim) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 16:48, 26 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
While Voloshin story may be a play on destroyed by SBU evidence. There is supposed to be a log of flights, missiles fired, likely those logs no longer exist. Also before they claimed SU 25 were lost on 16 of July, but SBU denial of Voloshin story had SU 25 shot on 17 of July. And that Dnepropetrovsk airport traffic control lady vanished without a trace. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 16:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Supposed 321 belonging to KIEV<br />
::video shows three BUk sets [http://eurazya.today/2015/04/11/about-the-buk-312-who-allegedly-shot-down-mh17/ from 0.31 mark] but I can't really pick the number, they say it is 321. at Gorlovka in March. One on a white lowloader. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 12:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== Russian claims ====<br />
As part of their July 21 presentation of evidence, the Russian Ministry of Defense published satellite images allegedly showing Ukrainian BUK positions around Donetzk ([http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ RT report]). It's no secret the Ukrainian military maintains a base with anti-aircraft units. The facility shown in the Russian presentation (best seen [http://rt.com/files/news/2a/9a/00/00/4.jpg here]) I located - it's south of Avdeyevka, 3 km north of the airport, about 5 km north of Donetsk like they say. Visual match first, then noticed the label could have found it for me ... [http://wikimapia.org/#lat=48.0999781&lon=37.7578908&z=16&l=0&m=b&show=/16956839/ru/Зенитно-ракетный-дивизион-в-ч-А-1428&search=Donetsk on Wikimapia]. Labels, translated: Anti-aircraft missile battalion (in / h A-1428) One of the three anti-aircraft missile battalions ("Buk-M1"), located in Avdeyevka, Mariupol and Lugansk." BUK-type launcher photos included. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The counter-arguments to this at least sometimes fail. [http://www.interpretermag.com/mh17-and-moscows-magical-mystery-jets/ Interpreter rag] decided "the presence of Ukrainian government air defense systems is something of a red herring, not least given the clear evidence that the separatists had deployed at least one Buk system in the area." The side with a ''motive'' and clear, moving and likely operating units of the things on that day (see below) is irrelevant and shouldn't be considered because there's apparently also proof the presumed bad guys also had the units they needed to be so presumed. The very fact that separatists aren't ruled out means the other side should be free of any danger of being ruled in, and the separatists should ruled in just as automatically as they were ''before'' this social-media verification came in. This is clearly an irresponsible suggestion. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC) and --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Kiev's Buks Shuffled?===<br />
<br />
* From Russia's military press conference: [http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ RT, 10 Questions] - [http://www.ruaviation.com/docs/1/2014/7/22/83/ in more detail]<br />
:''3. Why was a large group of air defense systems deployed to the militia-held area if the self-defense forces have no planes?''<br />
:“As far as we know, the Ukrainian military had three or four air defense battalions equipped with Buk-M1 SAM systems deployed in the vicinity of Donetsk on the day of the crash. This system is capable of hitting targets within the range of 35 km at the altitude of up to 22 km.”'' <br />
:''4. Why did Kiev deploy BUK missile systems on the edge of militia-controlled zones directly before the tragedy?''<br />
:''“We have satellite photos of the places where Ukraine had its air defense units deployed in the southeastern parts of the country. The first three photos were made on July 14. The first photo shows Buk launchers 8 km northwest of Lugansk. You can clearly see a TELAR and two TELs. The second photo shows radars 5 km north of Donetsk. You can see two TARs along with other equipment and technical structures. The third photo shows air defense systems north of Donetsk. You can clearly see a TELAR launcher and about 60 military and auxiliary vehicles, tents for vehicles and other structures.''<br />
<br />
:''“Here’s a photo of the same area made on July 17. Please note that the launcher has disappeared. The fifth photo shows a battery of Buk missiles at the village of Zaroshchenskoye 50 km east of Donetsk and 8 km south of Shakhtyorsk on the morning of the same day. The sixth photo shows the same area on July 18. As you can see, the battery has left.”''<br />
<br />
Note: the <s>latter</s> fourth photo of July 17 has substantial cloud cover, but unless they happened to hide the launchers in those areas (or Russia's satellites waited until the area was covered) it appears the noted vehicles have left to go do something - on/by the 17th, where they say launchers appear and then disappear in a town closer to the crash on the 17th. Zaroshchenskoye [http://maps.yandex.com/?text=Ukraine%2C%20Donets'ka%20region%2C%20Shakhtars'kyi%20district%2C%20Zaroshchens'ke%20ville&sll=38.446008%2C47.98844&ll=38.517419%2C48.048098&spn=0.810242%2C0.300187&z=11&l=map on Yandex maps] - 13 miles SSW of the crash sitel, 9 miles W-SW of Torez..--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
On July 30, Vitalyi Naida, head of Ukrainian Security Service SBU’s counter-intelligence, came up with a series of slides ([http://euromaidanpress.com/2014/07/30/russia-fakes-mh17-crash-site-satellite-images-says-sbu/ short article], [http://www.sbu.gov.ua/sbu/control/en/publish/article?art_id=129610&cat_id=35317 announcement on SBU website] with link to [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ut1JExQKV-0 youtube-video showing the slides (presumably Ukrainian language)]) allegedly showing that the Russian material was "faked". He points to a patch of trees, claiming they had been cut down shortly before the 17th, while Russia's images show the trees intact. On August 1, the Russian Ministry of Defense published [http://eng.mil.ru/en/analytics.htm a rebuttal] advising that<br />
:''Instead of presenting hastily doctored evidence to the international community, the SBU could do with better control over all the mercenary units in the areas around Donetsk and Lugansk organized by Kolomoisky, Lyashko, Yarosh and others, who shell Ukrainian territory without any control from those in charge of the anti-terrorist operation.''<br />
<br />
The trees probably are cut down by now, but we'll have to wait for the true details of just when they were and when the image showing that was taken, or if the image shown is even of any one day and not a composite - "doctored" as Russia says. Other clues suggest launchers moving out of this area at that time: The [[#Paris Match Photo]] - ostensibly from the morning of the 17th - shows the infamous launcher-loaded truck seen in Lugansk, or one just like it, being carried on a truck belonging to a company just south of the missile base in northern Donetsk. That was seen carrying the launcher east out of town at 11:15 AM, purportedly on July 17 (and with the location completely fudged to say Snizhne, when it was only headed there).--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Zaro redeploy.png|left|600px]]The Russian military press conference said "The fifth photo shows a battery of Buk missiles at the village of Zaroshchenskoye 50 km east of Donetsk and 8 km south of Shakhtyorsk on the morning of the same day. The sixth photo shows the same area on July 18. As you can see, the battery has left." (#5 inset) The Ukraine@War blog's analysis decided this image as well was fake. That's mentioned [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com/2014/08/ukrainian-sbu-comes-with-conspiracy.html here] if not elsewhere. The reason: "the shadows of these BUKs have a different direction for all three of them. It means these were pasted into the image." I have to admit, it looks a bit like that. The trees have consistent shadows to the west, in a morning image. The furthest vehicle to the left has a visible shadow about like that. The other two don't seem to, and the one furthest right seems to have a shadow on the wrong side (looks like early PM). I wracked my brain just a little thinking of other explanations aside from just low resolution. Nothing much came up. Anyone else? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br /><br /><br />
<br />
<br />
: '''New video proves UKIE BUKS ACTIVE'''<br />
: video has surfaced, posted to Youtube on July 16, taken a few days before, showing a Ukie BUK radar [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3MomxNHnUA being rotated]. The reporter is taken somewhere in a helicopter and proudly shown the BUK. Segment starts around 4.17 in the chopper, BUK shown briefly at 4.45. Label does not say where exactly, just reads "Officers of Ukrainian Armed Forces patrolling in the ATO zone". <br />
: This ties in with claims that they were doing anti-aircraft exercises, probably in response to claims/fears the Antonovs were brought down not by the rebs but by aircraft from Russia. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 10:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::Thanks! We had this July 16 video [[Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17/BUK_Tracking#Kiev.27s_Holdings| elsewhere]], but here is a good place... The other video, from March, was not seen. There were few more early sightings of Ukrainian Buks, uncertain locations, with those 3** numbers; maybe should get a good place to keep them all --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::: Location of sighting is unclear. But according to some reports ([http://lifenews.ru/news/136731 LifeNews]), on July 16 UAF SU 25 was shot down from a height of 6 km by opolchenie MANPADs. That was near Russian border, --reports say the plane actually crossed into Russia, not far from Marinovka. It could be suspected by Ukraine that a Russian plane was involved, so it will be plausible to have Ukrainian coverage of the accident area by BUKS. On July 14, it was reported that [http://m.rosbalt.ru/ukraina/2014/07/16/1292690.html AN 26 was shot down in Luhansk] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
There is strange twist of Logic in Bellingcat's report about satellite photos. The photo with Buks in the field is claimed to be manipulated.They found that July 17 image was manipulated but only in the region of clouds. They don't say that BUK was removed by software (there are 4 more vehicles missing). But on all Google earth photos BUK never moved (and those 4 vehicles). So did it move ever or not? Manipulation of Google earth photos or likely their source is not new.[http://www.imediaethics.org/News/130/Exclusive__google_investigating_photoshopped_gogle_map_image_.php]<br />
<br />
Surprising Google earth have more updated photos on the BUK base location and nearly nothing for the location where Russians seen BUKS. There is something strange about RUSSIAN supposed fakery. Doesn't make sense to me.--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 13:33, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Separatist Holdings===<br />
While much certainty has been shown it was a separatist BUK system responsible, everyone seems to acknowledge that ordinarily, they didn't have any, that were known of. Fresh sighting of them in the field, supposed admissions, and existing presumptions remain the strongest evidence. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;June 29 Seizure?<br />
The Open Newsroom team have latched onto a June 29 message from a Twitter account associated with the Donetsk People’s Republic, @DNRpress claiming separatist forces had conquered a base with anti-air BUK missiles. This is apparently the A-1402 base, as an Itar-Tass report specified. That report noted ... It seems to just cite the tweet which, it was found, used a dated photo online since mid-2013. In essence, there's no good evidence they ever did seize this place. But it was referred to by some as "Deleted DNR tweet confirming Russian rebels indeed have a BUK-M1." The crew at large seems a bit vague on the status of this base:<br />
:'' It appears that the A-1402 military unit was moved into the Donetsk region in 2007 from Odessa, and reports note that the unit was based near Donetsk airport. Local reports from June 29 cited ATO spokesman Alexei Dmitrashkivsky as stating that separatists had attacked the military unit.'' <ref name="Story1" /><br />
As we just found with geo-location, it's 3 km north of Donetsk airport, and it's the same place Russia believes is firmly government-held. It's the place they say at least one BUK-type launcher was removed from on July 17 for some reason, by Kiev's forces who run it. If [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Donetsk_Airport this basic Wikipedia article on the battle for the airport] is correct and/or in line with [[Attack on Donetsk Airport|our page on it]], the airport and anything military-related north of it would probably be government-held continuously to the present time. It's possible some launchers could have been lost during a brief seizure of the base, but this too seems doubtful. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
:Social media published many photos of the "liberated" Buk missiles. I searched for them on Google Image Search; all were old photos from more peaceful times. I have no idea what really happened. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 23:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Thanks. I hadn't looked into it myself, but recycled images made sense given the other clues that they never did take that base, or at least get anything out of it. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 00:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
Something in English [https://www.facebook.com/TruthfromUkraine/photos/pb.1452285018328179.-2207520000.1409095455./1515506872005993/ on Facebook,] with links to Russian souces. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 23:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Your geolocation is wrong. The former [http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-SAM-Site-Configs-A.html SA-2 launch site] to the north of the runway is called A-1428, at least according to the [[:File:Donetsk Airport battles 5 Oct 2014.jpg|map by Komsomolskaya Pravda]]. The site was rebuilt sometime between 2002 and 2009 with new garages covering part of the SAM ring. Tactical maps say today it is still held by Ukraine, but may have been in NAF hands earlier. Base A-1402 is located south of the new terminal building along Stratonavtiv Street.<br />
<br />
When looking at the latest airport battles I noticed that Military Maps already shows structural damaged to the new terminal building. I did not expect Google to provide any relevant satelite data. In Libya we had almost daily satellite images of Tripoli, but in Syria we have seen no new photos of the battle-effected areas.<br />
<br />
I opened Google Earth to see what has changed during the war. It seems that the war has had no effect on either base. There is still a lot of military hardware parked on both bases. Most of the trucks and whatever are parked just w--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 18:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)here they were last year, or on many cases in 2007. I did not see anything that I could identify as a BUK launcher. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 02:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;Held by July 14?<br />
The US embassy in Kiev said in [http://ukraine.usembassy.gov/statements/asmt-07192014.html a press statement of July 19]:<br />
:''Intercepts of separatist communications posted on YouTube by the Ukrainian government indicate the separatists were in possession of a SA-11 system as early as Monday July 14th. In the intercepts, the separatists made repeated references to having and repositioning Buk (SA-11) systems.'' (also quoted [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/20/malaysia-airlines-mh17-videos-missile-launcher-torez-snizhne at the Guardian])<br />
As "Corporal Frisk" [http://corporalfrisk.wordpress.com/2014/07/21/comment-on-the-us-assessment-of-the-downing-of-flight-mh17/ aptly responded:]<br />
:''Having perhaps the world’s best intelligence network, and then using easily faked videos of separatist communications posted on YouTube as evidence sure has a degree of ridicule attached to it, but is also an inidcation that US intelligence believes at least some of these transcripts are real.''<br />
That's totally apt if one suspends the usual definition of "believe" (to include "wants to appear to believe," etc.) In the same piece, the author apparently gives more "credibility to the charges that the Buk-M1 is indeed Russian supplied (and possibly crewed), as opposed to stemming from captured Ukrainian stocks." As covered below, this I can agree with if we suspend the usual definition of "Russian" (to include "allegedly Russian villains," "the Ukrainian version of [http://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2011/07/african-mercenaries.html Libya's African Mercenaries] and [http://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/wiki/The_Shabiha:_Ghost_Stories%3F Syria's Shabiha]," etc.) this would be spot-on. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:54, 10 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
(more allegations to cover?)<br />
<br />
;The One That Matters<br />
Whatever the evidence rebels had Buk systems by the 14th, Kiev also has suggested, and many have accepted, that ''the one that mattered'' at least - the launcher unit that shot down MH17 on the 17th - wasn't theirs at all, but brought in and operated by Russians for the day only. If only for that reason, all the above is likely moot. See next section. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Unknown owner ===<br />
Appears to be [http://vk.com/albums-22680516 A 1402 unit album] ; has Buks but photos are from 2011. [http://vk.com/albums-22680516?z=photo-22680516_205618115%2Fphotos-22680516 Buk number 122] photo. Old photos-unknown what happened thereafter. [http://vk.com/albums-22680516?z=photo-22680516_277084156%2Fphotos-22680516 Another- unknown number]. Also something like Strela 10 shown on [http://vk.com/albums-22680516?z=photo-22680516_351678270%2Fphotos-22680516 photos] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 18:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Only non-working Buks remained there when it was 'partially captured' by opolchenie, according to Ukrainian [http://www.pravda.com.ua/rus/news/2014/06/29/7030482/ reports]. Working ones were moved elsewhere by Ukraine. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 18:39, 21 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Russian Buk Field Trip? ===<br />
The Kiev regime's narrative also suggests separatists had no BUK systems of their own. Rather, someone else brought one in to their area, took it on some kind of tour through several towns thought accessible only to rebels and allies, and got it seen in each place. Then these people '''shot the airliner down themselves on the separatists' behalf.''' That party is the Russians, they say. This is perhaps best encapsulated by "counter-terrorism" chief Vitaly Nayda's early assessment. AP's July 25 report summarized it, saying "the account was based on information from intercepts, spies and resident tips."<br />
:''Nayda laid the blame fully on Russia: He said the missile launcher came from Russia and was operated by Russians. ... According to Nayda, at 1 a.m. on July 17 the launcher rolled into Ukraine across the Russian border aboard a flatbed truck. He cited communications intercepts that he would not share with the AP. By 9 a.m., he said, the launcher had reached Donetsk, the main rebel stronghold 125 miles (200 kilometers) from the border. In Donetsk it is presumed to have been off-loaded from the flatbed and started to move in a convoy on its own.''<br />
:''Nayda said the Buk turned back east toward Snizhne. Townspeople who spoke to the AP said it rolled into Snizhne around lunchtime.''<br />
:''...As for the Buk, Nayda said, intelligence suggests it went back on the move shortly after the attack. That very night, he said, it crossed the border, back into Russia.''<br />
<br />
This is full of details that don't line up with the emerging record, but the gist including a grand-circuit tour including both separatist stronghold/capitols Donestk and Lugansk plus the disaster zone, seems about right. But the evil they allowed came from and returned to Russia.<br />
<br />
This does however jibe with the Kiev allegation (I learned of through [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/07/25/snizhne-mh17-and-rebel-held-territory/ this excellent and relevant HRI article] that '''Russian jets''' violated Ukrainian airspace to '''bomb an apartment building in Snizneh on July 15th, killing 11 civilians.''' This all makes a bit of sense in context; that false flag attack was blamed by locals on Kiev'a noble Air Force - almost understandably! It "created the conditions" by which people ''might'' accept apparent a team of apparent Russians with a Buk launcher in their town two days later. The best guess for any single firing location is a field just southeast of that town (see [[#Possible Launch Sites|below]]). The locals might smile at, and later even cover for, this poisonous gift. But a trojan horse is a trojan horse, of course. They should have looked it in the mouth better, and been more aggressive with their questions. Because Russia has it in for the separatists, Kiev implies, using its skilled and well-documented team to murder 298 people in a horrific way on the separatists' behalf. This is not an accident, Kiev must know, but proof that Russia and its "inhuman" terrorists they must hate (and who do not seem to have any Buk launchers of their own, BTW) are the new global menace du jour. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Markings and the Mystery Launcher ===<br />
[[File:MH17 Buk 321 Parismatch comp.png|right]]A serial number on the launcher's side is apparently standard in Ukraine's arsenal (see [[#BUK 312 and comrades|above]]). Inset, an image comparing the side of the unit seen in [[#Paris Match Photo]], the one blamed for the shoot-down on the 17th, to TELAR unit 321. The side panels are easy enough to correlate and see the unit in the photo lacks a number, but does have a sliver of white paint (or similar) in one corner. Whoever was moving this painted it it out before this, so there is some attempt at concealment. Is this color of paint only available in Russia? The white sliver here could be part of the number, if it were painted higher up/larger than Ukraine usually does. I can't say yet how they do it. I did a Dogpile Photo search, lots of pictures, context unclear, different vehicles from different sides, mainly Vitaly Kuzmin photos so app. Russian military parades and such: --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
* Number shown, diff. vehicle: [http://military-vehicle-photos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/9881.jpg #1(loader?)] - [http://pix.avaxnews.com/avaxnews/8a/6f/00006f8a_medium.jpeg #2 same?] <br />
* Launchers with no visible numbers: [http://77rus.smugmug.com/Military/May-5th-Parade-rehearsal-2014/i-t7RjrzP/0/M/5may14-33-M.jpg #1] - [http://77rus.smugmug.com/Military/12-April-Parade-2013-rehearsal/i-KHVD3Tv/0/M/12aprilrehearsal_33-M.jpg #2] - [http://livedoor.blogimg.jp/gunzichannel/imgs/b/e/be60ae58.jpg #3] - [http://military-vehicle-photos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/9880.jpg #4] - [http://77rus.smugmug.com/Military/13th-April-rehearsal-Alabino/i-fKQdjW4/0/M/13April-Rehersal-Alabino-26-M.jpg #5] <br />
* Same vehicle, Buk TELAR launcher with numbers: not found. <br />
<br />
At the moment, the lack of a number almost makes it look Russian. The next panel over seems to have smaller numbers, or characters anyway. Nothing yet tells me the Russians add a smaller number on the panel behind that, with or without special stencils available only in Russia. Is that even a number, or does it say return to Putin? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== Bellingcat and 3x2 ====<br />
:''moved from [[#Paris Match Photo]]''<br />
<br />
Adam: somebody's favorite Bellingcat is now saying, I understand, that he is capable to read off the number of this Buk from this blurry low resolution Paris Match photo, using unspecified colored magic and some expertly fitted proprietary boxes. Well actually this is so proprietary that he can ONLY read the first number 3, and the last number 2, but is completely unable to read the middle one. Because, he does not want this to be this Ukrainian [http://uainforg.livejournal.com/1811500.html Buk 312] , nah, noway. He rather want it to be the Russian Buk 3 X 2, where X stand for Russian, and for secret, as somebody is said to unearth this dirty monster in Russia, as he says (I guess). This looks too much baloney as far as I am concerned; you can read any number you set in advance from this blurry photo, and fit there any other crap, boxed-shaped or wiggly, all essentially at will. Just recording this latest saga page in case somebody has more enthusiasm to chase it than myself. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 00:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
:No, you didn't quite understand, but thanks for the tip. An interesting twist I wish I'd caught sooner. First, this helps the West at large get in synch finally with Kiev - it was Russia, not the separatists, who owned and perhaps ran that unit. Second, it seems to me the match is at least as good as they say, but there's at least one aspect of it I think is hilarious and I wouldn't be surprised if they managed to miss it. I'll be back - this one deserves a quick blog post. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: I agree with Resup, this stinks of baloney designed to divert attention from the [[#BUK_312_and_comrades]] story. The worst thing about Brown Noses and cohorts is the amount of coordinated promo they get in pre$$titute media. SPIEGEL today [http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/jan-fleischhauer-ueber-wladimir-putin-und-mh17-abschuss-kolumne-a-1004898.html has a op-ed piece by a particularly douchebaggy example] on those independent genius investigators as well. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::I need to brush up on what that 312 story is... because it looks like this used to say 312. Ultimately I suspect its some kind of baloney, but just where it breaks down I don't know. It is amazing how they get such praise for investigating the right things (never did get back to the Houla Massacre) and finding the right truth... Daily Fail says "The authors said that 'our investigation was made possible by the examination of open source material overlooked by other organisations'." Oh goodness, that technique they must have invested ... maybe if we started doing that we'd get praises too! --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/11/08/origin-of-the-separatists-buk-a-bellingcat-investigation/<br />
The report and whole site was not coming up when I tried (might be a problem on my end), so I don't even know what's behind their pay-wall. In the interim I checked around. [http://thetruthserumblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/an-open-and-transparent-investigation.html Here's a critical blog article I like] that mentions another article praising the report. But what was useful was [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2827853/Russian-military-supplied-missiles-ahead-MH17-shooting-says-new-independent-report-evidence-points-Russian-separatists-responsible.html the Daily Mail's Australian promo article] with the cover and a few images from the report as well as a summary. The 3x2 ... This lets me quickly see what 3x2 refers to. And actually, it looks like a good description and even a good match. The number is not from Paris Match photo but from footage I haven't noticed, they say from inside Russia - presumably a Russian unit then - seen conspicuously moving towards Ukraine in late June. (the source of these images and details might be worth checking into) ... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 3x2 Comp.png|right]]Bottom is Paris Match, skewed to match. Top is the new (to me) Bellingcat June 23 image As I just put together [http://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2014/11/how-russians-covered-up-truth-partly.html here,] they seem to be onto something here. It's something silly. But it's something strongly suggested by real paint in recognizable patterns.<br />
<br />
Implied: Russians wanted to hide this thing's identity, maybe because they were about to do something secret with it. So first they painted out the number in the middle - I think it was a one. Except they left one little corner of white visible. Just got tired. It's identifiable (in both images). <br />
<br />
Then before it appeared in Ukraine, it was rendered totally unidentifiable: they boldly blacked out the 3, and perhaps at the same time even, the 2 - except for a larger identifiable sliver. Just got tired. It's next to the other dot. <br />
<br />
Haha, no way to connect these now! Also a light patch next to the small number (and the number, as far as we can see) matches, as does a light patch along the lip below that. My guess: this is the same suspect vehicle seen gettin' hauled all over on the "stolen" truck with the phone number left on. Was it actually in Russian territory as well as near so many rebel checkpoints around dawn? For how long was it there? Bellingcat cannot confirm that Russian unit 3x2 ever returned to its base in Russia ... nor, I guess, that it ever actually left, or was ever Russian, or didn't have its truncated paint job simulated and expanded on another vehicle... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
::He got some photos of an actual [http://www.kavicom.ru/news-view-12861.html convoy], almost certainly in Russia, fairly hi-res photos, no 3*2 there. Than out-of-a-blue-or-elsewhere, he gives photos from convoy made by 'local residents', now with discolored 3*2 photo(s) there; I could not spot details where this photo is now coming from. He claims it "shows on 8 out of 16 videos", but I do not know where is a single one. He also compares tank track and plate above profiles for these 2 photos; details are blurred (and also those profiles change from use), can't say how much they match each other by eye; don't trust his fitted lines, or his conclusion accepting those, but did not try matching myself (no tools to do it quickly; or enough photo resolution to feel strongly motivated). This is doable but doing it tool-free takes time; and not knowing that second photo is definitely in Russia, I am not convinced spending a lot of time is worthwhile. This is clearly a well-supported operation, so the burden of proving their own version is on them; and they did not bother even linking the videos, no clue where are those. His report downloads without problems at this time. <br />
::Also details such as dirty rear skirt and a bend there likely are common; dirt is because exhaust is through the opening above; skirt likely is bent when there is servicing, or example changing tracks or doing something else, like maybe servicing engine. Buk 321 above on this page has dirt and bend, for example. This bend is something which can be easily produced, same goes with the painting job, both things together can be done in well under 1/2 hour. If they had an example of how something in Russia looks like, not difficult to do it for a blurry photo. Clearly, with phone well-displayed, etc, the purpose of all this is a demo job. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Here is a publication [http://censor.net.ua/video_news/274823/ukraina_zaschischaet_donetsk_ot_napadeniya_rossii_zenitnoraketnye_kompleksy_buk_zanimayut_pozitsii_fotovideo Ukraine defends Donesk from Russiam attack, missile complex Buk takes positions], with photo, video of Ukrainian BUks, numbers 323, 321, 312, 301, 331,332. (Some of them have dirty skirts, e.g. 301 looks dirty and bent...). Ukrainian radio is playing on the video. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 21:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Thanks, and I get the lack of motivation, and the ambiguity. That #312 I'll compare later ... looks like a different number style (thinner) with vehicle color less clear ... I guess this could be innocent dirt instead of black paint, but it's some thick dirt, and by the end almost totally covering the numbers on this particular unit ... or two that can seem the same. (?) So it still seems most likely paint, that is deliberate obfuscation - that was also comically slow and incomplete (with clean edges to the white parts and no visible parts of gray half-covered numbers) . It must be a problem with my system (updating soon) but I still can't connect to the site or get the report. I'm not mad motivated myself, but will want to check the alleged video source and geolocation eventually. Before I was seeing this as a Kiev unit simply snuck across the internal line. So the big wrinkle of course is it being in Russia. Options if the geolocation of June 23 is right: <br />
* it wasn't there (faked match-up - As you say, all matching features ''could'' be faked, not just the paint) <br />
* or Ukraine snuck theirs across (with a whole convoy?) just to get it seen there <br />
* or they snuck over and stole this one while it was near the border <br />
* or Russia willingly sent it over, with or without a subsequent theft by people intent on misusing it on the separatists' behalf. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
There is actually a 3*2 Buk in Russia, he put links to videos on his [https://www.mapbox.com/labs/bellingcat/index.html map], I looked at 06/23 Troitskiy (Odnoklassniki) goroskop odnoklassniki ru/video/14723648043?fromTime=25 . But I doubt it can be concluded that Paris Match is a match (number itself can't be read, this is just bogus). For example, that dot in the Russian version appears to be a bit further to the right (60 % of total panel length) , while Paris Match is closer to 50 (I got 52 %). Also, in Russian version, it is almost level with protruding to the right part of number 2; in Donetsk photo, I'd say it's a bit lower (but blurriness creates problems to measure) . Panel to the left of number panel appear to look very different; in Russian case, clear horizontal line above the main bottom line; not so in Donetsk, a messy lower line. As for the skirt, it it dirty but actually does not look broken in the Russian version, just some frames create such impression. In Donetsk, hard to know (to blurry to tell crack from dirt) but there is serious change in angle there somehow; (could be the windshield playing some tricks). (Also, in Donetsk, it is dirty windshield, not actually certain what makes the dot; but it is roughly where expected, so I can go with this being paint assumption). <br />
:No point for the rebels to display it prominently in Donetsk (not far from UAF BUK base), than go towards Snizhne; this just has no point at all. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 00:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
:I'm the one, ironically, claiming to see things in that griny mess. I'd never do it unless I saw t spot well whiter than the others AND seen in another view ... didn't even notice until then. To note, your descriptions are of the first version of the graphic, now updated. Becuase of overall problems, I cut what seemed just the number panel (including shadowed edge) and put it on top of where it should be. Same proportions, within a pixel or two, "find edges" to mark the white patches, and it remains lining up. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 3x2 comp 2.png|right|420px]]At right: it can't be the embarrassingly misrepresented Ukrainian 312 they're hiding, unless that was painted over before this other one .... FWIW, the middle dot would still line up with the serif on that "1." As the updated blog article notes, if "the Russians" were smart, they would have painted this slender 312, or other recognizable number and style, on there. Instead, this nonsense.... <br />
<br />
I suppose that Ukraine ''might'' have known about this 3x2 video and match in advance (and never mentioned it?) and that's why they found a photo of ''a Buk 312''' (not checking what it actually showed, and just claimed they knew was en route to escape into Russia, after parking for yet another photo?) No, that doesn't make much sense. But I sense a link. Maybe that's because I'm seeing 312 when maybe it's 872, for all we really know. Maybe instead of partly painted out it was just left never fully painted in. Too many unknowns and now I'm unenthusiastic about it. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Whatever one thinks of this graphic comparison and interpretation, the strange and suspect thinking it implies is consistent with what else we know about how this "secret" operation was carried out. If true, it would fit this broader pattern (real or reported clues left by whoever, all open to interpretation, and here couched in the terms of allegations by Kiev and supporters):<br />
<br />
* Recalling that this whole weapon itself would have no normal business in the area and would be denied later, it should have been kept secret. Instead, it was driven around in broad daylight on the same day as the crime, just partly covered with a tarp but revealing all clues needed to identify it, its hidden ID number, and its full rack of missiles.<br />
* The truck it was so displayed on was stolen in Donetsk, and kept with the huge sign on its side with the apparent owner's phone number on it. When the media called that number, little surprise, the owner told them pro-Russian "fighters from Slaviansk" who took over his whole trucking company on July 8 (see [[#The Truck Owner's Story|here]]) Put lightly, this is a stupid way to secure a rig one intends to use for a secret operation like this was supposed to be.<br />
* They loaded the truck in Donetsk, likely at the commandeered site in the north of Donetsk, near the Ukrainian base with Buk launchers, in a coincidence. This truck then got seen leaving Donetsk on the 17th, parked pointing east at the east outskirts, then seen driving in convoy (a couple civilian cars with the operational crew moved with the truck) past Zuhres and then through Torez to the east. They were seen arriving in Snizhne around noon, then the Buk unit seen off the truck and driving in stand-alone, and it was then seen again driving south out of Snizneh, towards the apparent launch location.<br />
* The people running the convoy made sure AP journalists saw them in Snizhne just before the shoot-down from a bit south of there. The convoy stopped, and a man in unusual uniform "approached the journalists. The man wanted to make sure they had not recorded any images of the missile launcher. Satisfied that they hadn’t" filmed that secret missile launcher there, but had noticed it, and their intention to remain sooper seekrit "the convoy moved on." All this was made quite clear to the media and apparently published even before the news that MH17 was shot down. ([http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/what-happened-the-day-flight-17-was-downed/2014/07/25/716c36e4-142b-11e4-ac56-773e54a65906_story.html AP Via Washington Post]) <br />
* After the disastrous attempt to secretly provoke a Russian invasion, with utmost discretion the operators put the smoking gun, its rack of one-less missiles left uncovered, back on the same truck and drove it and the phone number back to Russia - by a strange detour on a long route towards the other easily-recognizable smoking gun rebel capitol, Lugansk ... when government ATO forces had just battled their way to the edge of Lugansk ... and got seen there passing at dawn on the main highway south, apparently having come from the center of town, and then presumably drove to Krasnodon (rebel-held) and to Russia....<br />
<br />
The fail delivery here is almost flawless, with no mistake left unmade and hardly any reasonable gaps to call for deduction. Letting multiple camera views on both sides of the porous border capture and track the gradual move to this stealth mode seems pretty consistent to me.--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Note: the implications of this contested finding, and the visual basis for it as well, is continued below under [[#If Buk 3x2 Was in Russia]] --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
I think one point is still not discussed here. Look at this video from 26 June 2014. You might have seen it before. But what is striking, all the Buks shown do not have numbers painted on them. Not only it will allow to paint new numbers or any clumsy painting on the side, using video of a known BUK, it also means that those BUKS were not accounted for when Ukrs presented evidence, if they ever presented, about the location of all the existing and operational BUKS <br />
[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BBEYZHOT0bQ]--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 13:29, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== General Observations === <br />
*It is clear that pro-Kiev side produced early and persistent stream of fakes, misrepresentations, or selective half-truths, all aimed to place the blame on Russia and/or "separatists" as a part of well organised and supported information warfare. This information warfare did not establish an objective to prove the blame of Russia or "separatists", as any of those media creations will not survive a rigorous scrutiny, and there is nothing to bring to court in particular. However it successfully altered Western perceptions in early days past the catastrophe, and helped to impose sanctions and other 'increased costs' on Russia, bringing the world on the brink of another cold war. It brought situation in Ukraine closer to perpetual chaos, and kept closely related people to continue killing each other every day. Although those fakes and misrepresentations were later realized to be such, those costs and calamities were not reversed. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*After moving equipment close to border, why would Russia send just a single TELAR to Ukraine in a highly visible manner as it was alleged? For meaningful operation of Buk, one would send at least 1 TELAR, 1 TEL (to be able to load missiles), and 1 command vehicle (as radar on TELAR gives only poor basic operation)? There are also lots of support vehicles seen, in case of something meaningful all that is needed. So moving single TELAR is all but pointless from military standpoint. Single TELAR is mostly for a show of sort. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Just realised smth. Russian MOD is blamed for the claim that MH17 changed the route. But original source of it was western media<br />
. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2696847/They-shouldnt-f-g-flying-There-war-going-Ukraine-intelligence-officials-release-phone-calls-claim-PROVES-Russia-shot-Flight-MH17.html<br />
http://edition.cnn.com/videos/world/2014/07/17/wolf-malaysia-airlines-mh17-flight-path-myers.cnn<br />
It seems that original attempt in propaganda was too obviously fake. Similar to original rebuttal of russian mod by Ukraine. The version was refined later. Funny thing is that Sutyagin is still used by western media as expert on Russia and ukrain conflict. Nobody challenges him for those claims from 17th July<br />
<br />
== Reported Sightings == <br />
(consider along with the visual sightings below) <br />
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/what-happened-the-day-flight-17-was-downed/2014/07/25/716c36e4-142b-11e4-ac56-773e54a65906_story.html AP via Washington Post] shows the separatists strategy to not be seen as they rolled the murder weapon around:<br />
:''Even before the plane was downed, the AP had reported on the presence of the missile launcher in the town July 17. Here is what that dispatch said:''<br />
:''“An Associated Press reporter on Thursday saw seven rebel-owned tanks parked at a gas station outside the eastern Ukrainian town of Snizhne. In the town, he also observed a Buk missile system, which can fire missiles up to an altitude of 22,000 meters (72,000 feet).''<br />
:''AP journalists saw the Buk moving through town at 1:05 p.m. The vehicle, which carried four 18-foot (5.5-meter) missiles, was in a convoy with two civilian cars.''<br />
:''The convoy stopped. A man in sand-colored camouflage without identifying insignia — different from the green camouflage the rebels normally wear — approached the journalists. The man wanted to make sure they had not recorded any images of the missile launcher. Satisfied that they hadn’t, the convoy moved on.''<br />
<br />
That kind of pro-Russian sooper-seekrisy aimed at the media in front of the media should stop them being seen, right? No, oddly, it didn't. See below. The clumsy bastards could hardly have implicated themselves any more thoroughly than they did that day. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
{{I|1|<br />
The link is not accessible anylonger.<br />
Here is direct link to AP<br />
[http://bigstory.ap.org/article/what-happened-day-flight-17-was-downed]<br />
<br />
Apparently this Peter Leonard was assigned for the job just in time on july 8th 2014 [http://www.ap.org/Content/AP-In-The-News/2014/AP-names-Peter-Leonard-as-its-Ukraine-correspondent]<br />
<br />
--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 05:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)<br />
}}<br />
<br />
::*'Ukraine: Air Force jet downed by Russian missile', Jul. 17, 2014 2:51 PM EDT, Associated Press reporters Laura Mills and Nataliya Vasilyeva in Moscow contributed to this report (local time in Donetsk is +7 hours) [http://bigstory.ap.org/article/russia-dismisses-us-sanctions-bullying bigstory.ap.org] "...An Associated Press reporter on Thursday saw seven rebel-owned tanks parked at a gas station outside the eastern Ukrainian town of Snizhne. In the town, he also observed a Buk missile system, which can fire missiles up to an altitude of 22,000 meters (72,000 feet)...".<br />
::*'Ukraine: Air Force jet downed by Russian missile', AP by PeterR Leonard, July 17, 2014 10:52 AM [http://news.yahoo.com/ukraine-air-force-jet-downed-russian-missile-102817809.html news.yahoo.com] "...An Associated Press reporter on Thursday saw seven rebel-owned tanks parked at a gas station outside the eastern Ukrainian town of Snizhne. In the town, he also observed a Buk missile system, which can fire missiles up to an altitude of 22,000 meters (72,000 feet)..."<br />
::*'MH17 and the Associated Press (AP)', [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/08/05/mh17-and-the-associated-press-ap/ humanrightsinvestigations.org] "...However, contacted via Twitter, Peter Leonard is apparently not disposed to clarify that minor issue, or reveal who the one/two journalists are. The story about the man approaching the journalists and speaking in a distinctive Russian accent could be interpreted in two main ways – as an indicator the BUK in question was at least partly manned by Russians or, on the other hand, that that is the impression that those in control of this BUK wanted to give to the outside world". Here is their [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/08/05/mh17-the-lugansk-buk-video/ other post], looking into Lugansk sighting video<br />
::--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 06:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
One interesting post at the Ukraine@War blog mentions two tweets, both from July 17 and before the crash, mentioning this BUK launcher on a trailer at places consistent with the video record. [https://twitter.com/MOR2537/status/489702736766586880 One of them] (translated) sounds perhaps ''too'' informed, and says "Was driven missile system on the tractor cover + two cars after Thorez (Torez) in snowy (Sniznoyeh) in 12-10 (at 12:10? Too early...)." [https://twitter.com/_StradivariuS_/status/489704260045910016 The other one] says "(someone this) morning wrote that (the truck) stood (parked for some time) on b.Shahtostroiteley not intersection with Ilchicha, aside (heading towards) Makeevki. waiting to see (to be seen?) If that's an intersection named, it's a different parking spot identified as being [https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=48.002515,37.854917&spn=0.010222,0.02444&t=h&z=16 here on Google Maps,] one km west of the spot it was parked for the "Paris Match" photo. Otherwise, it refers only to the same place. The contributor noted "Another interesting detail in that tweet is that “it was standing” and “they were waiting”. My understanding of that phrasing is that the #Buk was actually parked there for some time. Meaning there might be witnesses." <ref name="UWD">[http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com/2014/07/reconstruction-of-whereabouts-of-buk.html CONFIRMED the BUK that shot down MH17 has indeed been in Donetsk] P. Martin, Ukraine@War, July 23, 2014</ref> There was a witness with a camera, and a photo sent to the Western media. That almost seems to have been the idea - to get witnessed like that. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== SBU Wiretap Clues ==<br />
I just had a look at the SBU wiretap transcripts, ones released July 19. In it is a segment tying in with the above stop or stops in Donetsk, the exact spot of the [[#Paris Match Photo]], and the general orders to drive east with the launcher. I'm not up on the wiretap stuff - if this is the same material said to be corroborated by the US as the real people talking. But briefly, know that parking spot in just past a roundabout, by a motel and a bus station, well short of a crossing Hornostaivska street halfway to Makiivka. Important clue to why it was here this thing had to get seen and talked about: one source claims this roundabout at the edge of town is "a big separatist checkpoint established on Jun 3 at the road circle." <ref name="UWD" /> This is supposed to all be pretty damning, and I must say it's at least looking like a pretty slick plan may be going on here, with pre-scripted parts that come into play later, etc. From Kiev mouthpiece UaToday, parts of a transcript they ran with the video and other allegations, on the 19th - How credible is this evidence?<br />
:''Khmuryi: Sergei Nikolaevich Petrovskiy, year of birth 1964, officer of Main Intelligence Directorate of Russian Federation, Deputy Chief of Ihor Girkin on Intelligence, at the time of the interception he was in Donetsk.''<br />
:''“Buryat” – militant of terrorist organization “DNR” (to be indentified).''<br />
:''Buryat: – Where should we load this beauty, Nikolaievich?''<br />
:''Khmuryi: Which one? This one?''<br />
:''B: Yes, the one I’ve brought. I’m already in Donetsk.''<br />
:''K: Is it the one I’m thinking about? “B…,”M” one?''<br />
:''B: Yes, yes, yes. “BUK”,”BUK”.''<br />
:''K: Is it on a tractor?''<br />
:''B: Yes, it’s on it. We need to unload it somewhere, '''in order to hide.'''''<br />
:''K: Is it with a crew?''<br />
:''B: Yes, with the crew.''<br />
:''K: '''Don’t hide it anywhere.''' She’ll go there now.''<br />
:...<br />
:''Khmuryi: – Tell me, have you brought me one or two?<br />
:''Buryat: One, one. Because they had a misunderstanding there. They didn’t give us a tug. We loaded it and went at their own pace.''<br />
:''K: Did it go on her own or on a tug?''<br />
:''B: It crossed the line (border).''<br />
:''H: And now have you brought it on a tug? Don’t put in anywhere… I’ll tell now where it should go, it will go together with “Vostok” tanks.''<br />
:...<br />
:''K: Sanych, the point is that my “BUK–M” (modified Russian SAM system) will go with yours, it is on a tug. Where should I drive it to put in a column?''<br />
:''Sanych: There, behind “Motel”, not reaching Hornostaevka.''<br />
:''K: Just after the Motel, right?''<br />
:''Khmuryi: Listen to me carefully, behind the circle near “Motel” there will be you know what. Call to “Bibliotekar” (Librarian).'' <br />
The next part, to me, suggests that as far back as the 19th or earlier, people talking on tape were seeding, or working by, the SBU-proposed Aeroloft plot with the town mix-up. In that light:<br />
:''...Bring inside only those, who just came back, only as much as you need for the convoy. Leave everyone else here. Not far away '''there is Pervomaiskoe, look at the map.'''''<br />
:''DNR militant: I got it.'' (Or did he not quite get it?) <br />
:''Khmuryi: Settle somewhere in that area, bring there those who are left. Your task is reserve, plus protection of this piece (BUK–M), which you will drive now. “Giyrza” will come there too. If anything, I’m on line.'' <ref name="Trans">[http://www.uatoday.info/?p=2579&lang=en SBU releases more conversations implicating Russia in shooting down Malaysia Airlines flight (VIDEO, TRANSCRIPT)] UAToday, July 19, 2014</ref><br />
--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The veracity of that recording needs challenged well now ... the day too early claim [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17#SBU wiretap video|did not pan out,]] so it won't be that easy. Has anyone really done a good analysis tearing it apart some other way? Could it even be half-legit, with some local rebels tricked by some undercover (wire-wearing, not wire-tapping) supposed defector delivering it "with a team" coming "from Russia" (meaning Parubiy et al.)? Who knows? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Imagery Mapping ==<br />
[[File:MH17 Storyful video mapping.png|right|330px]]There have been quite a number now of photos and videos showing BUK launchers ostensibly in separatist strongholds, on July 17. The geo-location of these in such towns by social media networks has been the subject of some recent media commentary. These purported placements are worth collecting and considering here. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
One somewhat comprehensive and updated/evolving page: [http://blog.storyful.com/2014/07/19/how-social-sleuthing-uncovered-evidence-of-anti-aircraft-missile-system-in-eastern-ukraine/#.U9oY_Ua3498 How Social Sleuthing Uncovered Evidence of Surface-to-Air Missile Systems in Eastern Ukraine] Inset is a small preview of the interactive map they made of all placed images (as it stands at the end of July - [https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=200399683004956931329.0004feca5d1fbab0a1d25&msa=0&ie=UTF8&t=h&source=embed&ll=48.206371,38.968506&spn=1.281328,2.334595&z=8 full-size presentation with links, on Google Maps]) <ref name="Story1" /> <s>Note that one of them is way up in Lugansk - which one is a little unclear at the moment - the site may be wrong</s>) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;List of Scenes, placed or not<br />
* Billboard Video: released by Interior Ministry, filmed in Krasnodon before dawn, the Interior Minister says. Russian military analysis places it in Krasnoarmeysk, and the Open Newsroom crew contradicts both and decided "collaborative geo-location was able to place the footage in southwestern Luhansk.'' <ref name="Story1">[http://blog.storyful.com/2014/07/19/how-social-sleuthing-uncovered-evidence-of-anti-aircraft-missile-system-in-eastern-ukraine/#.U9oY_Ua3498 How Social Sleuthing Uncovered Evidence of Surface-to-Air Missile Systems in Eastern Ukraine] Storyful blog, July 19, 2014 and onward (updated)</ref> <br />
* Surveillance Video: located to Snizhne by Eliot Higgins, date unclear. <ref name="Story1" /><br />
* Zuhres video: Pre-geo-located by the uploader [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=48%C2%B0+1'1.38%22N++38%C2%B018'6.04%22E&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=48.034019,38.391724&spn=0.629958,1.564178&gbv=2&hnear=H21,+Zuhres,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&gl=us&t=h&z=10 here in Zuhres.] Higgins confirms, 100% sure, and others concur. Driving east. <ref name="Story1" /><br />
* Torez square photo - located by an associate of Higgins - filmed app. 11:40 AM in central Torez. See below. <br />
* Another photo placed: Snizneh, nearest the shoot-down area (f/c)<br />
* [http://www.parismatch.com/Actu/International/EXCLU-MATCH-Un-camion-vole-pour-transporter-le-systeme-lance-missiles-577289 Paris Match photo] - allegedly Snizhne, reportedly placed '''in northern Donetsk city.''' See below. <br />
<br />
===Billboard Video===<br />
(to be condensed) <br />
A video released by the Ukrainian Interior Ministry is highly dubious and worth some analysis. It shows what seems to be a BUK launcher loaded on a truck driving some direction in some town at what seems to be early twilight (or pre-dawn, depending). The [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4HJmev5xg0 original posting] (with almost 2 million views already) gives no details: "Militants take out missile system "Buk" to the border with Russiam" the title translates. "No description available," it says below, and no comments allowed.<br />
From what I've seen no one knows where this is filmed. Daily Mail says it's a "separatist stronghold," unnamed, and headed south, back towards Russia. "Ukrainian spies reportedly filmed the launcher used in the attack being smuggled to Russia - with two missiles missing." Eliot Higgins was cited by [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/20/malaysia-airlines-mh17-videos-missile-launcher-torez-snizhne the Guardian] with his new team of fundraistigators as geolocating some video and photo but not, apparently, this one. As explained at [https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1278239551/bellingcat/posts/919158 the kickstarter link] they give, Higgins writes:<br />
:''In the above video, posted by the Ukranian Ministry for Interior claiming to show the Buk missile launcher being driven towards Russia it was possible to match the transporter in the video to the transporter in Torez, details of which... (you have to subsidize their operation to see)'' --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== Avakov's Placement: Krasnodon or Lugansk ====<br />
Interior Minister Arsen Avakov said in [https://www.facebook.com/arsen.avakov.1/posts/670837696339673 a Facebook post of July 18] Google-translated: <br />
:''Covert surveillance units of MIA of Ukraine today July 18 at 4.50 am was recorded caterpillar tractor loaded with missile complex, moving in the direction through Krasnodon, toward the border with the Russian Federation. The video can be seen uncovered missiles. Two missiles in place - the average is not visible. ''<br />
:''There is an analysis of this and other information gathered. Presumably this is the missile system "Buk" that made a last shot at a civilian plane from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur .. ''<br />
:''Criminals try to hide the traces of this heinous crime. Not succeed. Security Service and Interior Ministry of Ukraine has collected and collects more irrefutable facts and evidence, the author points out the tragedy of the terrorist organization DNI / LC and its Russian backers Putin.'' <br />
:''The investigation of events MIA issue a comprehensive report on the information. This fragment consider it necessary to publish immediately.''<br />
<br />
By the 22nd, "online sleuths" had placed it in Lugansk (see below). Avakov then confirmed this - he was wrong the first time. One article makes it sound like he wasn't just echoing the sleuths:<br />
:''On July 22, Ukraine's Minister of Internal Affairs, Arsen Avakov, gave the exact coordinates of the video’s location: separatist-held Luhansk, about a 45-minute drive from Krasnodon. Locals quickly verified this claim by photographing the scene, which perfectly matches the landmarks seen in the video.'' ([http://globalvoicesonline.org/2014/07/29/russia-ukraine-mh17-conspiracy-buk/# article by one of the sleuths])<br />
<br />
====Krasnoarmeysk====<br />
One source venturing a guess is [http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ the Russian government and RT witrh their 10 intriguing questions:]<br />
:''“For example, media circulated a video supposedly showing a Buk system being moved from Ukraine to Russia. This is clearly a fabrication. This video was made in the town of Krasnoarmeisk, as evidenced by the billboard you see in the background, advertising a car dealership at 34 Dnepropetrovsk Street. Krasnoarmeysk has been controlled by the Ukrainian military since May 11.”''<br />
[[File:MH17 Billboard Vid Russian Analysis.png|right|250px]]There is a sign, but I cannot make it out just yet, if ever. Can they really? Even if that's so, surrounding towns might be good places for a dealership in Krasnoarmeysk to advertise. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
At right now is a still from a video claiming to show this, I still don't see it. They seem to think the gray span says that, perhaps from seeing a clearer view of this ubiquitous sign elsewhere. Opps. There's no reason to say a dealership in one town can only have billboards in that town. This alone fails. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 14:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Krasnoarmiis'k,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&hl=en&ll=48.323387,37.919312&spn=1.252829,3.128357&sll=48.226502,37.386475&sspn=0.627601,1.564178&oq=Krasnoarm&t=h&doflg=ptk&hnear=Krasnoarmiis'k,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&z=9 on Google Maps as Krasnoarmiis'k] - ''not'' to be confused with the Krasnoarmeisk not far away in Russia. Distance: about 100 km almost due west of the crash site. Panorama, possiblt location, directions/implications forthcoming. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Dnepropetrovsk Street is the main street of Krasnoarmeisk, leading northwest to Dnepropetrovsk. It tried matching this to the street corner where the car dealership is located. Yandex Maps did not provide a street view. It could be there, but too few details to make a positive match. Whatever this is, it is not evidence for anything. The least the SBU could have done is provide the location and some corroborating photographs.<br />
:The same applies to all so called "evidence" provided by Ukraine and the US State Department. As far as I can tell it is only cut-and-paste of unrelated footage to ''illustrate'' the claims made. A perfect example of this illusion is the "satellite photos" of Russian artillery shelling Ukraine released on Sunday morning. A photo of Russian GRADs on some unidentifiable field was placed next to a satellite image with an arrow pointing "Here Be Monsters!" Purely illustrative and no proof. There is a difference between legerdemain Hocus Pocus and outright forgery. The Russian video presentation displayed screen capture recording from the ATC radar, usually stored for two weeks. For this to be a hoax, Russia would need to create a forged tape of the radar data. Highly unlikely, as the the claim of authenticity had support of the full authority and prestige of the Russian Armed Forces. If the US presentation turns out to be hoax, State Department will claim the photos were never meant to be evidence. Some internee was told to prepare a presentation using stock images for some facts they ''knew'' to be true – trust us! -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 14:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: You must have missed [https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BtZSVQrIMAARzKr.jpg:large this], Petri! ;oP --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 18:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
::: That is an awesomely perfect picture for this sorry episode so far. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 14:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
::It would be neat though if we could show where this is and thus which way its's headed. The Kiev authorities, I think, know what happened. They say it was this exact launcher missing two missiles. It could be. Where is it at filming time and where headed? If it's true this same one was in Torez (dubious but possible) we'd have a direction traveled until that point also, and a rough time, 8:30 or so. [http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jul/27/mh17-storyful-social-media-twitter-youtube The Guardian again] citing Storyful's open-source investigation: <br />
::::''“There are now four pieces of content – three pieces of video and one image – which, in the case of three, conclusively show a Buk [surface-to-air] missile within rebel-held territory and in the case of the fourth, almost definitely in their territory,” says Storyful executive editor David Clinch. “Of those four pieces, individual groups or companies probably verified in or around the same time one or another of them.”''<br />
:''Open Newsroom verified three pieces of content and is investigating the fourth, thanks to its 900-strong network of journalists and experts. ''''<br />
:The fourth is this video. Wouldn't it be a coup if we were the first to place it? Force that intern excuse and then laugh at it. That said, it's not the most likely to place but you, Petri, especially, might be able to. I think I might. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 22:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* [https://plus.google.com/118234537318646233652/posts/LZV1XZD854E James Miller Google + July 21] "Was a Buk sighted in Krasnoarmeysk or Krasnodon (continued analysis)? We've taken a new look at this video which has been debated since it was posted days ago. We're fairly confident, though not 100% confident, in this geoanalysis, but we're making significant progress. Any more information would be extremely helpful. " Cited: [http://www.interpretermag.com/russia-this-week-lurid-anti-ukraine-propaganda-broadcast-on-state-tv/#1753 Russia This Week: Defense Ministry Claim on Buk in Billboard Video Doesn’t Add Up]<br />
:''...As we reported on our Ukraine Liveblog, the Buk was spotted before the shoot-down of the Malaysian airplane and ultimately geolocated to the town of Torez, near the location of the crash in Grabovo. Then the video, taken early the next morning on 18 July, showed a scene in Krasnodon,... <br />
--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Google Earth has one photo [http://www.panoramio.com/photo/55329278 from ул. Днепропетровская.] The street has about the same width. The streetlights are not quite the same. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 14:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
::That image doesn't help a match, especially since by now it looks like Lugansk. For the record, there was a go by pro-rebel social media people at identifying a spot in town to explain the video scene, but it didn't do that either. [http://wikimapia.org/#lat=48.276196&lon=37.176087&z=18&l=0&m=b this spot on Wikimapia] is what they pointed to - filmed from the marked building, they say, looking southwest to the mall. No matching anything. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 02:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== Placed in Lugansk! ====<br />
[[File:MH17 Billboard Vid-Lugansk Match.png|right|800px]]Storyful's rundown states of this video:<br />
:''The footage is not the original, however we believe that the first instance of this footage was removed by the uploader and the version below is the earliest we can find. Ukrainian Interior Minister, Arsen Avakov, made early claims that the video was filmed in the Ukrainian town of Krasnodon near the Russian border, however collaborative geo-location was able to place the footage in southwestern Luhansk.'' <ref name="Story1" /> <br />
It links to "Bellingcat," which you have to pay to see much of. [https://plus.google.com/118234537318646233652/posts/bMdeBzY8yty James Miller] passes on that it's "Mystery SOLVED: Video released by Ukraine's Interior Ministry does in fact show a Buk, possibly missing several missiles, in Lugansk headed east from the MH17 crash site and in the direction of Russia." The spot they think matches the video (better panorama coming) is [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=48%C2%B032'44.7%22N+39%C2%B015'52.6%22E&ie=UTF8&ll=48.545926,39.265147&spn=0.002436,0.00611&t=h&cid=0&z=18 here on Google Maps]. Was that a highway? Where's the cross-street? I see elsewhere they have a high view showing the same basic billboard there, but that's going to be true of several spots in this area. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
My impression of the scene - based on the panoramic view below - is far from matching with this. That does not look like a highway, and it just seems like a small town. However, I finally saw some of the supporting images (see [http://news.bigmir.net/ukraine/827864-V-Lygansk-vehala-kolonna-voennoi-tehniki--SMI here] and [https://twitter.com/djp3tros/status/491651820188860416/photo/1 here] - source of the inset image.) It seems a likely match after all. I won't say I confirm it with any certainty, but I don't think I'll be challenging it like I was preparing to do. Note the different billboard in the right spot, and the matching one over there. There are other images, apparently more current, showing that that they moved the one sign over to the right spot They don't point to the pinkish roofed building beyond the red-roofed one, but that adds to the match (compare to below). Whenever this video was made and whatever it really means, it seems quite likely it was at this spot in Lugansk shortly before dawn. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
There is another video from June 2014 showing the same billboard with the same car ad:<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ez8cZ3nqjCs Луганск 02 07 14]<br />
The video shows a column of BMPs with one 9K35 Strela-10 short-range surface to air missile system passing the intersection in Lugansk. I suspect they came from Russia, as [https://www.facebook.com/groups/IOUCO/permalink/584402078339517/ I specifically asked] for Putin to send in the Russian tanks that morning. They passed exactly when I expected them to, at 6 minutes past 4 am. (I estimated it would take 2 hours 6 minutes from the border.) -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 17:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== ACLOS Review ====<br />
As noted above, my review agrees with the placement agreed by the others. For what it's worth, the huge panorama I made (the middle is full-resolution) and starting notes from before I realized no work was needed. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 03:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
[[File:MH17 Billboard Video Pan.png|center|880px]]<br />
It seems to be filmed near the edge of town, or edge of a hill anyway, with a clear view ahead, two vague homes/buildings seen down the slope. Otherwise, very non-descript. The angle of intersection will be one of the better clues - it looks to me not 90 degrees ( |- ), but with the road the truck is on either slanting or curving somewhat towards the camera ( /- ). One important observation: '''there's no logical reason he should have been just happening to film this area''' unless he knew something interesting would drive by at just this odd time. That's clarified by how he zooms in just before it enters frame - he was waiting for that truck. How did he know about it? Informants on the other side of town phoning ahead makes enough sense, I suppose. <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 launcher truck composite.png|left|480px]]Another issue: If this is dusk (sunset 8:20 PM local), isn't this facing roughly northwest? If so, this vehicle is driving roughly north, not south. And we might start looking on the west edge of town. There's a highway out to the northwest, back towards Kiev. This street is too narrow and unmarked to be the highway, obviously, but it might be driving that way, for example. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
:Or, alternately, he's facing towards the sun about to rise, early on the 18th, as alleged by the Interior Ministry) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
::That he happened to be filming just before dawn is even less likely than dusk. He clearly knew this was coming, whatever that means. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 03:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Above is the composite scene without truck. At left is the truck without background. Besides lightening the scene, it seemed worth getting the clearest details from different frames into a composite view of the truck and its load. This helps compare to the launchers seen in other areas and different times. So far, they all seem to look the same and perhaps be the same. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 03:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br /><br />
<br />
==== HRI ====<br />
[[File:Luhansk Sighting Location.jpg|thumb| According to an interactive map from Kiev (http://liveuamap.com) this position in Lugansk (Pavlivska-Chrnomorska st. intersection) was not under separatist control on that day [https://humanrightsinvestigations.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/luhansk-buk1.jpg source -humanrightsinvestigations] , [https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Luhansk,+Luhans'ka+oblast,+Ukraine/@48.5449882,39.2665449,15z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x411fc564844c6285:0xf8e02e7e879e7164 (map)] ]]Pretty good points [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/08/05/mh17-the-lugansk-buk-video/ from Human Rights Investigations]:<br />
:''To sum up, the statement of Avakov, the film and its location suggest the Ukrainian authorities had advance knowledge of this BUK and trailer’s movements or control over it. It is also extremely strange that this BUK, allegedly after shooting down MH17, is supposedly filmed by a Ukrainian surveillance team in ostensibly rebel territory, with its covering missing, as if to show the world a missile is missing.''<br />
--[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Paris Match Photo ===<br />
[[File:MH17 Paris Match.png|770px]]<br /><br />
* [http://www.parismatch.com/Actu/International/EXCLU-MATCH-Un-camion-vole-pour-transporter-le-systeme-lance-missiles-577289 Originally published by Paris Match] on July 25, with the claim the picture was taken by their own reporting team near Snizhne at mid-day on the 17th. Note the prominent, apparent, telephone number prominently centered in the picture - (050) 471-41-80. The truck and launcher, as far as can be seen, are quite similar to or the same as the one seen in the billboard video anyways. How many of its missiles the unit has at this moment is unclear. <br />
<br />
* [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/07/28/why-is-paris-match-on-the-location-of-a-buk/ Human Rights Investigations:] "it turns out to have been taken in Donetsk, 75km away" (citing someone else's geo-location - [https://www.google.com/maps/@48.004592,37.87265,3a,75y,63.38h,82.21t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sRGnHwZ5YZnuGO-n_VvruWg!2e0 site link given.] <br />
:''We know this because the phone number on the truck panel (050 471 4180) leads straight to this hire place (photo):<br />
:''According to Paris-Match, the proprietor of this establishment claimed “rebels” had stolen a number of his vehicles earlier in the month. If we go from here to towards Snizhne we find the location of the Paris-Match photo, near a car dealership on Makiivske Highway on the outskirts of Donetsk:''<br />
:''After informing Paris-Match of the mistake regarding the video location, the author of the article Alfred De Montesquiou has now got back and explained:''<br />
:''Hello, indeed, it appears there was a mixup in caption : the picture was taken leaving Donetsk on road to Snijne, not in actual Snijne'' <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Donestk Buk Map.png|thumb|right|480px|Map: this truck location, the company's apparent headquarters ([https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Molodykh+Shakhtariv+St,+19,+Donetsk,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&ll=48.044923,37.783184&spn=0.079187,0.195522&hnear=Molodykh+Shakhtariv+St,+19,+Donetsk,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&t=h&z=13 GM link]), and the A-1402 missile base relative to each other.]]<br />
<br />
'''Questions:''' Was it a caption mix-up, or did their team really not know where it was taken, and just believed the real source when he said Snizneh? Who is the true photographer who knew to catch this picture near the company's base, apparently at the outset of a rather epic journey? Why did the rebel thieves leave the prominent phone number on the stolen truck used for such an important task? It wound up leading to man who pointed right to the rebel thieves, and prove yet again separatists, not Kiev allies, were the ones driving BUKs around. Was that so hard to foresee? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''To Do:''' Verify the geo-location - set a time, presuming July 17, by sunlight and that location - establish which way it's traveling relative to the government-run anti-aircraft base just a few km north of here and relative to the other places and times this truck and others were spotted rolling around prominently and getting filmed a lot by the right kind of people, in areas presumed to be impenetrable to any such frame-up operation - look into this company, etc. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''Location:''' I can't confirm it with certainty, but it's extremely consistent. Two standard but distinct pole types that close together on the right with a pull-over lane ending at the blue one, and consistent-scale foliage behind. Proceding on the location as likely enough to warrant the work. The stretch of highway identified runs northeast, heading 33 degrees. The truck is most likely not driving at the moment, as it's in the pull-over lane. But it's pointed as if ready to leave Donetsk as soon as they finish doing something in theis spot. All we can see they're doing is getting filmed, and maybe that's just what they're waiting for. Ahead would be the an industrial area, the eastern suburb of Makiivka, then Khartsyzk, etc. and further east Torez and Snizhne (driving times unsure, date also unsure. Russia claims the one launcher left the northern base sometime between in August 14 and 17 images. <ref name="RT10">[http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ 10 more questions Russian military pose to Ukraine, US over MH17 crash] RT. July 21, 2014</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
There is more to consider about this truck, its company, its owner, and his story. But other than this photo's extra-clear view of the phone number and apparent proximity to headquarters, those are better covered in the section below [[#The Truck Owner's Story]].<br />
<br />
==== Time? ====<br />
[[File:MH17 Paris Match elev.png|right|220px]]'''Time:''' I'm not sure how exactly to set this up, but the shadows appear to stretch almost right across the highway, with only a slight northern shift. The azimuth thus appears to be fairly close to to 140˚ (reached at 11:09 AM). As for solar altitude, trying to line up the launcher's corner with its shadow gives a reading of app. 56˚ (= 10:50 AM, with azimuth 133˚) or perhaps 59˚ (= 11:18, az 143.5). The graphic shows both readings. Which is better? I used [http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/solcalc/ NOAA solar calculator], with coordinates: lat 48.017102 long:37.9037626 time=GMT+2, DST +1 --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Bellingcat was originally claiming that photo was taken at 9 am. [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/09/08/images-show-the-buk-that-downed-flight-mh17-inside-russia-controlled-by-russian-troops/] <br />
<br />
Then they were claiming 11 am as an obvious time without retracting previous 9am claim. [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/11/08/origin-of-the-separatists-buk-a-bellingcat-investigation/] <br />
<br />
Seems like 9am was more comfortable for them to match to photos from Zuhres and Torez. <br />
<br />
Sorry, using smartphone. Not very easy to comment --[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 01:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:<small>Looks like you put the same link twice, -it says 11 a.m.--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)</small><br />
::Antidyatel, welcome! Resup, thanks! I'd like to see any 9 am citation. But otherwise they agree on it being around 11? Good. The significance below is if the Zuhres square photo was taken at 11:40 AM as they say, it's basically impossible these images are from the same day as alleged - 69 km, 1 hour 14 mins drive between the spots, when there's only 20-40 minutes between the images. However, fudging it - let's say this is 10:50 and the other is 12:00 as I read it - that's 1:10 between, almost a perfect match. So maybe this isn't a great lead (I was never convinced it was). But 9:00 is way off and suggests they were fudging it to fit at that point. Would be good to document. BTW, on talk pages you can sign with <nowiki>--~~~~</nowiki> or the sign/scribble button. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: [https://web.archive.org/web/20141109132514/https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/11/08/origin-of-the-separatists-buk-a-bellingcat-investigation/ First archive.org snapshot] from the day after publishing (edit: a good three months after you called it :o)) says 11 am already. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 10:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: Okay, the links were fixed once or twice and [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/11/08/origin-of-the-separatists-buk-a-bellingcat-investigation/ the November report] says 11 am, not citing an azimuth or anything, just Paris Match saying it was "about 11 am," which doesn't count much for verification. The [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/09/08/images-show-the-buk-that-downed-flight-mh17-inside-russia-controlled-by-russian-troops/ earlier report from Sptember] might be based on something else when it mentions "a well known image from Paris Match, which shows a Buk in Donetsk at 9am on July the 17th." Neither one sounds like a firm final version. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Accidently found the source for the 9am claim. By amending the link for the AP report in another section. [http://bigstory.ap.org/article/what-happened-day-flight-17-was-downed]. The paragraph of interest is quoted below:<br />
"According to Nayda, at 1 a.m. on July 17 the launcher rolled into Ukraine across the Russian border aboard a flatbed truck. He cited communications intercepts that he would not share with the AP. By 9 a.m., he said, the launcher had reached Donetsk, the main rebel stronghold 125 miles (200 kilometers) from the border. In Donetsk it is presumed to have been off-loaded from the flatbed and started to move in a convoy on its own."<br />
Assuming the fairytale that Peter Leonard was creating in the article it seems that he was in charge of the whole propaganda operation and was assigned to AP on July 8th, 2014. It seems that we have the officer in charge impersonated finally ;)) --[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 06:16, 3 August 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== Screenshot from dashcam video? ====<br />
[[File:Paris Match on dashcam 1.jpg|right|400px]]<br />
[[File:Paris Match on dashcam 2.jpg|right|400px]]<br />
It it possible to identify if the photo was made by dashboard camera, smartphone, or other type of camera. Paris Match claimed that they made the photo. There are no date markings on the photo, which is strange. Position of the camera is such that it was either dashboard camera or the driver was making a photo (front and left side of the car). Paris Match was also implying in their report that it was a group of people in the car. "A sytem BUK missile launcher is photopgraphie by the team of Paris-Match in the suburbs of Donetsk, on the road to Snizhne the morning of July 17, hours before the flight Malaysia Airlines MH17 crash."[http://m.parismatch.com/Actu/International/EXCLU-MATCH-Un-camion-vole-pour-transporter-le-systeme-lance-missiles-577289]<br />
<br />
Why would they ask driver to make a photo? Dangerous or uncomfortable - illogical. If it was a dashboard camera, why not to release a video? And most importantly it would have a time stamp. <br />
<br />
Also in this report [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/01/17/new-images-of-the-mh17-buk-missile-launcher-in-ukraine-and-russia/] gives a new, a bit extended photo. Surprisingly the back of the BUK is nicely in focus, same as the truck cabin. While middle of the BUK is defocused. No wonder Paris Match cropped it. Bellingcat, that likes being so strict about photos, totally ignores this part. <br />
-- [[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 23:55,, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Yes, I agree. The two photos are crops from screenshots from a dashcam video. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 00:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
::Those must be two different shots at close-by time --look at position of street lamppost with respect to the truck cabin, one has it over black pipe, and the other more to the right from there. Can't think of a natural way for camera to focus on two different distances (maybe dirty and curvy windshield can be blamed but on tricky side here)-- FWIW. Usually dashboards have short focal length so that anything appear to be in focus; don't know why not the case here --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
RESUP, you are right. Those are two different shots. There is cable reflection from the windshield. Probably the cable is another indication of the dashboard camera.--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 13:35, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::I heard somewhere that it was a dashcam still, and I thought probably so. We all agree on that. As for the two images, I didn't know, will compare. Might compare. Why no video is a good question with at least o-ne true answer. Keep an eye out for possible ones. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:53, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Look at the link name for the Paris-Match photo https://wp4553-flywheel.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/PM2-BUK-Snijne17072014.jpeg<br />
Why would they name this photo from Donetsk using the name Snijne? What is PM2? Was it some folder that only consistent the storyline with focus on Snijne? Did Bellingcat have other options to fall back after they can’t defend it anylonger<br />
<br />
Funny thing about Bellingcat’s questionable standards of research. So much effort of looking for manipulation in Russian MOD photos. Let’s do the same trick with Paris-Match photo. Here http://fotoforensics.com/analysis.php?id=17a82272d17dbbb2abb0b784f10b3c64d5870562.186081<br />
BUK is very distinct from other objects in the ELA picture. Does it prove that photo is fake or photoshoped. Don’t know and don’t care. Just enjoy exposing Bellingcat hypocrisy. Why weren’t they interested to do the same if they are so confident in that tool and that picture is so critical for their story<br />
--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 10:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
:Those b-cats used their monies to produce another [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/06/12/july-17-imagery-mod-comparison/ opus]. Not sure I have spare time or enthusiasm to look much into this; after a brief look, clearly different viewpoints, different squeeze distortion on some photos at least, and different image quality -for example, black field with small variations in MoD may be not inconsistent with roads in that field seen in higher quality color photo; etc. Not sure how accurate is timing on either of the versions; do they really have photos of every place at every hour/ half hour/etc at DG? If Buk was moved, it was moved at certain time, and shortly before that time it can be photographed staying put there--need to have enough accurately timed photos for a conclusion. Now with MoD doing press conference, they would not through their best photos as they are at the journos; need to look at what they released officially to the investigation for saying anything meaningful. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Torez Square Photo ===<br />
[[File:MH17 Torez Buk Analysis.png|left]]This is another image geo-located by the Brown Moses network (ally Aric Toller) to central Torez, [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Donetsk&hl=en&ll=48.023472,38.614014&spn=0.004923,0.01222&hnear=Donetsk,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&t=h&z=17 here on Google Maps.] Like others, it was initially stated as in another locale - Snizhne - and that had to be corrected. I can agree the location pointed to is either the photo's site or one strangely like it. [http://mashable.com/2014/07/23/citizen-journalists-mh17-spies/ Mashable noted] "Toler and Higgins were able to establish that the photograph was shot around 11:40 a.m. local time." I tried a quick azimuth measure, eyeballed relative only to the blue car, and got 165 degrees (yellow line, read backwards). This equates to a time of almost exactly 12:00 noon (about 30 minutes before solar noon, and 20 minutes later than their estimate). Seeing they're close to right, I'll presume they're closer than me and defer to 11:40. <br />
<br />
If this photo is taken at 11:40 AM, and it's the same truck seen leaving Donetsk around 11-11:20 AM, it's impossible these images are from the same day as alleged (Gmaps says it's 68.8 km, 1 hour 14 mins drive, when there's only 20-40 minutes between the images). That would mean multiple mobile launchers with multiple "Titan" trucks, or just one but with some date fudging. The company says a number of its trucks were stolen, so matching multiples are entirely likely. But so is date fudging, multiples or not. If that's so, I suspect the Donetsk photo was from July 15 or 16, and this one more likely from the day of the crime. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 04:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br /><br /><br /><br />
=== Zuhres Video ===<br />
[[File:Buk Zuhres Vid.png|right|480px]]Again, a truck of that same type loaded with the same apparent weapon is briefly seen driving east (detail at right). This one was never reported wrong and was in fact pre-geo-located by the uploader [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=48%C2%B0+1'1.38%22N++38%C2%B018'6.04%22E&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=48.034019,38.391724&spn=0.629958,1.564178&gbv=2&hnear=H21,+Zuhres,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&gl=us&t=h&z=10 here in Zuhres.] Higgins confirms, 100% sure, and others concur. <ref name="Story1" /> Zuhres location: on highway H21 halfway between Donetsk and the general disaster zone - 36 km east by road from the position of the truck in the Paris Match photo. I agree with the location, refined below as I lined up in the still used here - the blue line runs between the blue thing and the building corner (footprint, not roofline) to the front of the truck as it passes. <br />
<br />
The sky is fairly overcast, so solar angles can't be measured precisely; the differences in facet lighting are clear but not massive. A broad and inclusive azimuth range of 167˚ to 214˚ (rounded) is shown by the yellow arrows below. This yields a range (to the nearest minute) of 12:09 PM and 1:45 PM. The best middle is a bit early - 185 degrees. That would be 12:44 PM. Altitude, at solar noon, helps little. 12:09, 12:44, and all times between round off to 63˚. if that simply looks too high, we're forced to the later end of the time frame. - 57˚ at 1:45. My super broad-estimate: 12:45 +/- 50 minutes. Weather at this time on whatever day - as noted, it partly overcast, and it's windy. The clouds are moving fast, with slight lighting changes visible in just these few seconds. Winds by the swaying trees are from the southeast, perhaps, blowing northwest - at least at the building with a face running that way.<br />
[[File:Buk Zuhres analysis.png|center|680px]]<br />
<br />
==The Truck Owner's Story==<br />
The apparent owner of the white truck so important to the MH17 operation was of course tracked down via the giant phone number for his compant on its side. Interviewed at least twice now, first by Paris Match, then by Lithuanian agency Alfa, this businessman has been anonymized as Vassili (then Vasilijus). Thorough summary of the related, alleged facts, from each (translated) report:<br />
* [http://www.parismatch.com/Actu/International/EXCLU-MATCH-Un-camion-vole-pour-transporter-le-systeme-lance-missiles-577289 Paris Match, July 25:]<br />
:''Photographs of Paris Match showed that the rebels had failed to remove the billboard on the truck they had stolen. Thus we joined the owner of the vehicle. Vassili said the rebels occupied warehouses on the outskirts of Donetsk since July 8. "They are fighters Slaviansk. They landed and told me they loved my premises and we had to escape. They shipped me a dozen large vehicles, including the white truck. I do not know what happened to them, "admitted Vassili, distraught.'' (that was actually just what they published, aside from context material) <br />
<br />
* [http://www.alfa.lt/straipsnis/472203/alfa-lt-isskirtinis-interviu-su-raketas-buk-kuriomis-buvo-numustas-malaizijos-avialiniju-lektuvas-gabenusio-vilkiko-savininku?p=1#.U-GIxeOSyuZ Alfa.lt, July 29:]<br />
:''This person's testimony is crucial. After it becomes indisputably known that anti-missile system, which shot down a passenger plane was precisely the Kremlin-sponsored terrorist hands. ''<br />
Here, separatists are throughout called "terrorists" (Bezler is "the "People's Republic of Donetsk" terrorist gangs ringleader"). Vassili says these took over and occupied his company premises on July 8, taking the white truck - they said because it was needed He says they stayed in control of his facility for 8 days, apparently departing on the 9th day - July 17. Becuase of this, he and his staff - especially his drivers - were unable to do anything that whole time. He's entirely certain it's his truck in the videos (the phone number says so) as it's the only one of its type in that part of Donetsk (Žinoma, ji – vienintelė tokia Donecko srityje, tokios kitos nėra. Tokios „Volvo“ su tokia kabina). He says he still hasn't seen it since.<br />
:''...more and more irrefutable evidence that Russia supported the terrorists shot down over the temporary control of the territory in the east of Ukraine aboard passenger "Malaysia Airlines plane, and later sought to hide evidence.''<br />
But as Paris Match noted, they couldn't be bothered to detach the phone number to the guy with the whole dang story. <br />
:''Alfa.lt knowledge of the personal data, company name, knows his responsibilities and phone numbers (one is (050) 471-41-80), but because of '''the danger to his life''' that can not be published. "Stop saying my name, and I already have enough problems," said new horrific crime witness Vasilijus.'' <br />
This is valid; of course his best defense would have been to simply ''not'' implicate the separatists mostly running Donetsk, but it's too late now. DPR authorities might want him for questioning. And especially now that he's been publicized as a "crucial witness," others will want him to '''appear to have been brutally murdered by them''' (he will have served his main purpose by now, perhaps). I hope someone's able to arrange protective custody quickly enough, or that he can arrange his own vacation, or convince his friends (he'll know the ones) of his continuing usefulness to them alive. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Titan Gate blurry.png|left|380px]]Further bits on the business: Wikimapia has labels. One for the front building is generic. In English writing: [http://wikimapia.org/#lat=48.0399571&lon=37.794637&z=16&l=0&m=b&show=/24479492/Ochakivska-vulytsia-19 Ochakivska vulytsia, 19]. Beneath: Category: safety, '''private security company.''' Around this, a bigger labeled area including the back building and surrounding lot. Label: Территория службы охраны "Титан" Translated, it says "Territory protection service "Titan" (Donetsk)." Beneath it: "Category: '''Do not display name''', fenced area." (не отображать название, огороженная территория) Below, their gate area as it appears in Human Rights Investigation's still, and three versions I've seen randomly changing over the last day or so with different parts that could be the name blurred out (most recently back to not blurred). Is that unusual? I predict further twists in this, with the truck found somewhere bolstering the Kiev story, and with the company's "outing" being manipulated somehow. Feels a little spooky. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
;Assessing "Vassili's" Story<br />
<br />
There are a number of problems with and interesting questions about this witness' story and how it meshes with other allegation (details forthcoming).<br />
<br />
In Vassili's defense, I'll say the world needs to hear more. What happened in these eight days? Were Russian officers coming and going? Poring over air charts in the side room, before closing the door with an annoyed look? A lot could have happened - this could be a gold mine of direct evidence for war crimes trials of these terrorist gang's leaders (as understood). --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
[[File:MH17 Vassili's Truck August 1c.png|right|400px]]<br />
An apparent support: as HRI found, [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/08/07/new-sighting-of-volvo-linked-to-buk/ New sighting of Volvo linked to BUK?] August 7 - One of those provocatively deleted tweets, quite recent with a supposedly same-day (dawn or sunset) photo from somewhere in Donetsk - outskirtsy, like where <s>rebel</s> I mean Kiev junta forces proudly claim to almost be. this photo (saved by HRI) shows "a truck" carrying a tank, driving behind another tank. The posted thought it was for a new roadblack/barricade (concrete slabs were also being hauled). It appears to be the same truck Vassili says he lost, or one just like it. And this does look like the type of thing seaparatists would do if they had seized it, and still didn't realize how famous it had become. This thing likes to drive at dawn, doesn't it? How are checkpoints then, a little sleepy maybe? Hmmm... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::(added later: inset image - from the photo, color-corrected and cropped on just the truck - for full view see the article or below) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: FTR I took up HRI's challenge to identify the truck on that picture and did so with almost 100% certainty. It's a Volvo FH second generation (2001-2013) with low cabin. Like [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Volvo_LKW_Fahrerhaus.JPG this one] which has a higher cabin but other than that is quite a match. Also FTR, I noticed that the twitter account has "Donbass Bandera" as location, which can but must not mean anything. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: Bandera might mean something, in context, but no time to puzzle too much. Good ID work there. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Vassili's Truck August 1 Loc.png|left|380px]]The article passes on a geo-location I can confirm: [https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Makiivka,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine/@48.04073,37.967479,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m5!1e2!3m3!1s78165143!2e1!3e10!4m2!3m1!1s0x40e08e984a0db9a9:0xe4e52efde2e0641c Here on Google Maps,] photo taken, as described, from "opposite the Vostochno-evroppeyskiy restaurant & lounge “Atrium” in Makiivka on the H-21." A site photo of the "Atrium" is included. The graphic I made at left shows the approximate view, including the stairwell (to a subway station?), though the billboard is less clear. The view is roughly towards the rising sun northeast - a rough azimuth measure suggests the sun is shining from about <s>66</s> 71 degrees from north, for a time of around <s>5:24</s> 5:52 AM (elevation: <s>1.8</s> 6 degrees). --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC) and corrections --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
FWIW, I went over to militaryphotos.net and scanned [http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?236005-Situation-in-the-Ukraine-Crimea-*Photos-Videos*-ONLY/page200 the thread about Ukraine starting on page 200] in very early July, up until page 225 when all the known truck/BUK info and disinfo was posted. Watched countless military convoys, including a whole bunch from Donetsk in the time between. Not a sign of the truck in question. If it was in "rebel" hands since July 8 like the alleged owner claims, they used it only for "special ops", alone in the early morning or so, not in their larger relocation operations. Two things remotely interesting: in an operation [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0JdcC324Ek reactivating a WWII tank from a war museum in Donetsk], a similar trailer is used, but the truck is a different one. And in [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2eGNPJlkMo this video from July 5] but without given location, the Ukie army does some operations and two BUK TELARs are seen. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Possible Launch Sites ==<br />
*Launch site discussion here is based on a photo of disputed provenance, said to be made '''near [[Category_talk:Ukraine#Torez|Torez]]''', showing a plume of smoke (see on the right and below). Exact date is disputed, but it was posted shortly after the accident. A late update or second version of the photo emerged in December 2014; this is further discussed in the [[File_talk:MH17_Launch_Plume.png|talk page for the photo]]. A different launch location in '''Artemovsk''', based on Bezler account, is discussed elsewhere [[Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17#Bezler_Account|(link).]] . <br />
<br />
===What do we know? ===<br />
Questions about the photo, --if it is genuine-- include:<br />
<br />
*What is shown on the photo? (Likely a missile launch, but can be MANPAD, or some other launch; raising fire smoke not excluded though less likely) <br />
*When was the photo made? (Claimed to be couple of minutes after the MH 17 shootdown launch; but could be made on earlier days)<br />
*Where was the photographer, and where is than the 'launch site" Photograph claimed to be made in Torez (4 microdistrict?) . Claimed launch sites locations are [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/launch-location-detected-of-missile.html SE] or [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2107 NE] from the photographer. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
A site, or maybe a couple of locations, have now been forwarded, based on compelling evidence, as likely SAM launch sites of July 17 or thereabouts. This is worth careful consideration here. To start:<br />
<br />
* [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10984530/MH17-the-clues-which-may-lead-to-missile-launch-site.html UK Telegraph, July 22] This report with some detail and a photo visits a few areas where signs of possible BUK launcher movement and firing occurred recently. Caterpillar tracks, mostly light, signs of burning, various debris left behind, all or mostly "in the area of the town of Snizhnoye." These details might suggest whoever did this had multiple launchers set up in different areas that left as soon as the operation/accident was done. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
::So far, signs are saying it was just the one. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Below: The site shown on video, stitched panoramic view (with confusing curve). This helps get the fullest set of geo-location clues. I may even check if this is the same spot identified by Ukraine@War, below. It should be, or we might have two firing locations pretty near each other, which would be odd. The firing direction from here would be northwest, almost directly along MH17's flight path. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
[[File:MH17 Telegraph site.png|center|940px]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Launch Plume.png|right|340px]]Ukraine@War: [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/launch-location-detected-of-missile.html Launch location detected of missile that brought down MH17] The photo at right, cited by Kiev as proof of a BUK launch in the right area, July 17. The anlysis here looks good on first blush and lines the filming to northern Torez, plume on a line including a supposed patch of cat tracks just revelaed by fresh Google/GeoEye images of some fields [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Donetsk&hl=en&ll=47.989347,38.773155&spn=0.078813,0.195522&t=h&hnear=Donetsk,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&z=13 here] by Snizhne. As traced, the tracks look realistic to me. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: There is (a disappeared) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUvK5m2vxro BBC video ] suggesting that smoke is from a direction of Saur-Mogila (= constant fighting) and a coal mine. <br />
::Thus smoke may be unrelated to the launch. Also timing of photo is unclear. <br />
:: Buk trail from unrelated launch videos appears considerably [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDXScnEKaP0 more impressive than on the photo] , and traces well visible trajectory, likely attracting attention of many people . But there appears to be no witness reports. <br />
::Buk appears to use [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_navigation proportional navigation method], and if so, its navigation control will try to guide it on a straight path to impact.<br />
::Unless it was doing something else (but can it??? the answer requires expert knowledge), it was most likely on a straight line trajectory which can be deduced from the impact direction.<br />
--[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 00:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Yes, an odd video. I'm not certain they even picked the right view, but it looks about right - I think she and Oliphant (Telegraph) point to the same monument as a landmark - a place of fighting. Seems like they got close, but didn't have a specific spot like U@W picked, and didn't find anything. As for angle, I think it can maneuver around, but would prefer to fly straight (not an expert, don't know what "prefer" means here). And if it was hit head-on like the impact marks suggest, then it probably did fly just about straight into the jet. Obviously if it came over the wing, and was fired from here, it would have to curl around, but I don't think that's the case. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
<br />
The satellite images cited at Ukraine@War are available if you have Google Earth. As explained [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/satellite-images-reveal-how-buk-has.html here,] there's a .kmz package you can download [https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxEeOqcjSE5uQXlkWkxKeVhDaEk/edit here] that loads on Google Earth new, murky images from July 20 (but the display still says August, 2013). The tracks he highlights are visible, faintly. There are a couple sets perhaps connecting - some could be local paths - there's no recent enough images to say there weren't there July 16. One important missing thing is a patch of burnt grass it seems should show up up differently - it's not identified there, and not evident right around these tracks. From this, it's not a great fit, except that line of sight pointing here. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Plastic Debris 1.png|left|280px]]So is the Telegraph site and the Ukraine@War site the same thing? Well, the Telegraph article says they went to the spot identified on a blog, but found, as the image suggests: Two possible launch sites – a rundown collective farm and a nearby wheat field – showed some track marks but no sign of any rocket launch whatsoever." It was a farmer plowing his fields there who pointed them to ''a field nearby'' that burned the other day, and that 's the unclear site they show. "The location of the fire lies on the supposed flight path of the rocket, and track marks – though indistinct – are present. Some unidentifiable bits of green plastic littered the site of the fire." There were also discarded bottles (type unclear) and apparently this oddity, shown in a photo but not mentioned - soft bakelite-type plastic ... thing, with years in the 1980s and 1990s stamped in it. It's all near enough to the rebel town, the Russian border, and concealed rebel positions that they think only rebels could operate there. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
First, let's note that author "P. Martin" connects these possibly relevant tracks with the surveillance video showing the Buk launcher driving south The Telegraph spot, from the burnt grass, must the spot the exhaust pushed off from, and the burn line should probably be to the northwest. There's no sign of that alongside these track marks found on that visual line. That's a problem, as the exhaust never said a luncher was driving around thataway, but rather launching from thataway. <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Telegraph Spot Mapped.png|right|380px]][[File:MH17 Telegraph Spot Cleared.png|right|320px]]Rather, it's the nearby "Telegraph spot" - not quite on his line but close - that [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com/2014/07/exact-location-pinpointed-of-mh17.html Martin thinks is the EXACT location] That, he thinks, is in the next field south. It should be visible in the updated imagery, but it turns out this is just off the edge of the area they provided, so it can't be verified or ruled out based on that. The inset graphic shows this cut-off line, his previous possible firing locations (track-based, seemingly un-burnt, in yellow) The spot yields a best placement with coordinates already noted by Petri in a section [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Map#Buk locations and flight paths|here.]] (I picked out the spot myself, best guess, and got the same but 3 seconds east) It can't be checked like that for the telltale stripe to the northwest, but it looks pretty likely to me. The main view down the tracks (left half of the panorama above) would be looking south, and the near line of trees on the right running west. The pretty obvious tracks he identifies as likely launcher tracks, and they do seem to curve in where it stopped. Otherwise, to me, this has more the look of a pre-travelles semi-road on the line between fields. Either way, it probably drove that way, and fired from here, and not from the un-burnt spots north. All the tracks he notes, none certain in themselves, are supported in their possible relevance by this being what's at the end of the trail. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC) and [[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Added in November, the image below that. I noticed Google Maps had new post-crash imagery up, and re-checked the spot for burn marks, since it was just off the grid before. This replacement - overlayed with translucence - seems too late. The strip most likely to show the signs has apparently been harvested/cleared before this image Some will say that constitutes a coverup. And it might, but probably just out of stupid reflexive nervousness. I just wanted to measure its angle and stuff. There is a nice track right up to the spot, likely pre-existing and just unclear before, and what they used to get there. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Location Challenged ===<br />
<br />
The above stuff, as of now and as I've been running it mainly, seems to bear out the vaunted "social media sleuths" placing the launcher and probably the launch in "separatist-held territory." I agree with all locations provided, and times too. Everyone acknowledges date is less sure. There are compelling clues pointing to concrete firing spot, that seems to be lined up the hit the jet head-on, as it's starting to seem the airliner was hit. In this narrative, the questions people should be asking is who was really running that. But readings differ, and some differing views can be considered here. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* [https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByibNV3SiUoobnpCVDduaHVORHM/edit?usp=sharing MH17 Analysis] – CDN <br />
<br />
Petri posted this to the front page, a 25-page report with many graphics and explained reasoning. One of its conclusions, based on range to impact, mainly, meant that "the missile that downed MH17 was not fired from Snizhne." At the moment, I disagree. Petri, who is CDN, and are they soliciting feedback? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::The anonymous PDF was published via Saker's blog: [http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/08/detailed-expert-analysis-of-mh17-downing.html Detailed expert analysis of the MH17 downing] "CDN" has [http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/08/detailed-expert-analysis-of-mh17-downing.html?showComment=1407347983141#c8862773971299986141 responded] [http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/08/detailed-expert-analysis-of-mh17-downing.html?showComment=1407350196815#c7564049628743605813 twice] in the comments. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 00:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
I think these might be part of what threw the author(s) off:<br />
# the heading seems to be off, too southerly to trace back like that. At the end, maybe close enough<br />
# possibly too-wide debris field starting too early - final breakup likely E-NE of their spot (ie closer to in range)<br />
# Wrong presumed angle of impact <br />
# Lack of knowledge, specified on page 23, of this contrail image or, obviously, the supporting clues pointing to what might be "the Telegraph site" excluded here. "Why are there no images of the rebel missile and its impressive launch contrail?" Oops, there is and it point there. <br />
--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: I just skimmed it before coming here. It was posted [http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.de/2014/08/detailed-expert-analysis-of-mh17-downing.html over here] where you can join the discussion (which I haven't read yet just saw that Petri is there chiming in in comment 2 of currently 93). I think it's first valuable in presenting the known capabilities of the Buk etc. If your stuff above is true and it is one single truck with one single TELAR that was seen in the different locations, then it shows quite conclusively that the Telegraph position can not be the launching point, because even if the Ukie claim of disappearance from Radar 50km from the Russian border is not true, due to the position of the debris it could only be further away, not closer, which adds to the argument. My 2 cents for the moment. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
: Oh, not directly related to the critique, but driving around with a huge phone number that leads to a Titan security of all places is more than a bit suspicious, I'd say. ;o) --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: "the Telegraph position can not be the launching point" if my "stuff above is true and it is one single truck with one single TELAR that was seen in the different locations" - how? "because even if the Ukie claim of disappearance from Radar 50km from the Russian border is not true, due to the position of the debris it could only be further away, not closer, which adds to the argument." Huh? I think the field is placed really vaguely in that report, and that's what sets the impact point - it looks maybe kilometers off, to the west. Placed right, the implied impact point is further east, ie closer to the launcher. It is a valuable report, but that point should be re-checked more carefully before I could be convinced to write off all the other evidence pointing there. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::: Take a careful look at pages 9 and 10 of the PDF. Place the spot to where you think it's "right". Think how that would change the picture. The argument is based on the empirical location of the debris and unless I've missed some serious flaw in the numbers and basic calculations made on the pages leading to that, I think it's by rule of thumb a very sound argument. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 13:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::: I'll do my own soon - I can say it would end further east, relative to the border there, and probably start further east too, but maybe I'm unaware of some outlying debris - but first a though on the debris field I just had, even more relevant than size and placement - what does it actually say re: the plane? He presumes it would follow the trajectory east. Not much, really. With only so much momentum and breaking up, with five miles to fall, the main factor will be wind. Even a breeze has five miles to act on it. That was so with PA 103 - the wind was about perpendicular to the path, and that determined just where stuff scattered on a line across the borders area right to the north sea - only the cockpit and a few things were off much from that line. Here, if it blewa along the flight path, the reasoning would work fine. If it blew back, to the west, the plane was probably shot further east than the field suggests. Ie, closer yet to in range. The Zuhres video above shows wind apparently to the northwest, and pretty strong. Worth a review and re-think in that light. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 14:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::: With an initial speed of 907 km/h I see no reason to take wind into serious account. I see no reason at all for going into more detail in this rule of thumb argument, not on the debris, not on the alleged launching point. But I'm as always looking forward to what you can come up with. ;o) --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::: btw there's no exact calculation of the traveled distance of the falling pieces, it's just found plausible resulting from other data. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::::: There's good reason. [http://martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/PA103_debris.gif past precedent.] I did read it wrong - the blue oval is about right, I thought the scale by it, which is way off. That's the 20 km drift - if the wind was blowing due east at the right speed... to the near edge of the oval and 30 km to the far edge... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 15:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 four last points.png|center]]<br />
<br />
Debris fields as shown in MH17 WSJ data combined.jpg. The two tracks, 118 per Flightradar24 and other sources, and 111 from a Russian graphic (see label C), just in case. They cross at point E just to look cool - superimpose wherever to visualize a track-back on these or any line between. <br />
<br />
The four red "last points", eyeballed onto the map as shown in the various graphics used here (all pretty approximate): <br />
<br />
A: last return, flightradar 24 (erred, I think, way too far along - I suspect some inherent offset...)<br />
<br />
B: Russian ATC last return, '50 km' from the border (vague description, likely close to accurate)<br />
<br />
C: end of 111 track shown in MH17 radar 1.png (maybe arbitrary, lower resolution)<br />
<br />
D: report, deduced point of impact (presuming 20-30 km flight due east after impact, wind app. not considered at all)<br />
<br />
E: My guess for breakup point, where the damaged front came apart (should maybe be further east, right over the south part of the first orange blob). Actual impact point, an unclear distance back. probably not very far - downward flight could start anytime after that, decreasing the lateral distance traveled) . <br />
<br />
The cockpit, aerodynamic, shows the most like forward trajectory of this, relatively minimal wind complication. The heavy forward parts had more drag, wound up NW of there. A bit further NW, the light, high-drag, punctured upper fuselage. That these parts aren't spread further out suggests the jet managed to descend some ways before the front totally fell apart, and/or that the wind was fairly light. From there, most of the plane remained together, kept more momentum and little wind effect, and crashed kilometers east. The last part of this plummet, about one minute seen on video, it was nose-free and essentially nose-diving. A slight north trend, perhaps curtailed eastward progress, largely just down, leaves it all hitting together by Hrabove, scattering woth the fireball trajectory and wind deciding where these bits landed. That it only got so far from the forward parts again suggests this breakup was fairly low in the fall - maybe just before the start of the one video. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I'd say forget point D, it is way too far west, this plane was not going to fly 25km once hit. On debris, I'd put breakup where the "f" is in your word "forward" and impact not very far NW of that, lifting the whole 118 line a little northwards. You can't bring breakup below impact and count on wind pushing wreckage "uphill" because that first group of wreckage included 37 bodies, which would not "sail". The impact would be enough to knock the course slightly south, to drop the cockpit at Rozspyne, where it turned NE to end up at Grabovo. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 03:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Thanks. D is the presumed point used to rule out this launch location, the original point of this sub-section. That dot fails by a good margin. My E and your guess are both north of the flight path, along which all the red dots are (this graphic is confusing, needs updating, if I didn't flatten it). I was thinking a NNW wind did the north and west spreading, but the records say the wind was flat "east" (to the west). I'm left suspecting now the plane banked hard left just before it started breaking up. Actual impact, just before that. The "C" label is pretty arbitrary, but it keeps seeming about right. On the imagined red line 1t 117-118, I dunno, maybe 20-30 pixels back. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::Winds are described as 'from' not 'to. So a wind blowing to the NNW is reported as a SSE wind.<br />
::::A slip - I'm trying to say it that way now. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::Getting on to the wind. The actual breeze direction is usually a function of altitude - veering or backing from ground level observation. It can easily be 90 degrees out from ground level. You need to look at the vertical profile used in aeronautical soundings to see where debris will in the main blow to. --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 11:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::Sounds like a real headache to map. There's also changes over time, where east at 5:00 may change briefly ten minutes later, or 10,000 feet up. All that seems can be counted on is easterly winds in general - no exception to that. And generally, even if they measure it at the airport, it must extend up to the clouds, which can be seen swirling east over the area. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::No it doesn't extend to the clouds except by accident. Major direction change can happen in hundreds of metres altitude especially at night. Examples of wind shift between ground level and 700 millibars (9800 ft) in day time can show a direction change of 90 degrees - e.g. North to West. This is significant with MH17 where the breakups occurred between 33,000 feet and probably a few thousand feet for the final disintegrations. --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 11:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::FYI Here is all about [http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/48/ Veering and Backing] --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 11:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::As for the spread issue, I'm re-thinking it. As for the bodies, it depends on a few things but I take your point - bodies are dense. And I didn't know that detail - worth considering. Also a sad side-note: most bodies would be alive and aware, from what I learned looking at Lockerbie. Lack of O2 would black them all out at first, but gravity makes it so there's enough in that final stretch those not dead already (the lucky few) would probably "wake up" in time to both feel their injuries and their fall, and to see the "separatist-held" fields rushing up to kill them. :( ---[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::: My indications are they were all dead when they hit the ground. That's not to say some didn't suffer from the first blast up there. Using my (very long ago) rescue triage training, I examined all the body photos for type of injury. The main findings were (a) almost no blood (as the separatist intercepted call rightly claimed) (b)a lot of legs at angles suggesting hip/pelvic fracture (a very common injury in air crashes to people wearing seat belts) and (c) all the bodies appear swollen (in first-day photos). We are thinking of what happened as a decompression, a low-pressure event. But that was preceded by the blast detonation of the missile just outside... a high-pressure event. The very high pressure shock wave compresses the blood vessels and severely damages the lungs. Blood pressure and heart rate go sky high trying to compensate. In 1/2 a second the blast wave is gone and they are in decompression.The heart can't adjust fast enough. The lack of blood flow makes the brain and liver swell up, too, so normal blood circulation cannot be re-established even if the heart recovers. The Lockerbie bomb, and various exploding fuel tank cases, were lower pressure explosions; sadly many would have survived those until ground/water impact.[[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 20:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::So there is evidence of blast wave, not _just_ decompression alone? But no shrapnel wounds? --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 21:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::(cut my comment - I had misread - taken to [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Debunked topics#Bloodless bodies – fake Facebook profiles?|bloodless bodies spot]] FWIW - but I disagree with both the lack of blood and the validity of many "separatist" communications, but if we're not arguing a planeload of corpses being shot down, I won't argue it much.) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
More to the point, leaving the above graphic aside, would be this newer one I should finally add. Basic straight path, 118 and placed as agreed by most sources. Alleged launch location, measures app. My best guess is a 2 km range from 22.75 to 24.75, weighted to the center. Or most likely about 23.75 km out (irrespective of actual projectile flight path, that's where it made contact, but this helps visualize how the alleged launch site might line up with [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Forensics#Direction of projectiles?|the directional forensics]]). --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
[[File:MH17 missile intercept distances.png]]<br />
::Straight line from launch is okay. But impact has to be further north, ie before the most westerly debris. You've used the map which assumes that debris to be blown back by wind. That can't be right, as it included bodies (too dense to blow back) and witnesses saw them and plane sections falling straight down. This only makes about 1 mile difference to the missile range, so does nothing to exclude that launch location. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 01:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::The map of spread is only app., some orange area I made. The pink dot and lines are from a map, Russian analysis, as you say apparently presuming a SSE wind. Debris including people ''would'' be blown back to some degree, all of it, varyingly; trajectory can only do so much when you have five miles of falling, with the breezes acting the whole time, and the lightest parts will be back a bit, whatever direction and as mentioned above, a SSE winds at some time or altitude still isn't ruled out at all). Do we know just where in that area those passengers landed, and what types of things are its far end? ? <br />
(<br />
:::I mean, you could be right and it's a bit further back, maybe with a continuation due east from there and no real wind effect except slightly back. It was only 9-12 mph, and maybe it fell halfway before starting to fall apart, which means less spread. I'm thinking about a possible left turn to explain the north aspect, or it could be wind, or being further back (more north, as well as west), or a combination. The turn has to be a certain size, the wind direction is not certain aside from east prevailin, ... whatever point best explains whatever happened ... we're down to a shrinking agreed range, and as you say, it's all within range of the one spot, so it's not ruled out after all. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 04:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
At this stay of play, I feel it will be helpful to have displayed prominently an overall map reflecting best guess on impact location as well as already flagged suspected launch sites, that is the two launch sites we have been discussing (near Snezhny ; near Chernukhino) , PLUS launch locations flagged and TIMED by released satellite data (currently only Russian data is available). I would be generous with the range here, we can find range suggested by public sources but presumably actual range depends on a number of things (height, radar range, trajectory, wind), and may exceed the "official" range. Another useful graphics piece info would be indicating the front lines, if there is a way to have those known. '''I would be extremely cautious with displaying graphics reflecting just one way of thinking (whether "worst", "best", or "middle of the way"), for the reason that any graphics is easy for human brain to absorb, more than words spread out on all our numerous pages, and ''no graphics at all'' is better than displayed ''skewed'' graphics.''' One-sided graphics may be '''inviting''' even more noise releases "supporting" some already skewed scenarios, and I feel that was already happening way too often. I feel that most helpful stance at this point would be as neutral as it gets. (Regarding trajectories, a default guess is a straight line, anything else requires an explanation. Straight line is implied so no strong need to actually display it, especially if it ends up curling in suggestive funny ways on graphics). --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 09:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::I've been doing a lot of graphics, so not all fired up for more. But if you are, I wouldn't mind making another if it helps. Maybe this is best taken to [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Map#Interception Location]] (a lot of this is redundant, and I might move it, but at least I can say let's stop piling intercept stuff here as well as there). Up to picking a certain spot around Chernukino? Some outskirts area, on a major road, it'll be a guess. A couple guesses could be mapped. Also, if it seems worth it, I can do updates and upload the new version as needed. Any timed satellite launches, let me know. Front lines, not known and IMO misleading in this case. Those who would know would try - and maybe manage - to sneak this thing behind them... the caution about leading labels, I can leave to you - you could just tell me what to put. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
:::::Would take me forever, may try later on, but not immediately; some cleanup/re-arrangement seems the easiest option. (If there are tools for collaborative mapping, may be good to start using those; but not aware of any) --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 11:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The preliminary [[Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Dutch preliminary report|Dutch report]] says the flight recorders were suddenly lost at 13:20:04 UTC at a point that almost exactly matches the 22.6 km mark. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 22:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Plume Location Re-challenged ===<br />
There is another video, essentially giving a bellingcat in voice-altered Russian. We discussed all that essentially; but he seems at least to end up with a claim for geolocation for the plume photo. Seems to be a new one (or I forgot the old one already by now). The claim is based on [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2055 unrelated panoramic photo] somebody took nearby, and [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2025 claimed to be geolocated by presenter]. Here it is on <br />
[http://maps.yandex.ru/-/CVG0nLo~ yandex map] ; it is taken from a terricon located at Lutuginskii bugor(=hill). There is a cableway from there to TsOF (remember, Khuevyi Torez tells about cableway from Lutugino to TsOF, so here they are); [http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=48.012722&lon=38.665695&z=14&m=b&show=/10590043/ru/ЦОФ-им-Киселёва TsOF is central enrichment plant]; photos from TSOF do show a similar [http://photos.wikimapia.org/p/00/00/62/81/85_big.jpg cableway] . So based on that and an audio of locals of unknown provenance and authenticity, discussing a missile-looking trail in the direction of [http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=48.041767&lon=38.741055&z=14&m=b&show=/18687650/ru/Химмаш Khimmash], our presenter [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2107 ends up] with this [http://maps.yandex.ru/-/CVG0rMnO claimed plume location] , somewhere near this Mochalino village. And apart from this, his contribution to the topic is the claim of a white spot on the other side of 3'2 Buk which he claims to match on the way out. I do not believe all those Buk sightings were taken on the same day, and so do not believe in the overall glue-up of the story, but geolocating the plume, no matter what the plume is, remains legitimate. This author gives his answer to that question. Is this geolocation correct? I do not know, it is not tight, there are lots of cableways out there I presume, and some posts nearby are not too unusual. I do not see a tight fit between Lutuginski bugor photo and the plume photo--some elements do match, but those are obviously not identical places. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 02:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Excellent. Let's keep the title. But I guess you just forgot the previous location. This is the same view. The plume could be added, but I doubt it, and it's to that view at a consistent time on a consistent day. I'm not convinced ''all'' Buk sightings are same day, but most of them being so is a good fit with this plume that way, and a plane down with damage that seems consistent to me. (I hate this case) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::Are you sure it's the same? This new one is NNE from Torez, I thought it was placed SE from Torez by [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/launch-location-detected-of-missile.html U@W ]--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::Going back to check, this is a different filming location proposed. Line of sight isn't included, but it seems to be the same line over the same area to the same place. Even before he could see the distinctive mound, Petros (U@W) had [http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-cfSqhRb2dKo/U80x2OxK1XI/AAAAAAAATNk/r42WpH-Bf-Q/s1600/missile+trail+9.jpg this lineup], which includes this spot. Right where Petros pic says "trees" is what this guy decided were the foreground trees where it was filmed. I wondered when checking but decided on the further version. And seems to be the same result either way. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::I don't think this is accurate, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2107 video at this timestamp] gives 'место пуска ракеты' (launch location) near [http://maps.yandex.ru/-/CVGgVPJN Molchalino]. I have not seen this elsewhere, I only seen the one claimed to be SE of Torez. He does not discuss filming location, but shows it on video and assumes it is in Torez near the terricon, which is close to what other sources assume. He does show the line of site on the video; it is nearly perpendicular to U@W. Lots of terricons, coalmines (so likely cableways), and power lines leading there in this area, so location now seems uncertain. As I understand, no solid evidence for either of these two being the correct geolocation (those cableways seems to be quite common) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::::I am/was confused then. I thought it showed a SW view, just from closer to the mound. Now I see at 33:45 a view from right by it, looking NE? Can't explain the other one you see in the distance in the fuller view (right ?) That's kind of towards Molchalino, but that won't explain anything I suspect. (and what a bad fake or odd coincidence to have a plume up there and a the Buk tracking imagery lead to south of Snizhne, oops!) We'll see south and west faces of buildings if looking NE, so sun will be shining from well east of south, but also quite high, like mid-day in the early AM - or maybe just earlier mid-day, like 11 am. That would be another sloppy mistake. I doubt the details will line up. BUT a couple minor things didn't quite seem to the other way, so maybe worth a try (later). --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I will send this comment also to<br />
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/01/27/is-this-the-launch-site-of-the-missile-that-shot-down-flight-mh17<br />
The US map launch location can best best and almost exactly located from the last magnified picture:<br />
https://wp4553-flywheel.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/32.jpg<br />
That location is here:<br />
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.9571993,38.7466343,488m/data=!3m1!1e3<br />
The triangulation result in the last 3 pictures of the article introduces unnecessary error and clearly does not match the magnified picture.<br />
There is a structure that looks similar to an airfield and it is just south of Chervony Zhovten (=Oktyabr), matching with a witness observation in that place ("it was flying as if from Saurivka", though not matching 2 other witnesses in the zello audio, indicating it came from government held positions further south, [2:00] "Well, it appears everybody saw where the missile has flown from." [2:04] "Well, where you are, everybody saw it, but the Ukrainian media, as usual, will say, will say that that were us.")<br />
It would be outside the range of the plume picture geolocation bounds, which may be either an error given the long distance, or, the plume picture was taken the day before from the reported grad missile launch (as well as the burned field). (The photographer gave his camera to the SBU after twittering the first picture, so later pictures and dates can not be taken for sure).<br />
http://7mei.nl/not-buk-m1-new-video-proof/--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 19:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:(1) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkCcCmYlMZc That audio], as it turns out, was posted by Torezinfo on 24 July, and updated on 1 February. Torezinfo is a favorite posting place of Khuevyi Torez(=KT), who posted a very [https://twitter.com/WowihaY/status/489914266439671808 similar location map on 17 July already]. KT mentions zello recordings on 25 July in the follow-up, so shortly after it gets on torezinfo. With all that stuff linked to this KT poster, I would not put much trust that any of that is genuine. (Or that this KT poster is not acting as a medium for SBU). (2)[http://fr1.sidcdn.net/maps/nsdc/2014/07/large/map-nsdc-2014-07-17-uk-w3000.jpg Ukrainian map] does give us some Ukrainian held area somewhere to the South, but from that map it is hard to tell where exactly opolchenie ends and UAF begins--(I would not know) (3) Actually, going from there, not likely to hit on the left side--so having it from Artemovsk (as Bezler told, indeed) seems most probable --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 21:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:: Here is another map http://liveuamap.com/e/2014/16-of-july-saurivka-is-bombarded-over-and-over-by-rus-grad?ll=47.907137219641115;38.75392913818363&zoom=8<br />
::And here is an article which says that both Marinovka and Tarany were held by National guard. http://www.interpretermag.com/ukraine-liveblog-day-149-russian-tanks-and-artillery-reach-donetsk/#3353<br />
::I just opened bellingcat https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/01/27/is-this-the-launch-site-of-the-missile-that-shot-down-flight-mh17 and see that large parts of the article disappeared, I think they are working on it. That location given by the US photo does not really match well with the plume direction anymore, lets see what they come up with--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 21:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::I believe Marinovka was [http://lifenews.ru/news/136715 taken by opolchenie on 16 July] (lifenews report). Tarany--do not know, perhaps still Ukraine, but not totally sure. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 21:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::: other sources say attack was repelled and forced them to retreat to Stepanivka http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_in_Shakhtarsk_Raion http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/213817.html--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 22:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::: That US photo launch location differs by an angle of about 11 (?) degrees from the brown line in the bellingcat plot (measured from the photographer's location). https://wp4553-flywheel.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/101.jpg (launch location is just visible below the letter 'p' of 'the word 'suspected'). I think this a lot and puts the 'plume' into question. But then there is only the US photo, which itself could be a production based on social media (or worse).--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 22:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Well some believed this is for real, then they got a case to answer [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/22/mh17-us-intelligence-russia-separatists-report Guardian: Photograph: US intelligence community] [https://twitter.com/barbarastarrcnn/status/491559153559932928/photo/1 @barbarastarrcnn] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
In the following, I assume that most of the social media pieces and leaked audio tapes are correct and connect the dots in a different way:<br />
<br />
1. On July 14, an Ukrainian Antonow 26 airplane was shot down by a missile near the Russian border town of Donetsk.<br />
http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/what-weapon-was-used-to-shot-down-ukraine-air-force-antonov-26-at-july-14/<br />
The video in above link showed the missile flying for 39 seconds until it hit. Only a BUK can fly that long, a manpad or Pantsir, also claimed to have been used, not (see first comment in link).<br />
<br />
2. According to a recorded audio tape published by the Ukrainian Secret Service SBU, rebels possessed a BUK ('BUK3x2') in the Donetsk area at least since July 14 ('we already have BUK'). At that date it may have been either on Russian or already rebel held territory.<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVAOTWPmMM4<br />
<br />
3. A social media search discovered only one other system in the area, capable of shooting down AN26 - a Pantsir. However, a Pantsir can't fly for 39 seconds. Based on a max.speed of 780m/s and max range of 20km, it can only fly for about 25s.<br />
http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.co.nz/2014/11/unnoticed-video-of-26-downing-confirms.html<br />
Therefore and because of the crew's intent to engage in the civil war, it is likely that AN26 was shot down by BUK3x2. Afterwards BUK3x2 had only 3 missiles left.<br />
<br />
4. On July 16, Ukrainian and rebel statements both confirmed the shoot down of a SU-25 plane near the "Marinivka border crossing", which is only a few kilometers south-south east of Pervomaiske, the destination of BUK3x2. Ukraine's defence ministry said: "It is likely that [the hit] was carried out by air-to-air rockets from the Russian air force which were patrolling the border in a pair." <br />
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-28345039<br />
This may have been another reason to install a BUK system in this area on the next day, leaving room for an accidental Ukrainian shoot down, apart from an accidental rebel shoot down and a willful Ukrainian false flag shoot down.<br />
<br />
5. On July 16, rebels fired grad missiles from a location near Pervomaiske. The plume may have been photographed as well by an SBU informant in Torez and twittered on the next day, claiming to show the launch of the missile hitting MH17.<br />
http://7mei.nl/not-buk-m1-new-video-proof/<br />
<br />
6. On July 17, BUK3x2 was seen in rebel territory on its way to Pervomaiske, south of Torez. Ukrainian SBU knew about the arrival latest since July 14 and about its destination latest July 17 morning, allowing a false flag operation from positions held nearby.<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVAOTWPmMM4<br />
<br />
7. There was an ongoing battle in the region with "fluent" contact lines. Marinivka and Tarany, about 8 kilometers south-east and south of Pervomaiske, were controlled by Ukrainian National Guard as well as all of the border region. Marinivka would match well with the direction of the Torez plume photo.<br />
http://liveuamap.com/e/2014/16-of-july-saurivka-is-bombarded-over-and-over-by-rus-grad?ll=47.907137219641115;38.75392913818363&zoom=8<br />
http://www.interpretermag.com/ukraine-liveblog-day-149-russian-tanks-and-artillery-reach-donetsk/#3353<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_in_Shakhtarsk_Raion<br />
<br />
8. The Russian Defense ministry claimed in a news conference, that on July 17, Ukraine installed several BUK system near rebel held areas.<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bNPInuSqfs#t=1567<br />
<br />
9. In a popular 'zello' audio recording, witnesses in the area were talking about the launch of the missile hitting MH17. A witness from "Oktyabr" (Chervony Zhovten) claimed "it was flying as if from Saurivka". <br />
Two other witnesses said:<br />
[2:00] "Well, it appears everybody saw where the missile has flown from."<br />
[2:04] "Well, where you are, everybody saw it, but the Ukrainian media, as usual, will say, will say that that were us."<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkCcCmYlMZc<br />
<br />
10. A Reuter's witness also claimed that the missile was fired from Kiev held territory. Reuters, however, said, "off camera, he said that it was launched from a nearby rebel site. Asked why originally he said the opposite he said it was because he was afraid of the rebels."<br />
In a new interview this witness claims that "off camera comments were just made up by the [Reuters] journalist".<br />
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=497_1427729491<br />
<br />
11. BUK3x2 was again photographed in Lugansk with its 3 missiles, no missile fired since July 14.<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4HJmev5xg0<br />
<br />
12. The US presented a very low resolution satellite photo with the track of a missile added. The launch location does not match well with the direction geolocated with the Torez plume photo, it deviates by about 11 degrees in angle, hence either or both appear to be incorrect.<br />
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/01/27/is-this-the-launch-site-of-the-missile-that-shot-down-flight-mh17/#comment-12493<br />
<br />
13. Award winning investigative journalist Robert Parry reported about leaked US intelligence "that U.S. intelligence agencies do have detailed satellite images of the likely missile battery that launched the fateful missile, but the battery appears to have been under the control of Ukrainian government troops dressed in what look like Ukrainian uniforms."<br />
https://consortiumnews.com/2014/07/20/what-did-us-spy-satellites-see-in-ukraine/<br />
And later Parry wrote: "But I’m now told that U.S. intelligence analysts ... are concentrating on the scenario of a willful Ukrainian shoot-down of the plane, albeit possibly not knowing its actual identity."<br />
https://consortiumnews.com/2014/08/03/flight-17-shoot-down-scenario-shifts/<br />
<br />
14. During the coming months BUK shrapnel may have been collected from the AN26 wreckage and planted in the MH17 wreckage.--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 00:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Photographer Statement===<br />
[http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com.au/2014/12/interview-with-eyewitness-who-made.html Reported to say] : "That day did not foretell anything special would happen. In the morning I woke up and went to my work. At four ó clock in the afternoon I arrived home. And at 16:20 we heard an explosion. The first explosion was not very heavy. 15 seconds later, something like that, there was a second explosion, which was louder and it made the windows shake."<br />
: Did not foretell --an ass, --is this lawyer-written? 'We heard". --Took till December to polish up ? --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 16:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:: Agreed. 'I did not know in advance this would happen.' Uh, who said you might? And 15 seconds must be rocket travel. Did he hear the firing from there? Could be, not that far. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Time delay consideration ===<br />
Photographer reported two sound booms td=15 seconds apart; an interpretation may be launch and impact sounds arriving to him in Torez. If P=(0,0,0) is photographer cordinates, I=(d,0, h) is impact, with d ground distance between Torez and Rozypnoe, h is the height of flight at 10 km , and L =(x,y,0) is launch location, dist(A,B) is Euclidean distance between A and B, c is peed of sound, and n (about 2.5) is missile speed in Machs, then<br />
<br />
(1). dist (P,L) = dist(L,I)/n + dist (I,P) - td*c <br />
<br />
(2). dist (P,L) >= h/n + dist (I,P) - td*c <br />
<br />
(1) is a biquadratic equation for y given x (square enough times for square root to disappear); plotting that gives a closed 'ellipse-like' curve on (x,y) plane; once on that curve, time delay is exactly td seconds (doing this involves solving quadratic equations and removing spurious solutions not satisfying (1) ) . That curve is at distance about 13 km in NW direction from photographer in Torez, and about 22 km in SE direction from him on the Southern ( Saur Mogila side). <br />
<br />
(2) gives a simple estimate that distance between photographer and launcher is greater than the known right hand side; that distance is more than something like 13 km<br />
<br />
(3) Requiring launch withing the range, --launch is not more than 20 km horizontally from the impact-- selects a NW arc of the curve described in (1) ; that arc is to the NW from Torez, and goes slightly NW from the impact point (meaning its ground projection). <br />
<br />
Conclusion, based on the above, is that launch is too far from the photographer, to match the photo. <br />
<br />
(Knowing exact time delay can tighten the argument. With what's actually known, and objection can be raised that whatever actual time delay was, it appeared to be 15 seconds to the photographer. Graphics of the curve may be supplied if needed). --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Ooh. That kind of math could really come in handy with recorded audio cues, for example. But based on '15 seconds, something like that,' from memory months later, I wouldn't put any weight on it. If that turns out correct and pretty exact, there's a good point. Otherwise, the photo and other stuff is more solid, and says it's just about where it should be, as far as I've seen anyway. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Contrail ==<br />
This is what an "impressive launch contrail" of a big missile might look like.<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3lLwP1y0w8 АТО. Запуск двух ТРК Точка-У. Артемовск.] (ATO. The launch of two TRK Tochka-U. Artemivs'k.) – August 28, 2014<br />
-- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 22:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Something happens in the sky. This is the people's reaction:<br />
* ''20/09/2014 Over many parts of the DPR and LPR were seen circles in the sky.'' [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7310 1,] [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7311 2,] [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7312 3,] [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7313 4,] [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7314 5]<br />
-- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 03:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
Tochka U missile is single stage solid fuel, which is a mixture of ammonium perchlorate with rubber and aluminum powder (Russian [http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/tochka/9ch151.shtml "ДАП–15В" fuel] ).<br />
I could not find information on Buk with a comparable level of detail. Buk missile is single stage, solid fuel of some type, "dual-mode solid propellant (total work time - about 15 seconds)" [http://www.webcitation.org/67kZeZxeh] , [http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-9K37-Buk.html]<br />
Earlier "Куб" ("Cube") missile used [http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/kub/kub.shtml 'ballist' fuel,] [https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%85#.D0.91.D0.B0.D0.BB.D0.BB.D0.B8.D1.81.D1.82.D0.B8.D1.82.D0.BD.D1.8B.D0.B5 gunpowder] + plasticiser type (Russian "ВИК-2") at the start, followed by some sort of ramjet ("direct flow rocket engine") at final stage. It is not clear, but possible, that fuels and contrails of Tochka U and Buk are different. Here are some videos with Buk launch: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDXScnEKaP0] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EAtNpsXrgWs], and [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSXMhaFntrU a longer with stupid music version]. Those videos appear to be shot from a closer distance than Tochka U video; and a contrail on them does look quite impressive. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 10:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:The amount of smoke is highly dependant om Alumin(i)um loading. In general more aluminum is more 'oomph' and also more smoke.<br />
:On the other hand, it's common to alter the loading for other reasons. I refer to the Syrian Volcano (122mm variety) that started out as high Al-load and quite smokey but recent versions have low Al load but perhaps similar characteristics? --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 10:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Here is something that might be a BUK: Ukrainian AN-26 shot down from Russian border area on July 14th. Ukraine@war claims it as a BUK. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 10:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
* [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.fi/2014/11/unnoticed-video-of-26-downing-confirms.html Unnoticed video of AN-26 downing confirms shot down from Russian territory] – Ukraine@war, November 27, 2014<br />
** Video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoS4kgHxPnE Ukrainian Military Aircraft Su-25 Downed After Russian Attack Near Izvarino, July 16]<br />
:::Does not look like Buk, short contrail, --not all the way to the ground like on Buk video launches. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::It was a BUK. It flew 39 seconds in the video, a Pantsyr can't do this, see also first comment in this link http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/what-weapon-was-used-to-shot-down-ukraine-air-force-antonov-26-at-july-14/. Easy maths - at Mach 3 (1020m/s) it can fly for about 42 seconds (range 42 km, bit more because initially it is slower). According to the audio tape, BUK 3x2 was in the area on that day! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVAOTWPmMM4 Ukraine@war needed 5 months to find something else in the area, but the Pantsyr can't fly that long. This is how BUK 3x2 likely lost a missile.--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 21:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::::Well, yes, it does takes 42 seconds to fly 42 km at 1000 m/s , but that does not mean what we see '''must be''' a Buk. They start discussing that plane caught fire at 0:03 on the video already. We do not see what on hell is going on until some 30 s later. This plane likely was brought down by Igla or similar modern MANPAD. Possibly two hits, at 0:03 and another at around 0:30. Or it got on fire at the start of the video and than eventually went down (It is unlikely to have SU 25 pilot bailing out after Buk strike; or particularly likely catching fire as it's not aiming at the engine; contrail is weak for a Buk, too). Pantsir claims are much later from what I have seen,--- and no need for Pantsir to shoot SU 25. ---If something is there on SBU audio and some murky photo, does not mean it's all for real, and that what we do actually see all have to be linked to all that murky SBU stuff. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 22:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::::There may be some confusion here, just a recapture<br />
::::::First video https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xTT6BDRA8_k<br />
::::::0:03-0:11 buring object <br />
::::::0:17-0:33 contrail making a half looping<br />
::::::Second video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoS4kgHxPnE<br />
::::::0:29-0:39 contrail making a half looping + detonation.<br />
::::::ukraine@war http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/11/unnoticed-video-of-26-downing-confirms.html<br />
::::::says both videos show AN26 shoot down on July 14 (second video with wrong label SU-25)<br />
::::::says 2nd video impact at 0:39, claims missile has been burning for at least 39 seconds--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 06:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::::::After reconsideration, I would say ukraine@war is right, both videos show AN26 shoot down, but wrong, people were initially watching AN26 with engine burning and a second missile was fired. That missile was seen burning about 16 seconds in first video, and time has to be added to reach that altitude/location, so likely over 20 seconds. That would exclude man-pad, Pantsir (?), likely BUK, R73 air-to-air, ...--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 06:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Actually, it is interesting to know how contrail of Buk on a long haul launch looks like. It is said that it fires engine for some 15 seconds only (and unknown will it do less, if it can do away with less). That 15 seconds need to put it at a spot where it can reach the target with little, if any, engine work and doing turns only. It is not very clear how much targeting happens in the first 15 seconds, likely it does some; and it is self-guided and doing proportional navigation later on. Knowing details here allows to find exact trajectory, short of that thinking it goes straight to the collision point is a sensible idea. In any case, heavy contrail '''raising from the ground''', perhaps higher than the target is. Contrail is white, and stays put for a while. Seriously heavier than the stuff we see on social media. There are youtube videos of Buk launches giving an idea --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:These 15 seconds are wrong. Here is a video (start at 2:00) showing a SA-11 burn fuel for 35 seconds until its too far to distinguish. It is detonating at 42 seconds. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBlU2hHYJMg (I just copied the comment from here http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/what-weapon-was-used-to-shot-down-ukraine-air-force-antonov-26-at-july-14/ )--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 23:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::That video probably shows a modern version ('over horizon' capability was mentioned somewhere regarding modern developments; this one seems to be showing us something like that). 15 sec is coming from Russian sources [http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/buk/buk.shtml Зенитная ракета 9М38 выполнена с применением двухрежимного твердотопливного двигателя (общее время работы - около 15 секунд)]. Older versions also had shorter listed range. 22-25-35-42 km range, going through modifications. (Would be happier without 15 sec engine limit actually-easier to know trajectory) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::Actually what goes off is [https://digitalempire.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/9m38m1.jpg 9M38M1], the one supposed to have [http://pvo.guns.ru/buk/buk_02.htm 15 sec engine run], but the video lasts for 40 sec. This appears to be edited video, around 2:30 we got two tracks, than one slides right unreasonably for a natural recording. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 02:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::Since this is a point we haven't already covered around that I know of, I'll pop in for it. 42 seconds I gather is the time for the fuel to burn out and the thing to fall, like a grad rocket or the like can only do. But this is a missile with guidance, set to intercept a moving airliner. Therefore, app. 40-45 seconds is the longest, not the shortest, it can fly (or am I just confused?) But 15 seconds is plausible, depending. Still might be untrue, not trusting people saying stuff. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::::After the engine is off it is high up and and at high speed, still can fly until gravity acceleration brings it down, and is on guided flight -unlike Grad-because fins can move causing it to turn. Issues here are visuals (contrail all the way or only about 15 km in flight), and trajectory. With engine on for 40 +secs it will go straight to collision point doing proportional navigation all the way (exploding earlier if it needs to be). If it is only 15 sec, trajectory is less clear, it may for example use engine to climb high up, than do guided fall and proportional navigation to the target from a spot where engine delivered it (for low and close-by target, that may potentially end up with a hit from another side--some drawings from unclear sources were showing opposite side hits at under 1 km and direct hits at 10-15 km). Or it may use engine to end up on a ballistic trajectory hitting target (no side changing than). This is solid fuel engine so there is not much control on how quickly it burns off, that time is a set design feature. What we see on launch video is 40+ seconds of engine work-- will go direct to collision point in that case. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 12:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::::That's another clue that plume of smoke photo is not a Buk launch, that would give at least some 10-15 km worth of contrail, not a plume; with 40+seconds engine, contrail all the way to impact...(or else, launched from far away, over 40 km distance) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 12:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==About accents==<br />
<br />
[http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29109398 This report,] released one day before the preliminary official report, recycles visual imagery already discussed on this page, and attempts a new claim that a BUK crew spoke with Russian-'Muscovite' accent. The claim is made by (British-accent) actors representing 'eyewitness(es)', with a visual imagery of a car at unknown night-lighted location in the embedded video, and some text, provided in English. Regarding 'Muscovite' accent, first it is not easy to tell, for example [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBCfmlMkYMg this video] is Mr. Poroshenko speaking in Russian to a resident of Crimea, replying in Russian, and commented by a presenter, who is speaking 'Muscovite'. Although Mr. Poroshenko has a slight southern accent, there is little difference between the three speakers in practice. Moreover, actors and presenters can easily switch from Southern to Muscovite as required. <br />
<br />
Secondly, if somebody speaks 'Muscovite', this does not mean this person works for Russia or the rebels,--- he can work for any side (PS. No change of condition to the blue dumpster on Zuhres video was reported in this latest update). --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Thanks for bringing this. What a stupid report. "Three eyewitnesses, all civilians, separately told Panorama that they saw a missile-launcher in rebel-held territory a few hours before the Boeing jet was hit." Yeah, video shows the same. It was there. It probably shot down the plane. Accents, as you note, aren't the best indicator of anything, and even the reason sounds vague: the G thing, which even I know about (back to Olga/Olha). The "Russians" might even be Russian dissident mercenaries right from Moscow, for all we know. Who paid them? Their going up to the media and saying "you didn't see us" was not a good plan to stay secret. The witnesses: chosen at random? Directed to them? <br />
::''If correct, the Kremlin has to explain to the relatives of the 298 passengers and crew who died - including ten Britons - why Russian military personnel were allegedly seen in the area escorting a BUK shortly before MH17 was shot down.''<br />
:I think Russia could come up with a reason or two such allegations are made. Those ten Britons' tax dollars fund it. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: Hmm, this foreigner is confused by dat BBC talk: "If correct" ... doesn't that mean it ''wouldn't be'' merely "allegedly" but, well, correct? ;oP --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 23:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::It means "If {made up vague allegation) is correct....then "SHOCK HORROR CONCLUSION IS TRUE". this lets them be as wild or wide off the mark as they like and the magic "if correct" turns it true. Without any effort to check if it IS true in our understanding of that word.[[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 03:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::Another BBC weapon in its arsenal of innuendo and dissimulation is the quotation mark. Whenever they are dealing with something of dodgy provenance, or something of good provenance they want to weaken they put it in quotation marks. e.g. - ISIS beheaded 20 Syrians. becomes ISIS 'beheaded 20 Syrians' or 'ISIS' beheaded 20 Syrians or ISIS 'beheaded' 20 'Syrians' or ISIS beheaded '20' Syrians. No need for corrections later. Any version can be retrospectively justified or otherwise. --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 03:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== If Buk 3x2 Was in Russia ==<br />
Previously, it seemed quite likely the Buk launcher associated with the shoot-down was one of those owned and operated by the Kiev regime, simply snuck into separatist territory, maybe with some cover to make them even invite it in like a Trojan Horse. Then, I saw the November Bellingcat research on "Buk 3x2." As covered [[#Bellingcat and 3x2|above,]] this claims to match that unit with a distinct one seen three weeks earlier, driving in a military convoy well inside Russian territory. This is widely taken as clear proof the Russian military supplied the weapons, and it is strongly indicative of that. However, the general possibilities are worth laying out at this point.--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
All options below share these presumptions: <br />
* MH17 was brought down by the missing SA-11 missile AND/OR (in some cases) at least the launcher's appearance was coordinated to give that impression and is a clue to the plot <br />
* The videos and photos in question are genuine and not manipulated (my usual presumption, same here)<br />
* The Russia geolocations (many of them, making sense in context) are correct - Buk 3x2 as seen was seen in Russia, between Kurk, Stary Oskol, and a bit south of there (not verified but most likely correct) <br />
<br />
Presuming all that:<br />
* Buk 3x2 (seen in Russia) and the mystery one are not the same - this require paint job match and matching damage to the lip above the track to make a Kiev-owned unit look like that one. It's possible, but not the most compelling.<br />
* The two units are the same - it was in the convoy in Russia and also towed around Donetsk oblast July 17. <br />
<br />
If the unit is the same, there are a few possibilities for the nature of that connection, some of them silly or just there for logical fullness:<br />
* It was Kiev's unit and they snuck it over and into this convoy, and...<br />
** ... got it back later<br />
** ... the Russians kept it and used it for their own operation<br />
* It was Kiev's but some other way lost to the Russians <br />
* It was Russia's but Kiev managed to sneak over and steal it out of the convoy and then use it for the false-flag event<br />
* Same, but Donbass rebels then stole it from Kiev <br />
* It was Russian, and someone on the Russian side drove it over and then it was stolen by Kiev forces <br />
* Someone on the Russian side drove it over and it stayed in their control or handed over to their chosen parties, or transferred at the border - that is, no Kiev interference.<br />
<br />
So far, I'm inclined to call Bellingcat's reading (the last option, the widely accepted one) the single most reasonable one, though maybe outweighed by the ''combined'' alternatives. It's not fun to feel almost swayed to a view so close to Kiev's problematic narrative, but this is what I see, pretty basic. Some combined maybes go against the straightforward reading. As for other thoughts I might be missing, well, that's partly why it's here. Let me know, I'm all ears. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Starting from that reasonable if unproven last option, not one but three final types of possibility remain. If it was freely moving in convoy inside Russia, it probably belongs to Russia at the time. Presumed. However, it could be that...<br />
* '''A rogue officer''' at Kursk - maybe a closet Nazi who sympathizes with Kiev, hates Putin, or just took a bribe - provided this unit to Kiev. He would set up this convoy to anchor the thing in Russia, then send the shady unit on, with his own guys or to hand off to Kiev's, who took it from there as I've speculated. The strangely obvious manner it was displayed - on both sides of the border, with its number slowly fading away - is consistent with this motive + intelligence. <br />
* '''It happened as reported''' (one way or another) Putin's military signed off on the loan, apparently with a sent crew or maybe given to local handlers, who for their own purposes did fire that shot. The strangely obvious manner it was displayed is consistent with this + stupidity/sloppiness, providing proof that probably wasn't even needed, just helpful, to start the punishment. At that point, it would be a real problem about as trumpeted, and still I would suggest we consider what the real crime is under the circumstances, if the solutions pursued are fair, or if this is all just geo-politics and warfare by other means cloaked in a cynical disguise of concern for justice. ^ <br />
* '''Koo-koo (?):''' "as reported plus" - a mega conspiracy theory: it goes all the way to the top, and Putin is that rogue general selling the nation out, to demonize himself and Russia and be sure to get caught, in an elaborate staged play - Putin (or whoever's running things presumed to be run by HIM) is somehow controlled, his opposition scripted and ultimately geared towards provoking and achieving an expansion of "The West" into "The North." (I've always considered this possible, and one that's occurred to me more lately, and seems worth listing ... but I don't buy it. I'm going with "rogue officer" with a second bet on one of the other divergence points listed before that - unspecified. Third choice is "as reported.")--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::^ Not to apologize for egregious behavior if it really is that, but let's please compare this to the shoot-down of Iran Air 655 by the USS Vincennes in 1988. A US Naval ship illegally in Iranian waters shot down an Iranian passenger plane with 290 people aboard, despite all the safeguards and sensors working correctly (the consistent clues the ship's computers gave them saying "do not shoot" can only be overridden so totally by choice). But it was deemed by the US to be no crime, just accident and Iran's fault for being provocative, and useful in the effort to compel them to quit the war with Iraq they were just starting to win. In Ukraine, repeated Air Force attacks on rebel-held cities, often hiding their jets behind civilian airliners, might both justify arming the rebels with such defensive weaponry, and invite an honest mistake from a team running this machine in stand-alone mode. The SBU version however overrides this all: it was an accident, but the Russians' intent was never defensive, always planning to kill an airliner, just meaning it to be a different one. That would clearly be criminal in all regards, and it's a sub-set of "as reported" - not a very good one. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Sorry, I can't help you here as I don't share your presumptions. I consider it a waste of time and energy to connect dots that are laid out by "sources" like the SBU and Brown Noses - proven liars and at least in case of the former producers of fraud "evidence" - and therefore I didn't even read your logical chains based on them. Just saying to not make it appear that I agree. ;o) --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 10:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:Poking at specific presumptions could be helpful, but it all could go on and on and remain inconclusive anyway. And I take back what I say about leaning this way or that - I keep leaning different ways and on balance I'm feeling sort of weightless here. I think that comes through in the text... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I don't see the numbers matching, getting close is not good enough, and I quit it there. Yes, it is weird that they are close, and that this murky business is covered by Spiegel, but can't really help with any of that. There is lots of murky weird stuff going on all the time, can't change the whole world to stop it. (Also: the Russian Government would be fully capable of doing a painting job properly if deciding to starting painting at all, their food trucks are all nicely painted, etc; just too sloppy for them to be behind) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:The paint being what it is, between that and the bend and light patch below all lining up, I think we're down to the same unit, or faked to match, and the possibilities branching off those two. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::As discussed earlier, the dot is shifted off the middle, more on Russian video than in PM photo; in Russian video, number 2 has well-curved semi-circle; in PM, it is almost straight segment. Bad photos for comparison but it's off, as far as it's possible to tell. As for the skirt bend, too blurry and distorted on PM to tell; Russian video, I think it is actually dirt, not a bend. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Also, looks like two squares , a bit darker than background, over first digit in PM photo. Unclear is it paint or digital camera effect. Any sane person hiding something will paint over everything, not paint just specifically over the first digit. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::I think I got everything linesd up - it has to be de-skewed the same, and all ines up. You might be scraping bottom on this one. The curve is there, at its elongated part, at an angle. The dent/dirt looks the same, same place, relative to the light patch and all else. It's too much for coincidence by a couple of degrees. BUT I just shifted back to option ... should have numbered them. ... the middle starting option - image authenticity. I hardly ever call digital image fakery, and not calling it here, but... I still haven't checked the new (to us) June videos, so I'll stay presuming it might be okay - video's harder to fake than a photo. But on the other end, it all comes down to the one photo. That I noticed, no other views are close enough to say if these matching clues are present. (the bend, maybe). The squares you noticed, maybe a paint clue or just artifacting. It may too pixelly. I cannot really analyze the technicals properly to say. It looks okay, but possibly fishy too. Maybe the dirty windshield helps hid the painted in pixels to make this thing - just once - or maybe again in other images - look like that Russian 3x2 unit, exaggerated and going into rebel hands... Some kind of coincidences setting that up to work, but it's possible, and an expert should look closer at this picture. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC) <br />
::::I, --at the very start of discussion,-- zoomed picture on screen (by a lot), and measured length ratios (to the dot/ total panel length), parallel to the 2 sides of the panel, using ruler (millimeters one) over screen. I ended up with ratios in horizontal side of panel directions were off, by more than blurring; in vertical, could not tell-within blurring. This is not sensitive to skewing or zooming. So I don't think it's the same. May double-check measurement when have time; or somebody else can. Did not have time to try doing digital version of the same/similar method. Did not look carefully at comparison the 2 after de-skewing , but have an impression this is different; not that much skewing there; it looks essentially straight line on PM, skewing will not make circle into a line. May look at 2's some other time. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::::Finally took a closer look and PM was still off a bit on rotation and vertical-to-horizontal - in line with your observations. Still working out the adjusted graphic. The white is shifted a bit left of lining up perfectly... I think it's still close enough it's the same or is supposed to be, and not far enough off I'd call a bad fake - probably just pixel shift. Will see tonight. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 00:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Okay, I don't have a comprehensible graphic handy yet, but Maybe Resup is seeing what I am now. I was having a hard time aligning it all, so focused just one the one rectangle panel with the number. Still, on the PM photo I trace apparent edges, best line of dark pixels ... it lines up, proportion-wise, with the white spots on or a hair to apparent left. But when the whole image is placed by lining up that center, the rest of it doesn't line up - both sides seem shifted right, or the middle shifted left. (also the track areas appear far to the left, but they stick out a bit, and from the back angle flattened like this, that's why. Each difference in relief from "true flat" plane of the side will cause this... maybe I'm just not correlating it right, and maybe it's a clue the photo is messed with. possible offsets in both white patches as well, but maybe too in the natural fuzz zone. ?? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
If the launcher was driven over the Russian border, fired once then driven back again after it had carried out its mission, the part of the story that doesn't make sense is the sighting on a stolen flatbed truck outside Donetsk. If the Russians were prepared to supply a launcher but not a truck, the stolen truck would have had to be driven to the border to be loaded and there'd be no reason to risk a journey back to Donetsk. The west to east journey is more consistent with CL's original suggestion of a launcher from the Ukrainian base north of Donetsk. If this was a false flag, there would have had to be a paint job to give it Russian markings (maybe to match one in a recent video). Otherwise the videos would point to separatists with a captured Ukrainian BUK, leaving the Ukrainian government liable for failing to close its airspace when it knew that a BUK had gone missing. [[User:Pmr9|Pmr9]] ([[User talk:Pmr9|talk]]) 16:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:Now this sounds engaged, thanks P. Yes, why drive it to Donetsk? (Other than to be seen in the smoking-gun rebel capitol, before getting seen in Lugansk too) And I never thought of that why it had to be Russian. Indeed, for liability reasons, it had to be a snuck-in surprise, not captured (unless they could come up with a reason why they didn't learn about it, and I suppose they could). The suggestion has problems and was slow to gain adherents, but maybe this kind of thought has swayed people to realize Kiev "must be right" about that... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Sunday Times story: original is behind paywall but reprint [http://malaysiandigest.com/news/531506-ukraine-ignored-warning-to-close-malaysia-airlines-flight-mh17-airspace-before-tragedy.html here]. Eurocontrol's experts "spoke privately to their Ukrainian counterparts" about their concerns but Ukraine refused to close its airspace. "Ukraine intelligence sources said they had been made aware that several anti-aircraft systems had crossed from Russia into Ukraine at least a week before the MH17 incident. But they claimed the intelligence was not “100 per cent reliable” and could not have been used as grounds for 'drastic moves' such as shutting airspace". [[User:Pmr9|Pmr9]] ([[User talk:Pmr9|talk]])<br />
:::Okay, well there's a train headed this way then. Several units? The whole June convoy? We do have this alleged maybe-Buk launch just before on July 14, an associated loader seen later, etc. And Ukie intel somehow did point to this number "312" you can't see on the unit they tracked so quickly. Did they already have that obscure Russian video everyone missed until now? And more yet showing the "1" still there? That early on? (that's all very speculative, but interesting). It has to be snuck in, maybe, but then it helps that you can vouch for it - so they fudge and average this aspect. Main point then seems to be, whatever failures they mumble out on their own end, it has to implicate both Russia (provided weapon) and the rebels (held the space needing demonized).--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references /></div>Antidyatelhttps://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17/BUK_Tracking&diff=23638Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/BUK Tracking2015-08-03T06:16:18Z<p>Antidyatel: /* Time? */ source of 9am claim</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:MH17]]<br />
==Who Has the BUK Launchers in Ukraine?==<br />
=== Kiev's Holdings ===<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3MomxNHnUA#t=288 Ukrainian Buk in ATO area], 16 July 2014. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 23:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC) <br />
*[http://sputniknews.com/europe/20150607/1023057320.html Twitter users found an announcement on the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense website detailing the transfer of a Buk-M1 system to the Ukrainian military over a month before the MH17 disaster]--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 18:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
*[https://twitter.com/wowihay/status/489814576452878336 wowihay] И они говорят у них нет #БУК'ов ? Еще 08.05.14 в #Краматорск=And they say they have no Buks? Already on 08.05.14 in [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1Oztlf4nYM #Краматорск]<br />
: google gdata no longer seems to work--what happened? but a user posted gdata earlier: Олег Гинзбург 10 months ago Опубликовано=published 2014-05-09T03:02:09.000Z (но деревья голые=but trees have no leafs) Обновлено=reposted 2014-07-19T12:29:10.000Z. Has Ukrainian style markup 121. <br />
и еще= [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGYfFeGRh90 and also]<br />
:Ukrainian-style markup 332, and one more Buk in his company --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:07, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CBQbFC9loc#t=350 Captured map] of 1 battalion of UAF 95 air-mobile brigade, dated beginning of July 2014, show location of 2 positions of Ukrainian Buks. Basurin points them on the map; but video resolution is insufficient to see those. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 05:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
:Maps can be faked, but still I'm curious what it shows. I imagine there might be a flat image of the map somewhere. Resup, could you maybe have a look? It's too slow for me to try an image search with translated words. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
::I have not seen the map in news reports mentioning the finding; and now I see it says explicitly that they are not going to make it public, [http://real-info.info/novorossiya/13429-vlasti-dnr-ne-budut-obnarodovat-karty-vsu-do-okonchaniya-rassledovaniya-krusheniya-mh17 until MH 17 investigation is completed]--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 23:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::Here is a press conference report--with video but not the map --[https://vk.com/strelkov_info?w=wall-57424472_57351 (Basurin press conference)]--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 23:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
It is possible to understand what it means when they say Ukr army controlled territory. But what is rebel controlled territory. Even if we take the maximum estimate for rebel numbers in July 2014 of 10,000 fighters, it gives a fraction of a rebel per square km, if we assume uniform distribution. In reality rebels very concentrated in Lughansk, Donetzk, Saur Mogila, 2 cauldrons. So everything else is free for all territory. When MSM declares rebel controlled territory, they just rely on Kiev's maps. Very reliable source. --[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 13:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)-- Antidyatel June 6<br />
:That's a good point that really came into play with the [[Mariupol market shelling]] incident - turns out all this eastern fire form rebel-held areas is from areas listed by Kiev as places they don't have full control over, that any crazy thing could happen from and it's prob'ly not them. Might even be a section on that here, if not, could be. There is an apparent pass right through a checkpoint, basically where the Pari Match "photo" was taken. That at least is a problem for a simple slip-in op, but it can be done and otherwise the theory could explain a lot (like, everything maybe) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC) <br />
<br />
<br />
==== BUK 312 and comrades ====<br />
[[File:Buk 312 sbu.jpg|thumb|left|BUK 312 on a trailer. Photo shown on SBU website and later removed. – ''[[:File:Buk 312 sbu.jpg|more...]]'']]<br />
Part of the material the Ukrainian SBU released to suggest that "rebels" shot down MH17 with a BUK, was photo material showing a BUK TELAR numbered 312 on a trailer, alleging it has been photographed on its way back to Russia. This was quickly shown to be extremely questionable as evidence surfaced showing number 312 in Ukrainian hands. The SBU then removed the photos from their website while other material like a suggestive photo showing a "plume" remained there. <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Buk 321.png|thumb|TELAR 321 as posted by @MOR2537 to illustrate what he alleges to have witnessed]]<br />
This was outlined (and a screenshot saved) in more detail [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/07/21/the-mh17-investigation-and-buk-312/ over at Human Rights Investigations]. A [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bj-VZB0ZdEA video embedded there] shows BUK 312 in Ukrainian hands back in March. The other two TELAR's seen in the video are numbers 323 and 321. BUK 321 [http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Ukrainian+government+forces+maneuver+antiaircraft+missile+launchers+they+transported+north+west+from+Slavyansk+eastern+Ukraine+Friday+July+2014+Photo+Dmitry+Lovetsky/10004193/story.html has been seen] in Ukrainian hands just two weeks before MH17 crashed, transported close to "liberated" Slavyansk. <br />
<br />
Interestingly enough, one of the tweets [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com/2014/07/reconstruction-of-whereabouts-of-buk.html spoon-fed by Ukrainian loyalists to imaginative Dutch blogger Ukraine@War] to suggest that there have been eyewitnesses for a "rebel" BUK, is then [https://twitter.com/MOR2537/status/489709431467171841 followed-up by the alleged eyewitness] with a picture of BUK 321 to illustrate what he has seen. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::yep, he is a conduit for Kiev but seems to have outside info, too. Like originals of photos he can get geolocations off (he says). But also has good collection of very early photos etc which have since become hard to find.Not sure I trust him though. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 15:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::I hadn't seen that before, thanks. I'll be considering... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 22:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: More photos: [http://www.armyrecognition.com/images/stories/east_europe/russia/missile_vehicle/sa-11_gadfly/pictures/sa-11_gadfly_anti-aircraft_missile_to_armoured_tracked_vehicle_Russian_army_russia_011.jpg 321] - [http://rt.com/files/news/2a/b1/40/00/640x480.jpg 312] - [http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1870560.1405614701!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_970/correction-ukraine.jpg 321] --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:Buk 312 in Lugansk.png|thumb|left|According to alleged former operator "A", this is BUK 312 after relocation sometime in Spring 2014 in Metallist settlement of Lugansk, with Yubileynaya mines in the background]]<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmI2KCOt_sA Anatolii Sharii] version of events, shows that Buk blamed on Russia has number 312 and was earlier photographed as part of Ukrainian convoy. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 20:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Sharii interviewed a Ukrainian soldier who served on Buk 312; this can be found on [http://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/1947657.html Cassad]. The guy does not know about MH17; but recalls SBU claiming it was this Buk 312 responsible. From this interview, meaning of 312: 3 is division number, 1 battery number, 2 unit number in a battery (there are loading and command vehicles, not just launchers). This UAF Buk is initially from Luhansk; than relocated to Kramatorsk; than places in a field. A serviceman took it on a ride with hand break on, leading to a small fire affecting electrics and requiring repairs. So it was traveling on a trailer at some point. It was than moved to Dnepropetrovsk, village of Novogrigorievka (apparently for repairs, and after trailer photo was taken, but exact date was not given). Buks from Luhansk which were not broken were moved by UAF elsewhere (and according to the soldier, were photographed in variaous places including Gorlovka; while 3 broken Buks remained in Luhansk) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: Interesting. I see that the "[http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Ukrainian+government+forces+maneuver+antiaircraft+missile+launchers+they+transported+north+west+from+Slavyansk+eastern+Ukraine+Friday+July+2014+Photo+Dmitry+Lovetsky/10004193/story.html has been seen]" link to the Montreal Gazette is dead by now. If anything I'm surprised that it lasted that long. Minitrue at work. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 04:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: [http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2014/12/17/shooting-down-mh-17-buk-312-story-false- Here] (and mirrored [http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2014/12/17/buk-312-crew-member-says-rebel-shoot-down-of-flight-mh17-story-is-false-transcript/ here]) is an English translation of the interview. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: And [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2rRCSNp33I here] is the video itself with English subtitles. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 20:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:What you said about the accident and the photo showing the damaged BUK on a trailer is about the very photo the SBU showed on their website as "evidence" and later removed. Also adding that he says friends in Lugansk saw "rebels" trying to repair the units they had left behind, but he knows that "whole equipment units" were lacking so the remaining stuff was "unusable". And that he says that he asked his ex-comrades still operating the BUK if they dunnit, and they said they didn't. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Good to see this section expand. Interesting additions from the alleged operator, and reasonable-sounding (the photo might show smoke stains to the back left side). But in the end, this issue might be not so relevant. I doubt it was Kiev's unit 312 that was used, and seeing how Kiev always was eyeing a supposedly Russian unit 3x2, maybe 312 ... In fact, if the middle number connotes unit number, and it's done the same, the launcher is always 1 and it would be 312 (or is that mixed-up?) So maybe all this really shows is how Kiev knew but didn't want to say all along, implausibly picking their own 312 to illustrate that knowledge with an embarrassing but harmless "error", while awaiting ... as it turns out, the independent Bellingcat investigation that finds 3x2 somehow in Russia... That tracked this ludicrous Buk field trip, as presented and followed on this page, which almost seems tailor-made for them, but Kiev wants us to know they they were secretly on the ball too from the start. (all thoughts in progress, a bit distracted too) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::::If SBU wanted to point out they knew the TELAR had number 312, why would they publish the photo in [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmI2KCOt_sA such a low resolution] that the number could not be read? -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 21:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: As Resup summarized, 1 is the battery number. The leading 3 means it's from the Lugansk division. If this is true, the fact that 312, 321 and 323 have been seen together on video in March perfectly fits with what the alleged operator said: That they were removing units in usable state from (all batteries of the division) Lugansk early on, leaving the crap behind. And the view that the SBU just published everything they could find to fit their tale that the "rebels" used a BUK to down the plane, including this photo, cut-together and taken out of context audio tapes and that ridiculous "plume" pic, and the 3x2 bellingcat nonsense from lately is meant to distract from these facts, is much simpler and straight forward than what you tried to come up with here on the fly. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::Ah, I see it now, not when I was typing, sorrys. Middle number could be anything, bust mostly we always see low numbers, so odds are good it was a "1". 3 means from Lugansk if that's true (presuming so) and it's Ukrainian. Diff. number paintjob though, as noted below. But I'm sure the Ukies just faked this exact 312 to a different style of 312 and then painted it out partly, and just let it slip with the one photo of how it looked before...? We'll have a hard time agreeing here, as the stuff you just dismiss as "nonsense" looks kind of like possible evidence with details I'm sort of trying to consider. I don't see how you can just ignore it as if it must be wrong somehow, and all made up to distract from ... this 312 disguised as 3x2 theory? Where it wasn't even at the end of that fake plume anyway and might be totally irrelevant or entirely fake? Or, what am I missing? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::Didn't you say that you haven't even watched the videos and checked the geolocation/origin yourself, if they really are from Russia etc.? Well, I certainly won't. Because I have no reason to believe that the sources are more truthful with the "evidence" than they have been before, and that track record is well established. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::::Yeah, which is why I'm neither in a good position to say they aren't wrong/fake, nor to go against my usual presumption it will be sound (has been so far, on this subject anyway) And by the supposed stills compare to supposed satellite imagery, it looked like a good match (I did skim the site once I could). I don't like the implication either, and I want it to be wrong. And it may well be, but I'll want to see how. And hey, there's a whole other section or two about this below... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
:::: I watched the video [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bj-VZB0ZdEA with the Ukie BUKs in March] again. There are actually more than the three I mentioned earlier. It starts with 323, which is not a TELAR. Followed by the two TELARs 321 and 312. Then comes what is also not a TELAR but what looks differently than 323: Number 301. Followed by two more TELARs, 331 and 332. So they could all be from the Lugansk division, parts of batteries 0 to 3. But one would suspect that the batteries are internal always numbered the same way. "A" says:<br />
::::: ''BUK is a complex of 4 specialized military vehicles: command post, mobile target detection and assignment station, loading and starting station, self-propelled fire installation.''<br />
::::So if 1 and 2 are TELARs, why are there two of them and why is 301 what could be the detection station with a radar? Is 323 a loading station? --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::::Too rusty, but good questions. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::: Ah, I think we can sort this out [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SA-11 thanks to wikipedia]:<br />
:::::''A standard Buk battalion consists of a command vehicle, target acquisition radar (TAR) vehicle, six transporter erector launcher and radar (TELAR) vehicles and three transporter erector launcher (TEL) vehicles. A Buk missile battery consists of two TELAR and one TEL vehicle.''<br />
:::: So our "A" didn't mean that a battery consists of 4 vehicles, but that the whole BUK consists of 4 different kinds of vehicles, some more than once. From this I deduce that "0" is for command and detection units (here our main radar 301) of the Lugansk division 3, and the batteries 1,2 and 3 each consist of two TELARs (numbered 1 and 2, here 312,321,331 and 332) and one TEL (numbered 3, the first vehicle in the video, 323). Makes sense? --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 13:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::Russia said Ukraine had 27 BUK launchers in the crash area, i.e. one brigade, or what ever comes in the hierarchy above battalion. If all units are numbered the same way, from 101 to 333, then one TELAR in 18 should be numbered 312. Maybe [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:9K37_Buk_of_the_Ukrainian_military,_Independence_Day_parade_in_Kiev.JPG not.] Russian numbers seem to reach higher. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 01:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::::Good find. The existence of 114 and 115 makes it more complicated. The [http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buk_M1 German Wikipedia article] says, contradicting the English one, that one battery consists of one command vehicle, one main radar, four TELARs and four TELs. But if that's true, there's no logical place for Radar 301, and why would one TEL be number 3 and the other three TELs numbers 6 to 8? --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 10:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
How to read BUK numbers<br />
This is how you decipher 312:<br />
<br />
3 stands for the third (Lugansk) division,<br />
1 stands for the battery number, ours was no. 1,<br />
2 stands for one of the 2. service units in each battery, ours was no.2<br />
<br />
according to a Ukrainian who explains it was "his" bUK (but not in his hands at the time)that shot down MH17. One of th many reports [http://www.opednews.com/articles/Shooting-Down-MH-17--BUK-by-Michael-Collins-Buk-312_False-Accusations-Of-Terrorism_False-Flag-Attacks_Mh17-Airline-Crash-141217-104.html about this interview] This claim is now superceded by the Capt Voloshin air-to-air claims. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 15:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
That solder knew nothing about who shot the Boeing. He was talking to Sharii, who previously made a video showing that Buk shown on SBU website is actually Ukrainian Buk 312. Later, the soldier emerged, saying that Buk 312 was his. (Claim of this one shooting Boeing is not his, it is SBU early claim) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 16:48, 26 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
While Voloshin story may be a play on destroyed by SBU evidence. There is supposed to be a log of flights, missiles fired, likely those logs no longer exist. Also before they claimed SU 25 were lost on 16 of July, but SBU denial of Voloshin story had SU 25 shot on 17 of July. And that Dnepropetrovsk airport traffic control lady vanished without a trace. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 16:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Supposed 321 belonging to KIEV<br />
::video shows three BUk sets [http://eurazya.today/2015/04/11/about-the-buk-312-who-allegedly-shot-down-mh17/ from 0.31 mark] but I can't really pick the number, they say it is 321. at Gorlovka in March. One on a white lowloader. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 12:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== Russian claims ====<br />
As part of their July 21 presentation of evidence, the Russian Ministry of Defense published satellite images allegedly showing Ukrainian BUK positions around Donetzk ([http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ RT report]). It's no secret the Ukrainian military maintains a base with anti-aircraft units. The facility shown in the Russian presentation (best seen [http://rt.com/files/news/2a/9a/00/00/4.jpg here]) I located - it's south of Avdeyevka, 3 km north of the airport, about 5 km north of Donetsk like they say. Visual match first, then noticed the label could have found it for me ... [http://wikimapia.org/#lat=48.0999781&lon=37.7578908&z=16&l=0&m=b&show=/16956839/ru/Зенитно-ракетный-дивизион-в-ч-А-1428&search=Donetsk on Wikimapia]. Labels, translated: Anti-aircraft missile battalion (in / h A-1428) One of the three anti-aircraft missile battalions ("Buk-M1"), located in Avdeyevka, Mariupol and Lugansk." BUK-type launcher photos included. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The counter-arguments to this at least sometimes fail. [http://www.interpretermag.com/mh17-and-moscows-magical-mystery-jets/ Interpreter rag] decided "the presence of Ukrainian government air defense systems is something of a red herring, not least given the clear evidence that the separatists had deployed at least one Buk system in the area." The side with a ''motive'' and clear, moving and likely operating units of the things on that day (see below) is irrelevant and shouldn't be considered because there's apparently also proof the presumed bad guys also had the units they needed to be so presumed. The very fact that separatists aren't ruled out means the other side should be free of any danger of being ruled in, and the separatists should ruled in just as automatically as they were ''before'' this social-media verification came in. This is clearly an irresponsible suggestion. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC) and --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Kiev's Buks Shuffled?===<br />
<br />
* From Russia's military press conference: [http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ RT, 10 Questions] - [http://www.ruaviation.com/docs/1/2014/7/22/83/ in more detail]<br />
:''3. Why was a large group of air defense systems deployed to the militia-held area if the self-defense forces have no planes?''<br />
:“As far as we know, the Ukrainian military had three or four air defense battalions equipped with Buk-M1 SAM systems deployed in the vicinity of Donetsk on the day of the crash. This system is capable of hitting targets within the range of 35 km at the altitude of up to 22 km.”'' <br />
:''4. Why did Kiev deploy BUK missile systems on the edge of militia-controlled zones directly before the tragedy?''<br />
:''“We have satellite photos of the places where Ukraine had its air defense units deployed in the southeastern parts of the country. The first three photos were made on July 14. The first photo shows Buk launchers 8 km northwest of Lugansk. You can clearly see a TELAR and two TELs. The second photo shows radars 5 km north of Donetsk. You can see two TARs along with other equipment and technical structures. The third photo shows air defense systems north of Donetsk. You can clearly see a TELAR launcher and about 60 military and auxiliary vehicles, tents for vehicles and other structures.''<br />
<br />
:''“Here’s a photo of the same area made on July 17. Please note that the launcher has disappeared. The fifth photo shows a battery of Buk missiles at the village of Zaroshchenskoye 50 km east of Donetsk and 8 km south of Shakhtyorsk on the morning of the same day. The sixth photo shows the same area on July 18. As you can see, the battery has left.”''<br />
<br />
Note: the <s>latter</s> fourth photo of July 17 has substantial cloud cover, but unless they happened to hide the launchers in those areas (or Russia's satellites waited until the area was covered) it appears the noted vehicles have left to go do something - on/by the 17th, where they say launchers appear and then disappear in a town closer to the crash on the 17th. Zaroshchenskoye [http://maps.yandex.com/?text=Ukraine%2C%20Donets'ka%20region%2C%20Shakhtars'kyi%20district%2C%20Zaroshchens'ke%20ville&sll=38.446008%2C47.98844&ll=38.517419%2C48.048098&spn=0.810242%2C0.300187&z=11&l=map on Yandex maps] - 13 miles SSW of the crash sitel, 9 miles W-SW of Torez..--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
On July 30, Vitalyi Naida, head of Ukrainian Security Service SBU’s counter-intelligence, came up with a series of slides ([http://euromaidanpress.com/2014/07/30/russia-fakes-mh17-crash-site-satellite-images-says-sbu/ short article], [http://www.sbu.gov.ua/sbu/control/en/publish/article?art_id=129610&cat_id=35317 announcement on SBU website] with link to [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ut1JExQKV-0 youtube-video showing the slides (presumably Ukrainian language)]) allegedly showing that the Russian material was "faked". He points to a patch of trees, claiming they had been cut down shortly before the 17th, while Russia's images show the trees intact. On August 1, the Russian Ministry of Defense published [http://eng.mil.ru/en/analytics.htm a rebuttal] advising that<br />
:''Instead of presenting hastily doctored evidence to the international community, the SBU could do with better control over all the mercenary units in the areas around Donetsk and Lugansk organized by Kolomoisky, Lyashko, Yarosh and others, who shell Ukrainian territory without any control from those in charge of the anti-terrorist operation.''<br />
<br />
The trees probably are cut down by now, but we'll have to wait for the true details of just when they were and when the image showing that was taken, or if the image shown is even of any one day and not a composite - "doctored" as Russia says. Other clues suggest launchers moving out of this area at that time: The [[#Paris Match Photo]] - ostensibly from the morning of the 17th - shows the infamous launcher-loaded truck seen in Lugansk, or one just like it, being carried on a truck belonging to a company just south of the missile base in northern Donetsk. That was seen carrying the launcher east out of town at 11:15 AM, purportedly on July 17 (and with the location completely fudged to say Snizhne, when it was only headed there).--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Zaro redeploy.png|left|600px]]The Russian military press conference said "The fifth photo shows a battery of Buk missiles at the village of Zaroshchenskoye 50 km east of Donetsk and 8 km south of Shakhtyorsk on the morning of the same day. The sixth photo shows the same area on July 18. As you can see, the battery has left." (#5 inset) The Ukraine@War blog's analysis decided this image as well was fake. That's mentioned [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com/2014/08/ukrainian-sbu-comes-with-conspiracy.html here] if not elsewhere. The reason: "the shadows of these BUKs have a different direction for all three of them. It means these were pasted into the image." I have to admit, it looks a bit like that. The trees have consistent shadows to the west, in a morning image. The furthest vehicle to the left has a visible shadow about like that. The other two don't seem to, and the one furthest right seems to have a shadow on the wrong side (looks like early PM). I wracked my brain just a little thinking of other explanations aside from just low resolution. Nothing much came up. Anyone else? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br /><br /><br />
<br />
<br />
: '''New video proves UKIE BUKS ACTIVE'''<br />
: video has surfaced, posted to Youtube on July 16, taken a few days before, showing a Ukie BUK radar [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3MomxNHnUA being rotated]. The reporter is taken somewhere in a helicopter and proudly shown the BUK. Segment starts around 4.17 in the chopper, BUK shown briefly at 4.45. Label does not say where exactly, just reads "Officers of Ukrainian Armed Forces patrolling in the ATO zone". <br />
: This ties in with claims that they were doing anti-aircraft exercises, probably in response to claims/fears the Antonovs were brought down not by the rebs but by aircraft from Russia. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 10:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::Thanks! We had this July 16 video [[Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17/BUK_Tracking#Kiev.27s_Holdings| elsewhere]], but here is a good place... The other video, from March, was not seen. There were few more early sightings of Ukrainian Buks, uncertain locations, with those 3** numbers; maybe should get a good place to keep them all --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::: Location of sighting is unclear. But according to some reports ([http://lifenews.ru/news/136731 LifeNews]), on July 16 UAF SU 25 was shot down from a height of 6 km by opolchenie MANPADs. That was near Russian border, --reports say the plane actually crossed into Russia, not far from Marinovka. It could be suspected by Ukraine that a Russian plane was involved, so it will be plausible to have Ukrainian coverage of the accident area by BUKS. On July 14, it was reported that [http://m.rosbalt.ru/ukraina/2014/07/16/1292690.html AN 26 was shot down in Luhansk] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
There is strange twist of Logic in Bellingcat's report about satellite photos. The photo with Buks in the field is claimed to be manipulated.They found that July 17 image was manipulated but only in the region of clouds. They don't say that BUK was removed by software (there are 4 more vehicles missing). But on all Google earth photos BUK never moved (and those 4 vehicles). So did it move ever or not? Manipulation of Google earth photos or likely their source is not new.[http://www.imediaethics.org/News/130/Exclusive__google_investigating_photoshopped_gogle_map_image_.php]<br />
<br />
Surprising Google earth have more updated photos on the BUK base location and nearly nothing for the location where Russians seen BUKS. There is something strange about RUSSIAN supposed fakery. Doesn't make sense to me.--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 13:33, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Separatist Holdings===<br />
While much certainty has been shown it was a separatist BUK system responsible, everyone seems to acknowledge that ordinarily, they didn't have any, that were known of. Fresh sighting of them in the field, supposed admissions, and existing presumptions remain the strongest evidence. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;June 29 Seizure?<br />
The Open Newsroom team have latched onto a June 29 message from a Twitter account associated with the Donetsk People’s Republic, @DNRpress claiming separatist forces had conquered a base with anti-air BUK missiles. This is apparently the A-1402 base, as an Itar-Tass report specified. That report noted ... It seems to just cite the tweet which, it was found, used a dated photo online since mid-2013. In essence, there's no good evidence they ever did seize this place. But it was referred to by some as "Deleted DNR tweet confirming Russian rebels indeed have a BUK-M1." The crew at large seems a bit vague on the status of this base:<br />
:'' It appears that the A-1402 military unit was moved into the Donetsk region in 2007 from Odessa, and reports note that the unit was based near Donetsk airport. Local reports from June 29 cited ATO spokesman Alexei Dmitrashkivsky as stating that separatists had attacked the military unit.'' <ref name="Story1" /><br />
As we just found with geo-location, it's 3 km north of Donetsk airport, and it's the same place Russia believes is firmly government-held. It's the place they say at least one BUK-type launcher was removed from on July 17 for some reason, by Kiev's forces who run it. If [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Donetsk_Airport this basic Wikipedia article on the battle for the airport] is correct and/or in line with [[Attack on Donetsk Airport|our page on it]], the airport and anything military-related north of it would probably be government-held continuously to the present time. It's possible some launchers could have been lost during a brief seizure of the base, but this too seems doubtful. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
:Social media published many photos of the "liberated" Buk missiles. I searched for them on Google Image Search; all were old photos from more peaceful times. I have no idea what really happened. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 23:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Thanks. I hadn't looked into it myself, but recycled images made sense given the other clues that they never did take that base, or at least get anything out of it. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 00:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
Something in English [https://www.facebook.com/TruthfromUkraine/photos/pb.1452285018328179.-2207520000.1409095455./1515506872005993/ on Facebook,] with links to Russian souces. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 23:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Your geolocation is wrong. The former [http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-SAM-Site-Configs-A.html SA-2 launch site] to the north of the runway is called A-1428, at least according to the [[:File:Donetsk Airport battles 5 Oct 2014.jpg|map by Komsomolskaya Pravda]]. The site was rebuilt sometime between 2002 and 2009 with new garages covering part of the SAM ring. Tactical maps say today it is still held by Ukraine, but may have been in NAF hands earlier. Base A-1402 is located south of the new terminal building along Stratonavtiv Street.<br />
<br />
When looking at the latest airport battles I noticed that Military Maps already shows structural damaged to the new terminal building. I did not expect Google to provide any relevant satelite data. In Libya we had almost daily satellite images of Tripoli, but in Syria we have seen no new photos of the battle-effected areas.<br />
<br />
I opened Google Earth to see what has changed during the war. It seems that the war has had no effect on either base. There is still a lot of military hardware parked on both bases. Most of the trucks and whatever are parked just w--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 18:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)here they were last year, or on many cases in 2007. I did not see anything that I could identify as a BUK launcher. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 02:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;Held by July 14?<br />
The US embassy in Kiev said in [http://ukraine.usembassy.gov/statements/asmt-07192014.html a press statement of July 19]:<br />
:''Intercepts of separatist communications posted on YouTube by the Ukrainian government indicate the separatists were in possession of a SA-11 system as early as Monday July 14th. In the intercepts, the separatists made repeated references to having and repositioning Buk (SA-11) systems.'' (also quoted [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/20/malaysia-airlines-mh17-videos-missile-launcher-torez-snizhne at the Guardian])<br />
As "Corporal Frisk" [http://corporalfrisk.wordpress.com/2014/07/21/comment-on-the-us-assessment-of-the-downing-of-flight-mh17/ aptly responded:]<br />
:''Having perhaps the world’s best intelligence network, and then using easily faked videos of separatist communications posted on YouTube as evidence sure has a degree of ridicule attached to it, but is also an inidcation that US intelligence believes at least some of these transcripts are real.''<br />
That's totally apt if one suspends the usual definition of "believe" (to include "wants to appear to believe," etc.) In the same piece, the author apparently gives more "credibility to the charges that the Buk-M1 is indeed Russian supplied (and possibly crewed), as opposed to stemming from captured Ukrainian stocks." As covered below, this I can agree with if we suspend the usual definition of "Russian" (to include "allegedly Russian villains," "the Ukrainian version of [http://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2011/07/african-mercenaries.html Libya's African Mercenaries] and [http://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/wiki/The_Shabiha:_Ghost_Stories%3F Syria's Shabiha]," etc.) this would be spot-on. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:54, 10 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
(more allegations to cover?)<br />
<br />
;The One That Matters<br />
Whatever the evidence rebels had Buk systems by the 14th, Kiev also has suggested, and many have accepted, that ''the one that mattered'' at least - the launcher unit that shot down MH17 on the 17th - wasn't theirs at all, but brought in and operated by Russians for the day only. If only for that reason, all the above is likely moot. See next section. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Unknown owner ===<br />
Appears to be [http://vk.com/albums-22680516 A 1402 unit album] ; has Buks but photos are from 2011. [http://vk.com/albums-22680516?z=photo-22680516_205618115%2Fphotos-22680516 Buk number 122] photo. Old photos-unknown what happened thereafter. [http://vk.com/albums-22680516?z=photo-22680516_277084156%2Fphotos-22680516 Another- unknown number]. Also something like Strela 10 shown on [http://vk.com/albums-22680516?z=photo-22680516_351678270%2Fphotos-22680516 photos] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 18:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Only non-working Buks remained there when it was 'partially captured' by opolchenie, according to Ukrainian [http://www.pravda.com.ua/rus/news/2014/06/29/7030482/ reports]. Working ones were moved elsewhere by Ukraine. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 18:39, 21 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Russian Buk Field Trip? ===<br />
The Kiev regime's narrative also suggests separatists had no BUK systems of their own. Rather, someone else brought one in to their area, took it on some kind of tour through several towns thought accessible only to rebels and allies, and got it seen in each place. Then these people '''shot the airliner down themselves on the separatists' behalf.''' That party is the Russians, they say. This is perhaps best encapsulated by "counter-terrorism" chief Vitaly Nayda's early assessment. AP's July 25 report summarized it, saying "the account was based on information from intercepts, spies and resident tips."<br />
:''Nayda laid the blame fully on Russia: He said the missile launcher came from Russia and was operated by Russians. ... According to Nayda, at 1 a.m. on July 17 the launcher rolled into Ukraine across the Russian border aboard a flatbed truck. He cited communications intercepts that he would not share with the AP. By 9 a.m., he said, the launcher had reached Donetsk, the main rebel stronghold 125 miles (200 kilometers) from the border. In Donetsk it is presumed to have been off-loaded from the flatbed and started to move in a convoy on its own.''<br />
:''Nayda said the Buk turned back east toward Snizhne. Townspeople who spoke to the AP said it rolled into Snizhne around lunchtime.''<br />
:''...As for the Buk, Nayda said, intelligence suggests it went back on the move shortly after the attack. That very night, he said, it crossed the border, back into Russia.''<br />
<br />
This is full of details that don't line up with the emerging record, but the gist including a grand-circuit tour including both separatist stronghold/capitols Donestk and Lugansk plus the disaster zone, seems about right. But the evil they allowed came from and returned to Russia.<br />
<br />
This does however jibe with the Kiev allegation (I learned of through [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/07/25/snizhne-mh17-and-rebel-held-territory/ this excellent and relevant HRI article] that '''Russian jets''' violated Ukrainian airspace to '''bomb an apartment building in Snizneh on July 15th, killing 11 civilians.''' This all makes a bit of sense in context; that false flag attack was blamed by locals on Kiev'a noble Air Force - almost understandably! It "created the conditions" by which people ''might'' accept apparent a team of apparent Russians with a Buk launcher in their town two days later. The best guess for any single firing location is a field just southeast of that town (see [[#Possible Launch Sites|below]]). The locals might smile at, and later even cover for, this poisonous gift. But a trojan horse is a trojan horse, of course. They should have looked it in the mouth better, and been more aggressive with their questions. Because Russia has it in for the separatists, Kiev implies, using its skilled and well-documented team to murder 298 people in a horrific way on the separatists' behalf. This is not an accident, Kiev must know, but proof that Russia and its "inhuman" terrorists they must hate (and who do not seem to have any Buk launchers of their own, BTW) are the new global menace du jour. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Markings and the Mystery Launcher ===<br />
[[File:MH17 Buk 321 Parismatch comp.png|right]]A serial number on the launcher's side is apparently standard in Ukraine's arsenal (see [[#BUK 312 and comrades|above]]). Inset, an image comparing the side of the unit seen in [[#Paris Match Photo]], the one blamed for the shoot-down on the 17th, to TELAR unit 321. The side panels are easy enough to correlate and see the unit in the photo lacks a number, but does have a sliver of white paint (or similar) in one corner. Whoever was moving this painted it it out before this, so there is some attempt at concealment. Is this color of paint only available in Russia? The white sliver here could be part of the number, if it were painted higher up/larger than Ukraine usually does. I can't say yet how they do it. I did a Dogpile Photo search, lots of pictures, context unclear, different vehicles from different sides, mainly Vitaly Kuzmin photos so app. Russian military parades and such: --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
* Number shown, diff. vehicle: [http://military-vehicle-photos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/9881.jpg #1(loader?)] - [http://pix.avaxnews.com/avaxnews/8a/6f/00006f8a_medium.jpeg #2 same?] <br />
* Launchers with no visible numbers: [http://77rus.smugmug.com/Military/May-5th-Parade-rehearsal-2014/i-t7RjrzP/0/M/5may14-33-M.jpg #1] - [http://77rus.smugmug.com/Military/12-April-Parade-2013-rehearsal/i-KHVD3Tv/0/M/12aprilrehearsal_33-M.jpg #2] - [http://livedoor.blogimg.jp/gunzichannel/imgs/b/e/be60ae58.jpg #3] - [http://military-vehicle-photos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/9880.jpg #4] - [http://77rus.smugmug.com/Military/13th-April-rehearsal-Alabino/i-fKQdjW4/0/M/13April-Rehersal-Alabino-26-M.jpg #5] <br />
* Same vehicle, Buk TELAR launcher with numbers: not found. <br />
<br />
At the moment, the lack of a number almost makes it look Russian. The next panel over seems to have smaller numbers, or characters anyway. Nothing yet tells me the Russians add a smaller number on the panel behind that, with or without special stencils available only in Russia. Is that even a number, or does it say return to Putin? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== Bellingcat and 3x2 ====<br />
:''moved from [[#Paris Match Photo]]''<br />
<br />
Adam: somebody's favorite Bellingcat is now saying, I understand, that he is capable to read off the number of this Buk from this blurry low resolution Paris Match photo, using unspecified colored magic and some expertly fitted proprietary boxes. Well actually this is so proprietary that he can ONLY read the first number 3, and the last number 2, but is completely unable to read the middle one. Because, he does not want this to be this Ukrainian [http://uainforg.livejournal.com/1811500.html Buk 312] , nah, noway. He rather want it to be the Russian Buk 3 X 2, where X stand for Russian, and for secret, as somebody is said to unearth this dirty monster in Russia, as he says (I guess). This looks too much baloney as far as I am concerned; you can read any number you set in advance from this blurry photo, and fit there any other crap, boxed-shaped or wiggly, all essentially at will. Just recording this latest saga page in case somebody has more enthusiasm to chase it than myself. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 00:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
:No, you didn't quite understand, but thanks for the tip. An interesting twist I wish I'd caught sooner. First, this helps the West at large get in synch finally with Kiev - it was Russia, not the separatists, who owned and perhaps ran that unit. Second, it seems to me the match is at least as good as they say, but there's at least one aspect of it I think is hilarious and I wouldn't be surprised if they managed to miss it. I'll be back - this one deserves a quick blog post. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: I agree with Resup, this stinks of baloney designed to divert attention from the [[#BUK_312_and_comrades]] story. The worst thing about Brown Noses and cohorts is the amount of coordinated promo they get in pre$$titute media. SPIEGEL today [http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/jan-fleischhauer-ueber-wladimir-putin-und-mh17-abschuss-kolumne-a-1004898.html has a op-ed piece by a particularly douchebaggy example] on those independent genius investigators as well. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::I need to brush up on what that 312 story is... because it looks like this used to say 312. Ultimately I suspect its some kind of baloney, but just where it breaks down I don't know. It is amazing how they get such praise for investigating the right things (never did get back to the Houla Massacre) and finding the right truth... Daily Fail says "The authors said that 'our investigation was made possible by the examination of open source material overlooked by other organisations'." Oh goodness, that technique they must have invested ... maybe if we started doing that we'd get praises too! --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/11/08/origin-of-the-separatists-buk-a-bellingcat-investigation/<br />
The report and whole site was not coming up when I tried (might be a problem on my end), so I don't even know what's behind their pay-wall. In the interim I checked around. [http://thetruthserumblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/an-open-and-transparent-investigation.html Here's a critical blog article I like] that mentions another article praising the report. But what was useful was [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2827853/Russian-military-supplied-missiles-ahead-MH17-shooting-says-new-independent-report-evidence-points-Russian-separatists-responsible.html the Daily Mail's Australian promo article] with the cover and a few images from the report as well as a summary. The 3x2 ... This lets me quickly see what 3x2 refers to. And actually, it looks like a good description and even a good match. The number is not from Paris Match photo but from footage I haven't noticed, they say from inside Russia - presumably a Russian unit then - seen conspicuously moving towards Ukraine in late June. (the source of these images and details might be worth checking into) ... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 3x2 Comp.png|right]]Bottom is Paris Match, skewed to match. Top is the new (to me) Bellingcat June 23 image As I just put together [http://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2014/11/how-russians-covered-up-truth-partly.html here,] they seem to be onto something here. It's something silly. But it's something strongly suggested by real paint in recognizable patterns.<br />
<br />
Implied: Russians wanted to hide this thing's identity, maybe because they were about to do something secret with it. So first they painted out the number in the middle - I think it was a one. Except they left one little corner of white visible. Just got tired. It's identifiable (in both images). <br />
<br />
Then before it appeared in Ukraine, it was rendered totally unidentifiable: they boldly blacked out the 3, and perhaps at the same time even, the 2 - except for a larger identifiable sliver. Just got tired. It's next to the other dot. <br />
<br />
Haha, no way to connect these now! Also a light patch next to the small number (and the number, as far as we can see) matches, as does a light patch along the lip below that. My guess: this is the same suspect vehicle seen gettin' hauled all over on the "stolen" truck with the phone number left on. Was it actually in Russian territory as well as near so many rebel checkpoints around dawn? For how long was it there? Bellingcat cannot confirm that Russian unit 3x2 ever returned to its base in Russia ... nor, I guess, that it ever actually left, or was ever Russian, or didn't have its truncated paint job simulated and expanded on another vehicle... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
::He got some photos of an actual [http://www.kavicom.ru/news-view-12861.html convoy], almost certainly in Russia, fairly hi-res photos, no 3*2 there. Than out-of-a-blue-or-elsewhere, he gives photos from convoy made by 'local residents', now with discolored 3*2 photo(s) there; I could not spot details where this photo is now coming from. He claims it "shows on 8 out of 16 videos", but I do not know where is a single one. He also compares tank track and plate above profiles for these 2 photos; details are blurred (and also those profiles change from use), can't say how much they match each other by eye; don't trust his fitted lines, or his conclusion accepting those, but did not try matching myself (no tools to do it quickly; or enough photo resolution to feel strongly motivated). This is doable but doing it tool-free takes time; and not knowing that second photo is definitely in Russia, I am not convinced spending a lot of time is worthwhile. This is clearly a well-supported operation, so the burden of proving their own version is on them; and they did not bother even linking the videos, no clue where are those. His report downloads without problems at this time. <br />
::Also details such as dirty rear skirt and a bend there likely are common; dirt is because exhaust is through the opening above; skirt likely is bent when there is servicing, or example changing tracks or doing something else, like maybe servicing engine. Buk 321 above on this page has dirt and bend, for example. This bend is something which can be easily produced, same goes with the painting job, both things together can be done in well under 1/2 hour. If they had an example of how something in Russia looks like, not difficult to do it for a blurry photo. Clearly, with phone well-displayed, etc, the purpose of all this is a demo job. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Here is a publication [http://censor.net.ua/video_news/274823/ukraina_zaschischaet_donetsk_ot_napadeniya_rossii_zenitnoraketnye_kompleksy_buk_zanimayut_pozitsii_fotovideo Ukraine defends Donesk from Russiam attack, missile complex Buk takes positions], with photo, video of Ukrainian BUks, numbers 323, 321, 312, 301, 331,332. (Some of them have dirty skirts, e.g. 301 looks dirty and bent...). Ukrainian radio is playing on the video. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 21:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Thanks, and I get the lack of motivation, and the ambiguity. That #312 I'll compare later ... looks like a different number style (thinner) with vehicle color less clear ... I guess this could be innocent dirt instead of black paint, but it's some thick dirt, and by the end almost totally covering the numbers on this particular unit ... or two that can seem the same. (?) So it still seems most likely paint, that is deliberate obfuscation - that was also comically slow and incomplete (with clean edges to the white parts and no visible parts of gray half-covered numbers) . It must be a problem with my system (updating soon) but I still can't connect to the site or get the report. I'm not mad motivated myself, but will want to check the alleged video source and geolocation eventually. Before I was seeing this as a Kiev unit simply snuck across the internal line. So the big wrinkle of course is it being in Russia. Options if the geolocation of June 23 is right: <br />
* it wasn't there (faked match-up - As you say, all matching features ''could'' be faked, not just the paint) <br />
* or Ukraine snuck theirs across (with a whole convoy?) just to get it seen there <br />
* or they snuck over and stole this one while it was near the border <br />
* or Russia willingly sent it over, with or without a subsequent theft by people intent on misusing it on the separatists' behalf. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
There is actually a 3*2 Buk in Russia, he put links to videos on his [https://www.mapbox.com/labs/bellingcat/index.html map], I looked at 06/23 Troitskiy (Odnoklassniki) goroskop odnoklassniki ru/video/14723648043?fromTime=25 . But I doubt it can be concluded that Paris Match is a match (number itself can't be read, this is just bogus). For example, that dot in the Russian version appears to be a bit further to the right (60 % of total panel length) , while Paris Match is closer to 50 (I got 52 %). Also, in Russian version, it is almost level with protruding to the right part of number 2; in Donetsk photo, I'd say it's a bit lower (but blurriness creates problems to measure) . Panel to the left of number panel appear to look very different; in Russian case, clear horizontal line above the main bottom line; not so in Donetsk, a messy lower line. As for the skirt, it it dirty but actually does not look broken in the Russian version, just some frames create such impression. In Donetsk, hard to know (to blurry to tell crack from dirt) but there is serious change in angle there somehow; (could be the windshield playing some tricks). (Also, in Donetsk, it is dirty windshield, not actually certain what makes the dot; but it is roughly where expected, so I can go with this being paint assumption). <br />
:No point for the rebels to display it prominently in Donetsk (not far from UAF BUK base), than go towards Snizhne; this just has no point at all. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 00:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
:I'm the one, ironically, claiming to see things in that griny mess. I'd never do it unless I saw t spot well whiter than the others AND seen in another view ... didn't even notice until then. To note, your descriptions are of the first version of the graphic, now updated. Becuase of overall problems, I cut what seemed just the number panel (including shadowed edge) and put it on top of where it should be. Same proportions, within a pixel or two, "find edges" to mark the white patches, and it remains lining up. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 3x2 comp 2.png|right|420px]]At right: it can't be the embarrassingly misrepresented Ukrainian 312 they're hiding, unless that was painted over before this other one .... FWIW, the middle dot would still line up with the serif on that "1." As the updated blog article notes, if "the Russians" were smart, they would have painted this slender 312, or other recognizable number and style, on there. Instead, this nonsense.... <br />
<br />
I suppose that Ukraine ''might'' have known about this 3x2 video and match in advance (and never mentioned it?) and that's why they found a photo of ''a Buk 312''' (not checking what it actually showed, and just claimed they knew was en route to escape into Russia, after parking for yet another photo?) No, that doesn't make much sense. But I sense a link. Maybe that's because I'm seeing 312 when maybe it's 872, for all we really know. Maybe instead of partly painted out it was just left never fully painted in. Too many unknowns and now I'm unenthusiastic about it. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Whatever one thinks of this graphic comparison and interpretation, the strange and suspect thinking it implies is consistent with what else we know about how this "secret" operation was carried out. If true, it would fit this broader pattern (real or reported clues left by whoever, all open to interpretation, and here couched in the terms of allegations by Kiev and supporters):<br />
<br />
* Recalling that this whole weapon itself would have no normal business in the area and would be denied later, it should have been kept secret. Instead, it was driven around in broad daylight on the same day as the crime, just partly covered with a tarp but revealing all clues needed to identify it, its hidden ID number, and its full rack of missiles.<br />
* The truck it was so displayed on was stolen in Donetsk, and kept with the huge sign on its side with the apparent owner's phone number on it. When the media called that number, little surprise, the owner told them pro-Russian "fighters from Slaviansk" who took over his whole trucking company on July 8 (see [[#The Truck Owner's Story|here]]) Put lightly, this is a stupid way to secure a rig one intends to use for a secret operation like this was supposed to be.<br />
* They loaded the truck in Donetsk, likely at the commandeered site in the north of Donetsk, near the Ukrainian base with Buk launchers, in a coincidence. This truck then got seen leaving Donetsk on the 17th, parked pointing east at the east outskirts, then seen driving in convoy (a couple civilian cars with the operational crew moved with the truck) past Zuhres and then through Torez to the east. They were seen arriving in Snizhne around noon, then the Buk unit seen off the truck and driving in stand-alone, and it was then seen again driving south out of Snizneh, towards the apparent launch location.<br />
* The people running the convoy made sure AP journalists saw them in Snizhne just before the shoot-down from a bit south of there. The convoy stopped, and a man in unusual uniform "approached the journalists. The man wanted to make sure they had not recorded any images of the missile launcher. Satisfied that they hadn’t" filmed that secret missile launcher there, but had noticed it, and their intention to remain sooper seekrit "the convoy moved on." All this was made quite clear to the media and apparently published even before the news that MH17 was shot down. ([http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/what-happened-the-day-flight-17-was-downed/2014/07/25/716c36e4-142b-11e4-ac56-773e54a65906_story.html AP Via Washington Post]) <br />
* After the disastrous attempt to secretly provoke a Russian invasion, with utmost discretion the operators put the smoking gun, its rack of one-less missiles left uncovered, back on the same truck and drove it and the phone number back to Russia - by a strange detour on a long route towards the other easily-recognizable smoking gun rebel capitol, Lugansk ... when government ATO forces had just battled their way to the edge of Lugansk ... and got seen there passing at dawn on the main highway south, apparently having come from the center of town, and then presumably drove to Krasnodon (rebel-held) and to Russia....<br />
<br />
The fail delivery here is almost flawless, with no mistake left unmade and hardly any reasonable gaps to call for deduction. Letting multiple camera views on both sides of the porous border capture and track the gradual move to this stealth mode seems pretty consistent to me.--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Note: the implications of this contested finding, and the visual basis for it as well, is continued below under [[#If Buk 3x2 Was in Russia]] --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
I think one point is still not discussed here. Look at this video from 26 June 2014. You might have seen it before. But what is striking, all the Buks shown do not have numbers painted on them. Not only it will allow to paint new numbers or any clumsy painting on the side, using video of a known BUK, it also means that those BUKS were not accounted for when Ukrs presented evidence, if they ever presented, about the location of all the existing and operational BUKS <br />
[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BBEYZHOT0bQ]--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 13:29, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== General Observations === <br />
*It is clear that pro-Kiev side produced early and persistent stream of fakes, misrepresentations, or selective half-truths, all aimed to place the blame on Russia and/or "separatists" as a part of well organised and supported information warfare. This information warfare did not establish an objective to prove the blame of Russia or "separatists", as any of those media creations will not survive a rigorous scrutiny, and there is nothing to bring to court in particular. However it successfully altered Western perceptions in early days past the catastrophe, and helped to impose sanctions and other 'increased costs' on Russia, bringing the world on the brink of another cold war. It brought situation in Ukraine closer to perpetual chaos, and kept closely related people to continue killing each other every day. Although those fakes and misrepresentations were later realized to be such, those costs and calamities were not reversed. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*After moving equipment close to border, why would Russia send just a single TELAR to Ukraine in a highly visible manner as it was alleged? For meaningful operation of Buk, one would send at least 1 TELAR, 1 TEL (to be able to load missiles), and 1 command vehicle (as radar on TELAR gives only poor basic operation)? There are also lots of support vehicles seen, in case of something meaningful all that is needed. So moving single TELAR is all but pointless from military standpoint. Single TELAR is mostly for a show of sort. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Reported SIghtings == <br />
(consider along with the visual sightings below) <br />
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/what-happened-the-day-flight-17-was-downed/2014/07/25/716c36e4-142b-11e4-ac56-773e54a65906_story.html AP via Washington Post] <br />
<br />
The link is not accessible anylonger.<br />
Here is direct link to AP<br />
[http://bigstory.ap.org/article/what-happened-day-flight-17-was-downed]<br />
<br />
Apparently this Peter Leonard was assigned for the job just in time on july 8th 2014 [http://www.ap.org/Content/AP-In-The-News/2014/AP-names-Peter-Leonard-as-its-Ukraine-correspondent]<br />
<br />
--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 05:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
shows the separatists strategy to not be seen as they rolled the murder weapon around:<br />
:''Even before the plane was downed, the AP had reported on the presence of the missile launcher in the town July 17. Here is what that dispatch said:''<br />
:''“An Associated Press reporter on Thursday saw seven rebel-owned tanks parked at a gas station outside the eastern Ukrainian town of Snizhne. In the town, he also observed a Buk missile system, which can fire missiles up to an altitude of 22,000 meters (72,000 feet).''<br />
:''AP journalists saw the Buk moving through town at 1:05 p.m. The vehicle, which carried four 18-foot (5.5-meter) missiles, was in a convoy with two civilian cars.''<br />
:''The convoy stopped. A man in sand-colored camouflage without identifying insignia — different from the green camouflage the rebels normally wear — approached the journalists. The man wanted to make sure they had not recorded any images of the missile launcher. Satisfied that they hadn’t, the convoy moved on.''<br />
<br />
That kind of pro-Russian sooper-seekrisy aimed at the media in front of the media should stop them being seen, right? No, oddly, it didn't. See below. The clumsy bastards could hardly have implicated themselves any more thoroughly than they did that day. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
One interesting post at the Ukraine@War blog mentions two tweets, both from July 17 and before the crash, mentioning this BUK launcher on a trailer at places consistent with the video record. [https://twitter.com/MOR2537/status/489702736766586880 One of them] (translated) sounds perhaps ''too'' informed, and says "Was driven missile system on the tractor cover + two cars after Thorez (Torez) in snowy (Sniznoyeh) in 12-10 (at 12:10? Too early...)." [https://twitter.com/_StradivariuS_/status/489704260045910016 The other one] says "(someone this) morning wrote that (the truck) stood (parked for some time) on b.Shahtostroiteley not intersection with Ilchicha, aside (heading towards) Makeevki. waiting to see (to be seen?) If that's an intersection named, it's a different parking spot identified as being [https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=48.002515,37.854917&spn=0.010222,0.02444&t=h&z=16 here on Google Maps,] one km west of the spot it was parked for the "Paris Match" photo. Otherwise, it refers only to the same place. The contributor noted "Another interesting detail in that tweet is that “it was standing” and “they were waiting”. My understanding of that phrasing is that the #Buk was actually parked there for some time. Meaning there might be witnesses." <ref name="UWD">[http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com/2014/07/reconstruction-of-whereabouts-of-buk.html CONFIRMED the BUK that shot down MH17 has indeed been in Donetsk] P. Martin, Ukraine@War, July 23, 2014</ref> There was a witness with a camera, and a photo sent to the Western media. That almost seems to have been the idea - to get witnessed like that. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== SBU Wiretap Clues ==<br />
I just had a look at the SBU wiretap transcripts, ones released July 19. In it is a segment tying in with the above stop or stops in Donetsk, the exact spot of the [[#Paris Match Photo]], and the general orders to drive east with the launcher. I'm not up on the wiretap stuff - if this is the same material said to be corroborated by the US as the real people talking. But briefly, know that parking spot in just past a roundabout, by a motel and a bus station, well short of a crossing Hornostaivska street halfway to Makiivka. Important clue to why it was here this thing had to get seen and talked about: one source claims this roundabout at the edge of town is "a big separatist checkpoint established on Jun 3 at the road circle." <ref name="UWD" /> This is supposed to all be pretty damning, and I must say it's at least looking like a pretty slick plan may be going on here, with pre-scripted parts that come into play later, etc. From Kiev mouthpiece UaToday, parts of a transcript they ran with the video and other allegations, on the 19th - How credible is this evidence?<br />
:''Khmuryi: Sergei Nikolaevich Petrovskiy, year of birth 1964, officer of Main Intelligence Directorate of Russian Federation, Deputy Chief of Ihor Girkin on Intelligence, at the time of the interception he was in Donetsk.''<br />
:''“Buryat” – militant of terrorist organization “DNR” (to be indentified).''<br />
:''Buryat: – Where should we load this beauty, Nikolaievich?''<br />
:''Khmuryi: Which one? This one?''<br />
:''B: Yes, the one I’ve brought. I’m already in Donetsk.''<br />
:''K: Is it the one I’m thinking about? “B…,”M” one?''<br />
:''B: Yes, yes, yes. “BUK”,”BUK”.''<br />
:''K: Is it on a tractor?''<br />
:''B: Yes, it’s on it. We need to unload it somewhere, '''in order to hide.'''''<br />
:''K: Is it with a crew?''<br />
:''B: Yes, with the crew.''<br />
:''K: '''Don’t hide it anywhere.''' She’ll go there now.''<br />
:...<br />
:''Khmuryi: – Tell me, have you brought me one or two?<br />
:''Buryat: One, one. Because they had a misunderstanding there. They didn’t give us a tug. We loaded it and went at their own pace.''<br />
:''K: Did it go on her own or on a tug?''<br />
:''B: It crossed the line (border).''<br />
:''H: And now have you brought it on a tug? Don’t put in anywhere… I’ll tell now where it should go, it will go together with “Vostok” tanks.''<br />
:...<br />
:''K: Sanych, the point is that my “BUK–M” (modified Russian SAM system) will go with yours, it is on a tug. Where should I drive it to put in a column?''<br />
:''Sanych: There, behind “Motel”, not reaching Hornostaevka.''<br />
:''K: Just after the Motel, right?''<br />
:''Khmuryi: Listen to me carefully, behind the circle near “Motel” there will be you know what. Call to “Bibliotekar” (Librarian).'' <br />
The next part, to me, suggests that as far back as the 19th or earlier, people talking on tape were seeding, or working by, the SBU-proposed Aeroloft plot with the town mix-up. In that light:<br />
:''...Bring inside only those, who just came back, only as much as you need for the convoy. Leave everyone else here. Not far away '''there is Pervomaiskoe, look at the map.'''''<br />
:''DNR militant: I got it.'' (Or did he not quite get it?) <br />
:''Khmuryi: Settle somewhere in that area, bring there those who are left. Your task is reserve, plus protection of this piece (BUK–M), which you will drive now. “Giyrza” will come there too. If anything, I’m on line.'' <ref name="Trans">[http://www.uatoday.info/?p=2579&lang=en SBU releases more conversations implicating Russia in shooting down Malaysia Airlines flight (VIDEO, TRANSCRIPT)] UAToday, July 19, 2014</ref><br />
--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The veracity of that recording needs challenged well now ... the day too early claim [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17#SBU wiretap video|did not pan out,]] so it won't be that easy. Has anyone really done a good analysis tearing it apart some other way? Could it even be half-legit, with some local rebels tricked by some undercover (wire-wearing, not wire-tapping) supposed defector delivering it "with a team" coming "from Russia" (meaning Parubiy et al.)? Who knows? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Imagery Mapping ==<br />
[[File:MH17 Storyful video mapping.png|right|330px]]There have been quite a number now of photos and videos showing BUK launchers ostensibly in separatist strongholds, on July 17. The geo-location of these in such towns by social media networks has been the subject of some recent media commentary. These purported placements are worth collecting and considering here. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
One somewhat comprehensive and updated/evolving page: [http://blog.storyful.com/2014/07/19/how-social-sleuthing-uncovered-evidence-of-anti-aircraft-missile-system-in-eastern-ukraine/#.U9oY_Ua3498 How Social Sleuthing Uncovered Evidence of Surface-to-Air Missile Systems in Eastern Ukraine] Inset is a small preview of the interactive map they made of all placed images (as it stands at the end of July - [https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=200399683004956931329.0004feca5d1fbab0a1d25&msa=0&ie=UTF8&t=h&source=embed&ll=48.206371,38.968506&spn=1.281328,2.334595&z=8 full-size presentation with links, on Google Maps]) <ref name="Story1" /> <s>Note that one of them is way up in Lugansk - which one is a little unclear at the moment - the site may be wrong</s>) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;List of Scenes, placed or not<br />
* Billboard Video: released by Interior Ministry, filmed in Krasnodon before dawn, the Interior Minister says. Russian military analysis places it in Krasnoarmeysk, and the Open Newsroom crew contradicts both and decided "collaborative geo-location was able to place the footage in southwestern Luhansk.'' <ref name="Story1">[http://blog.storyful.com/2014/07/19/how-social-sleuthing-uncovered-evidence-of-anti-aircraft-missile-system-in-eastern-ukraine/#.U9oY_Ua3498 How Social Sleuthing Uncovered Evidence of Surface-to-Air Missile Systems in Eastern Ukraine] Storyful blog, July 19, 2014 and onward (updated)</ref> <br />
* Surveillance Video: located to Snizhne by Eliot Higgins, date unclear. <ref name="Story1" /><br />
* Zuhres video: Pre-geo-located by the uploader [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=48%C2%B0+1'1.38%22N++38%C2%B018'6.04%22E&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=48.034019,38.391724&spn=0.629958,1.564178&gbv=2&hnear=H21,+Zuhres,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&gl=us&t=h&z=10 here in Zuhres.] Higgins confirms, 100% sure, and others concur. Driving east. <ref name="Story1" /><br />
* Torez square photo - located by an associate of Higgins - filmed app. 11:40 AM in central Torez. See below. <br />
* Another photo placed: Snizneh, nearest the shoot-down area (f/c)<br />
* [http://www.parismatch.com/Actu/International/EXCLU-MATCH-Un-camion-vole-pour-transporter-le-systeme-lance-missiles-577289 Paris Match photo] - allegedly Snizhne, reportedly placed '''in northern Donetsk city.''' See below. <br />
<br />
===Billboard Video===<br />
(to be condensed) <br />
A video released by the Ukrainian Interior Ministry is highly dubious and worth some analysis. It shows what seems to be a BUK launcher loaded on a truck driving some direction in some town at what seems to be early twilight (or pre-dawn, depending). The [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4HJmev5xg0 original posting] (with almost 2 million views already) gives no details: "Militants take out missile system "Buk" to the border with Russiam" the title translates. "No description available," it says below, and no comments allowed.<br />
From what I've seen no one knows where this is filmed. Daily Mail says it's a "separatist stronghold," unnamed, and headed south, back towards Russia. "Ukrainian spies reportedly filmed the launcher used in the attack being smuggled to Russia - with two missiles missing." Eliot Higgins was cited by [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/20/malaysia-airlines-mh17-videos-missile-launcher-torez-snizhne the Guardian] with his new team of fundraistigators as geolocating some video and photo but not, apparently, this one. As explained at [https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1278239551/bellingcat/posts/919158 the kickstarter link] they give, Higgins writes:<br />
:''In the above video, posted by the Ukranian Ministry for Interior claiming to show the Buk missile launcher being driven towards Russia it was possible to match the transporter in the video to the transporter in Torez, details of which... (you have to subsidize their operation to see)'' --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== Avakov's Placement: Krasnodon or Lugansk ====<br />
Interior Minister Arsen Avakov said in [https://www.facebook.com/arsen.avakov.1/posts/670837696339673 a Facebook post of July 18] Google-translated: <br />
:''Covert surveillance units of MIA of Ukraine today July 18 at 4.50 am was recorded caterpillar tractor loaded with missile complex, moving in the direction through Krasnodon, toward the border with the Russian Federation. The video can be seen uncovered missiles. Two missiles in place - the average is not visible. ''<br />
:''There is an analysis of this and other information gathered. Presumably this is the missile system "Buk" that made a last shot at a civilian plane from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur .. ''<br />
:''Criminals try to hide the traces of this heinous crime. Not succeed. Security Service and Interior Ministry of Ukraine has collected and collects more irrefutable facts and evidence, the author points out the tragedy of the terrorist organization DNI / LC and its Russian backers Putin.'' <br />
:''The investigation of events MIA issue a comprehensive report on the information. This fragment consider it necessary to publish immediately.''<br />
<br />
By the 22nd, "online sleuths" had placed it in Lugansk (see below). Avakov then confirmed this - he was wrong the first time. One article makes it sound like he wasn't just echoing the sleuths:<br />
:''On July 22, Ukraine's Minister of Internal Affairs, Arsen Avakov, gave the exact coordinates of the video’s location: separatist-held Luhansk, about a 45-minute drive from Krasnodon. Locals quickly verified this claim by photographing the scene, which perfectly matches the landmarks seen in the video.'' ([http://globalvoicesonline.org/2014/07/29/russia-ukraine-mh17-conspiracy-buk/# article by one of the sleuths])<br />
<br />
====Krasnoarmeysk====<br />
One source venturing a guess is [http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ the Russian government and RT witrh their 10 intriguing questions:]<br />
:''“For example, media circulated a video supposedly showing a Buk system being moved from Ukraine to Russia. This is clearly a fabrication. This video was made in the town of Krasnoarmeisk, as evidenced by the billboard you see in the background, advertising a car dealership at 34 Dnepropetrovsk Street. Krasnoarmeysk has been controlled by the Ukrainian military since May 11.”''<br />
[[File:MH17 Billboard Vid Russian Analysis.png|right|250px]]There is a sign, but I cannot make it out just yet, if ever. Can they really? Even if that's so, surrounding towns might be good places for a dealership in Krasnoarmeysk to advertise. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
At right now is a still from a video claiming to show this, I still don't see it. They seem to think the gray span says that, perhaps from seeing a clearer view of this ubiquitous sign elsewhere. Opps. There's no reason to say a dealership in one town can only have billboards in that town. This alone fails. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 14:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Krasnoarmiis'k,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&hl=en&ll=48.323387,37.919312&spn=1.252829,3.128357&sll=48.226502,37.386475&sspn=0.627601,1.564178&oq=Krasnoarm&t=h&doflg=ptk&hnear=Krasnoarmiis'k,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&z=9 on Google Maps as Krasnoarmiis'k] - ''not'' to be confused with the Krasnoarmeisk not far away in Russia. Distance: about 100 km almost due west of the crash site. Panorama, possiblt location, directions/implications forthcoming. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Dnepropetrovsk Street is the main street of Krasnoarmeisk, leading northwest to Dnepropetrovsk. It tried matching this to the street corner where the car dealership is located. Yandex Maps did not provide a street view. It could be there, but too few details to make a positive match. Whatever this is, it is not evidence for anything. The least the SBU could have done is provide the location and some corroborating photographs.<br />
:The same applies to all so called "evidence" provided by Ukraine and the US State Department. As far as I can tell it is only cut-and-paste of unrelated footage to ''illustrate'' the claims made. A perfect example of this illusion is the "satellite photos" of Russian artillery shelling Ukraine released on Sunday morning. A photo of Russian GRADs on some unidentifiable field was placed next to a satellite image with an arrow pointing "Here Be Monsters!" Purely illustrative and no proof. There is a difference between legerdemain Hocus Pocus and outright forgery. The Russian video presentation displayed screen capture recording from the ATC radar, usually stored for two weeks. For this to be a hoax, Russia would need to create a forged tape of the radar data. Highly unlikely, as the the claim of authenticity had support of the full authority and prestige of the Russian Armed Forces. If the US presentation turns out to be hoax, State Department will claim the photos were never meant to be evidence. Some internee was told to prepare a presentation using stock images for some facts they ''knew'' to be true – trust us! -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 14:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: You must have missed [https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BtZSVQrIMAARzKr.jpg:large this], Petri! ;oP --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 18:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
::: That is an awesomely perfect picture for this sorry episode so far. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 14:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
::It would be neat though if we could show where this is and thus which way its's headed. The Kiev authorities, I think, know what happened. They say it was this exact launcher missing two missiles. It could be. Where is it at filming time and where headed? If it's true this same one was in Torez (dubious but possible) we'd have a direction traveled until that point also, and a rough time, 8:30 or so. [http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jul/27/mh17-storyful-social-media-twitter-youtube The Guardian again] citing Storyful's open-source investigation: <br />
::::''“There are now four pieces of content – three pieces of video and one image – which, in the case of three, conclusively show a Buk [surface-to-air] missile within rebel-held territory and in the case of the fourth, almost definitely in their territory,” says Storyful executive editor David Clinch. “Of those four pieces, individual groups or companies probably verified in or around the same time one or another of them.”''<br />
:''Open Newsroom verified three pieces of content and is investigating the fourth, thanks to its 900-strong network of journalists and experts. ''''<br />
:The fourth is this video. Wouldn't it be a coup if we were the first to place it? Force that intern excuse and then laugh at it. That said, it's not the most likely to place but you, Petri, especially, might be able to. I think I might. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 22:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* [https://plus.google.com/118234537318646233652/posts/LZV1XZD854E James Miller Google + July 21] "Was a Buk sighted in Krasnoarmeysk or Krasnodon (continued analysis)? We've taken a new look at this video which has been debated since it was posted days ago. We're fairly confident, though not 100% confident, in this geoanalysis, but we're making significant progress. Any more information would be extremely helpful. " Cited: [http://www.interpretermag.com/russia-this-week-lurid-anti-ukraine-propaganda-broadcast-on-state-tv/#1753 Russia This Week: Defense Ministry Claim on Buk in Billboard Video Doesn’t Add Up]<br />
:''...As we reported on our Ukraine Liveblog, the Buk was spotted before the shoot-down of the Malaysian airplane and ultimately geolocated to the town of Torez, near the location of the crash in Grabovo. Then the video, taken early the next morning on 18 July, showed a scene in Krasnodon,... <br />
--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Google Earth has one photo [http://www.panoramio.com/photo/55329278 from ул. Днепропетровская.] The street has about the same width. The streetlights are not quite the same. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 14:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
::That image doesn't help a match, especially since by now it looks like Lugansk. For the record, there was a go by pro-rebel social media people at identifying a spot in town to explain the video scene, but it didn't do that either. [http://wikimapia.org/#lat=48.276196&lon=37.176087&z=18&l=0&m=b this spot on Wikimapia] is what they pointed to - filmed from the marked building, they say, looking southwest to the mall. No matching anything. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 02:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== Placed in Lugansk! ====<br />
[[File:MH17 Billboard Vid-Lugansk Match.png|right|800px]]Storyful's rundown states of this video:<br />
:''The footage is not the original, however we believe that the first instance of this footage was removed by the uploader and the version below is the earliest we can find. Ukrainian Interior Minister, Arsen Avakov, made early claims that the video was filmed in the Ukrainian town of Krasnodon near the Russian border, however collaborative geo-location was able to place the footage in southwestern Luhansk.'' <ref name="Story1" /> <br />
It links to "Bellingcat," which you have to pay to see much of. [https://plus.google.com/118234537318646233652/posts/bMdeBzY8yty James Miller] passes on that it's "Mystery SOLVED: Video released by Ukraine's Interior Ministry does in fact show a Buk, possibly missing several missiles, in Lugansk headed east from the MH17 crash site and in the direction of Russia." The spot they think matches the video (better panorama coming) is [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=48%C2%B032'44.7%22N+39%C2%B015'52.6%22E&ie=UTF8&ll=48.545926,39.265147&spn=0.002436,0.00611&t=h&cid=0&z=18 here on Google Maps]. Was that a highway? Where's the cross-street? I see elsewhere they have a high view showing the same basic billboard there, but that's going to be true of several spots in this area. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
My impression of the scene - based on the panoramic view below - is far from matching with this. That does not look like a highway, and it just seems like a small town. However, I finally saw some of the supporting images (see [http://news.bigmir.net/ukraine/827864-V-Lygansk-vehala-kolonna-voennoi-tehniki--SMI here] and [https://twitter.com/djp3tros/status/491651820188860416/photo/1 here] - source of the inset image.) It seems a likely match after all. I won't say I confirm it with any certainty, but I don't think I'll be challenging it like I was preparing to do. Note the different billboard in the right spot, and the matching one over there. There are other images, apparently more current, showing that that they moved the one sign over to the right spot They don't point to the pinkish roofed building beyond the red-roofed one, but that adds to the match (compare to below). Whenever this video was made and whatever it really means, it seems quite likely it was at this spot in Lugansk shortly before dawn. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
There is another video from June 2014 showing the same billboard with the same car ad:<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ez8cZ3nqjCs Луганск 02 07 14]<br />
The video shows a column of BMPs with one 9K35 Strela-10 short-range surface to air missile system passing the intersection in Lugansk. I suspect they came from Russia, as [https://www.facebook.com/groups/IOUCO/permalink/584402078339517/ I specifically asked] for Putin to send in the Russian tanks that morning. They passed exactly when I expected them to, at 6 minutes past 4 am. (I estimated it would take 2 hours 6 minutes from the border.) -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 17:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== ACLOS Review ====<br />
As noted above, my review agrees with the placement agreed by the others. For what it's worth, the huge panorama I made (the middle is full-resolution) and starting notes from before I realized no work was needed. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 03:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
[[File:MH17 Billboard Video Pan.png|center|880px]]<br />
It seems to be filmed near the edge of town, or edge of a hill anyway, with a clear view ahead, two vague homes/buildings seen down the slope. Otherwise, very non-descript. The angle of intersection will be one of the better clues - it looks to me not 90 degrees ( |- ), but with the road the truck is on either slanting or curving somewhat towards the camera ( /- ). One important observation: '''there's no logical reason he should have been just happening to film this area''' unless he knew something interesting would drive by at just this odd time. That's clarified by how he zooms in just before it enters frame - he was waiting for that truck. How did he know about it? Informants on the other side of town phoning ahead makes enough sense, I suppose. <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 launcher truck composite.png|left|480px]]Another issue: If this is dusk (sunset 8:20 PM local), isn't this facing roughly northwest? If so, this vehicle is driving roughly north, not south. And we might start looking on the west edge of town. There's a highway out to the northwest, back towards Kiev. This street is too narrow and unmarked to be the highway, obviously, but it might be driving that way, for example. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
:Or, alternately, he's facing towards the sun about to rise, early on the 18th, as alleged by the Interior Ministry) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
::That he happened to be filming just before dawn is even less likely than dusk. He clearly knew this was coming, whatever that means. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 03:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Above is the composite scene without truck. At left is the truck without background. Besides lightening the scene, it seemed worth getting the clearest details from different frames into a composite view of the truck and its load. This helps compare to the launchers seen in other areas and different times. So far, they all seem to look the same and perhaps be the same. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 03:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br /><br />
<br />
==== HRI ====<br />
Pretty good points [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/08/05/mh17-the-lugansk-buk-video/ from Human Rights Investigations]:<br />
:''To sum up, the statement of Avakov, the film and its location suggest the Ukrainian authorities had advance knowledge of this BUK and trailer’s movements or control over it. It is also extremely strange that this BUK, allegedly after shooting down MH17, is supposedly filmed by a Ukrainian surveillance team in ostensibly rebel territory, with its covering missing, as if to show the world a missile is missing.''<br />
--[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Paris Match Photo ===<br />
[[File:MH17 Paris Match.png|770px]]<br /><br />
* [http://www.parismatch.com/Actu/International/EXCLU-MATCH-Un-camion-vole-pour-transporter-le-systeme-lance-missiles-577289 Originally published by Paris Match] on July 25, with the claim the picture was taken by their own reporting team near Snizhne at mid-day on the 17th. Note the prominent, apparent, telephone number prominently centered in the picture - (050) 471-41-80. The truck and launcher, as far as can be seen, are quite similar to or the same as the one seen in the billboard video anyways. How many of its missiles the unit has at this moment is unclear. <br />
<br />
* [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/07/28/why-is-paris-match-on-the-location-of-a-buk/ Human Rights Investigations:] "it turns out to have been taken in Donetsk, 75km away" (citing someone else's geo-location - [https://www.google.com/maps/@48.004592,37.87265,3a,75y,63.38h,82.21t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sRGnHwZ5YZnuGO-n_VvruWg!2e0 site link given.] <br />
:''We know this because the phone number on the truck panel (050 471 4180) leads straight to this hire place (photo):<br />
:''According to Paris-Match, the proprietor of this establishment claimed “rebels” had stolen a number of his vehicles earlier in the month. If we go from here to towards Snizhne we find the location of the Paris-Match photo, near a car dealership on Makiivske Highway on the outskirts of Donetsk:''<br />
:''After informing Paris-Match of the mistake regarding the video location, the author of the article Alfred De Montesquiou has now got back and explained:''<br />
:''Hello, indeed, it appears there was a mixup in caption : the picture was taken leaving Donetsk on road to Snijne, not in actual Snijne'' <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Donestk Buk Map.png|thumb|right|480px|Map: this truck location, the company's apparent headquarters ([https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Molodykh+Shakhtariv+St,+19,+Donetsk,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&ll=48.044923,37.783184&spn=0.079187,0.195522&hnear=Molodykh+Shakhtariv+St,+19,+Donetsk,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&t=h&z=13 GM link]), and the A-1402 missile base relative to each other.]]<br />
<br />
'''Questions:''' Was it a caption mix-up, or did their team really not know where it was taken, and just believed the real source when he said Snizneh? Who is the true photographer who knew to catch this picture near the company's base, apparently at the outset of a rather epic journey? Why did the rebel thieves leave the prominent phone number on the stolen truck used for such an important task? It wound up leading to man who pointed right to the rebel thieves, and prove yet again separatists, not Kiev allies, were the ones driving BUKs around. Was that so hard to foresee? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''To Do:''' Verify the geo-location - set a time, presuming July 17, by sunlight and that location - establish which way it's traveling relative to the government-run anti-aircraft base just a few km north of here and relative to the other places and times this truck and others were spotted rolling around prominently and getting filmed a lot by the right kind of people, in areas presumed to be impenetrable to any such frame-up operation - look into this company, etc. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''Location:''' I can't confirm it with certainty, but it's extremely consistent. Two standard but distinct pole types that close together on the right with a pull-over lane ending at the blue one, and consistent-scale foliage behind. Proceding on the location as likely enough to warrant the work. The stretch of highway identified runs northeast, heading 33 degrees. The truck is most likely not driving at the moment, as it's in the pull-over lane. But it's pointed as if ready to leave Donetsk as soon as they finish doing something in theis spot. All we can see they're doing is getting filmed, and maybe that's just what they're waiting for. Ahead would be the an industrial area, the eastern suburb of Makiivka, then Khartsyzk, etc. and further east Torez and Snizhne (driving times unsure, date also unsure. Russia claims the one launcher left the northern base sometime between in August 14 and 17 images. <ref name="RT10">[http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ 10 more questions Russian military pose to Ukraine, US over MH17 crash] RT. July 21, 2014</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
There is more to consider about this truck, its company, its owner, and his story. But other than this photo's extra-clear view of the phone number and apparent proximity to headquarters, those are better covered in the section below [[#The Truck Owner's Story]].<br />
<br />
==== Time? ====<br />
[[File:MH17 Paris Match elev.png|right|220px]]'''Time:''' I'm not sure how exactly to set this up, but the shadows appear to stretch almost right across the highway, with only a slight northern shift. The azimuth thus appears to be fairly close to to 140˚ (reached at 11:09 AM). As for solar altitude, trying to line up the launcher's corner with its shadow gives a reading of app. 56˚ (= 10:50 AM, with azimuth 133˚) or perhaps 59˚ (= 11:18, az 143.5). The graphic shows both readings. Which is better? I used [http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/solcalc/ NOAA solar calculator], with coordinates: lat 48.017102 long:37.9037626 time=GMT+2, DST +1 --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Bellingcat was originally claiming that photo was taken at 9 am. [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/09/08/images-show-the-buk-that-downed-flight-mh17-inside-russia-controlled-by-russian-troops/] <br />
<br />
Then they were claiming 11 am as an obvious time without retracting previous 9am claim. [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/11/08/origin-of-the-separatists-buk-a-bellingcat-investigation/] <br />
<br />
Seems like 9am was more comfortable for them to match to photos from Zuhres and Torez. <br />
<br />
Sorry, using smartphone. Not very easy to comment --[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 01:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:<small>Looks like you put the same link twice, -it says 11 a.m.--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)</small><br />
::Antidyatel, welcome! Resup, thanks! I'd like to see any 9 am citation. But otherwise they agree on it being around 11? Good. The significance below is if the Zuhres square photo was taken at 11:40 AM as they say, it's basically impossible these images are from the same day as alleged - 69 km, 1 hour 14 mins drive between the spots, when there's only 20-40 minutes between the images. However, fudging it - let's say this is 10:50 and the other is 12:00 as I read it - that's 1:10 between, almost a perfect match. So maybe this isn't a great lead (I was never convinced it was). But 9:00 is way off and suggests they were fudging it to fit at that point. Would be good to document. BTW, on talk pages you can sign with <nowiki>--~~~~</nowiki> or the sign/scribble button. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: [https://web.archive.org/web/20141109132514/https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/11/08/origin-of-the-separatists-buk-a-bellingcat-investigation/ First archive.org snapshot] from the day after publishing (edit: a good three months after you called it :o)) says 11 am already. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 10:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: Okay, the links were fixed once or twice and [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/11/08/origin-of-the-separatists-buk-a-bellingcat-investigation/ the November report] says 11 am, not citing an azimuth or anything, just Paris Match saying it was "about 11 am," which doesn't count much for verification. The [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/09/08/images-show-the-buk-that-downed-flight-mh17-inside-russia-controlled-by-russian-troops/ earlier report from Sptember] might be based on something else when it mentions "a well known image from Paris Match, which shows a Buk in Donetsk at 9am on July the 17th." Neither one sounds like a firm final version. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Accidently found the source for the 9am claim. By amending the link for the AP report in another section. [http://bigstory.ap.org/article/what-happened-day-flight-17-was-downed]. The paragraph of interest is quoted below:<br />
"According to Nayda, at 1 a.m. on July 17 the launcher rolled into Ukraine across the Russian border aboard a flatbed truck. He cited communications intercepts that he would not share with the AP. By 9 a.m., he said, the launcher had reached Donetsk, the main rebel stronghold 125 miles (200 kilometers) from the border. In Donetsk it is presumed to have been off-loaded from the flatbed and started to move in a convoy on its own."<br />
Assuming the fairytale that Peter Leonard was creating in the article it seems that he was in charge of the whole propaganda operation and was assigned to AP on July 8th, 2014. It seems that we have the officer in charge impersonated finally ;))<br />
<br />
==== Screenshot from dashcam video? ====<br />
[[File:Paris Match on dashcam 1.jpg|right|400px]]<br />
[[File:Paris Match on dashcam 2.jpg|right|400px]]<br />
It it possible to identify if the photo was made by dashboard camera, smartphone, or other type of camera. Paris Match claimed that they made the photo. There are no date markings on the photo, which is strange. Position of the camera is such that it was either dashboard camera or the driver was making a photo (front and left side of the car). Paris Match was also implying in their report that it was a group of people in the car. "A sytem BUK missile launcher is photopgraphie by the team of Paris-Match in the suburbs of Donetsk, on the road to Snizhne the morning of July 17, hours before the flight Malaysia Airlines MH17 crash."[http://m.parismatch.com/Actu/International/EXCLU-MATCH-Un-camion-vole-pour-transporter-le-systeme-lance-missiles-577289]<br />
<br />
Why would they ask driver to make a photo? Dangerous or uncomfortable - illogical. If it was a dashboard camera, why not to release a video? And most importantly it would have a time stamp. <br />
<br />
Also in this report [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/01/17/new-images-of-the-mh17-buk-missile-launcher-in-ukraine-and-russia/] gives a new, a bit extended photo. Surprisingly the back of the BUK is nicely in focus, same as the truck cabin. While middle of the BUK is defocused. No wonder Paris Match cropped it. Bellingcat, that likes being so strict about photos, totally ignores this part. <br />
-- [[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 23:55,, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Yes, I agree. The two photos are crops from screenshots from a dashcam video. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 00:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
::Those must be two different shots at close-by time --look at position of street lamppost with respect to the truck cabin, one has it over black pipe, and the other more to the right from there. Can't think of a natural way for camera to focus on two different distances (maybe dirty and curvy windshield can be blamed but on tricky side here)-- FWIW. Usually dashboards have short focal length so that anything appear to be in focus; don't know why not the case here --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
RESUP, you are right. Those are two different shots. There is cable reflection from the windshield. Probably the cable is another indication of the dashboard camera.--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 13:35, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::I heard somewhere that it was a dashcam still, and I thought probably so. We all agree on that. As for the two images, I didn't know, will compare. Might compare. Why no video is a good question with at least o-ne true answer. Keep an eye out for possible ones. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:53, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Look at the link name for the Paris-Match photo https://wp4553-flywheel.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/PM2-BUK-Snijne17072014.jpeg<br />
Why would they name this photo from Donetsk using the name Snijne? What is PM2? Was it some folder that only consistent the storyline with focus on Snijne? Did Bellingcat have other options to fall back after they can’t defend it anylonger<br />
<br />
Funny thing about Bellingcat’s questionable standards of research. So much effort of looking for manipulation in Russian MOD photos. Let’s do the same trick with Paris-Match photo. Here http://fotoforensics.com/analysis.php?id=17a82272d17dbbb2abb0b784f10b3c64d5870562.186081<br />
BUK is very distinct from other objects in the ELA picture. Does it prove that photo is fake or photoshoped. Don’t know and don’t care. Just enjoy exposing Bellingcat hypocrisy. Why weren’t they interested to do the same if they are so confident in that tool and that picture is so critical for their story<br />
--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 10:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
:Those b-cats used their monies to produce another [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/06/12/july-17-imagery-mod-comparison/ opus]. Not sure I have spare time or enthusiasm to look much into this; after a brief look, clearly different viewpoints, different squeeze distortion on some photos at least, and different image quality -for example, black field with small variations in MoD may be not inconsistent with roads in that field seen in higher quality color photo; etc. Not sure how accurate is timing on either of the versions; do they really have photos of every place at every hour/ half hour/etc at DG? If Buk was moved, it was moved at certain time, and shortly before that time it can be photographed staying put there--need to have enough accurately timed photos for a conclusion. Now with MoD doing press conference, they would not through their best photos as they are at the journos; need to look at what they released officially to the investigation for saying anything meaningful. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Torez Square Photo ===<br />
[[File:MH17 Torez Buk Analysis.png|left]]This is another image geo-located by the Brown Moses network (ally Aric Toller) to central Torez, [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Donetsk&hl=en&ll=48.023472,38.614014&spn=0.004923,0.01222&hnear=Donetsk,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&t=h&z=17 here on Google Maps.] Like others, it was initially stated as in another locale - Snizhne - and that had to be corrected. I can agree the location pointed to is either the photo's site or one strangely like it. [http://mashable.com/2014/07/23/citizen-journalists-mh17-spies/ Mashable noted] "Toler and Higgins were able to establish that the photograph was shot around 11:40 a.m. local time." I tried a quick azimuth measure, eyeballed relative only to the blue car, and got 165 degrees (yellow line, read backwards). This equates to a time of almost exactly 12:00 noon (about 30 minutes before solar noon, and 20 minutes later than their estimate). Seeing they're close to right, I'll presume they're closer than me and defer to 11:40. <br />
<br />
If this photo is taken at 11:40 AM, and it's the same truck seen leaving Donetsk around 11-11:20 AM, it's impossible these images are from the same day as alleged (Gmaps says it's 68.8 km, 1 hour 14 mins drive, when there's only 20-40 minutes between the images). That would mean multiple mobile launchers with multiple "Titan" trucks, or just one but with some date fudging. The company says a number of its trucks were stolen, so matching multiples are entirely likely. But so is date fudging, multiples or not. If that's so, I suspect the Donetsk photo was from July 15 or 16, and this one more likely from the day of the crime. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 04:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br /><br /><br /><br />
=== Zuhres Video ===<br />
[[File:Buk Zuhres Vid.png|right|480px]]Again, a truck of that same type loaded with the same apparent weapon is briefly seen driving east (detail at right). This one was never reported wrong and was in fact pre-geo-located by the uploader [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=48%C2%B0+1'1.38%22N++38%C2%B018'6.04%22E&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=48.034019,38.391724&spn=0.629958,1.564178&gbv=2&hnear=H21,+Zuhres,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&gl=us&t=h&z=10 here in Zuhres.] Higgins confirms, 100% sure, and others concur. <ref name="Story1" /> Zuhres location: on highway H21 halfway between Donetsk and the general disaster zone - 36 km east by road from the position of the truck in the Paris Match photo. I agree with the location, refined below as I lined up in the still used here - the blue line runs between the blue thing and the building corner (footprint, not roofline) to the front of the truck as it passes. <br />
<br />
The sky is fairly overcast, so solar angles can't be measured precisely; the differences in facet lighting are clear but not massive. A broad and inclusive azimuth range of 167˚ to 214˚ (rounded) is shown by the yellow arrows below. This yields a range (to the nearest minute) of 12:09 PM and 1:45 PM. The best middle is a bit early - 185 degrees. That would be 12:44 PM. Altitude, at solar noon, helps little. 12:09, 12:44, and all times between round off to 63˚. if that simply looks too high, we're forced to the later end of the time frame. - 57˚ at 1:45. My super broad-estimate: 12:45 +/- 50 minutes. Weather at this time on whatever day - as noted, it partly overcast, and it's windy. The clouds are moving fast, with slight lighting changes visible in just these few seconds. Winds by the swaying trees are from the southeast, perhaps, blowing northwest - at least at the building with a face running that way.<br />
[[File:Buk Zuhres analysis.png|center|680px]]<br />
<br />
==The Truck Owner's Story==<br />
The apparent owner of the white truck so important to the MH17 operation was of course tracked down via the giant phone number for his compant on its side. Interviewed at least twice now, first by Paris Match, then by Lithuanian agency Alfa, this businessman has been anonymized as Vassili (then Vasilijus). Thorough summary of the related, alleged facts, from each (translated) report:<br />
* [http://www.parismatch.com/Actu/International/EXCLU-MATCH-Un-camion-vole-pour-transporter-le-systeme-lance-missiles-577289 Paris Match, July 25:]<br />
:''Photographs of Paris Match showed that the rebels had failed to remove the billboard on the truck they had stolen. Thus we joined the owner of the vehicle. Vassili said the rebels occupied warehouses on the outskirts of Donetsk since July 8. "They are fighters Slaviansk. They landed and told me they loved my premises and we had to escape. They shipped me a dozen large vehicles, including the white truck. I do not know what happened to them, "admitted Vassili, distraught.'' (that was actually just what they published, aside from context material) <br />
<br />
* [http://www.alfa.lt/straipsnis/472203/alfa-lt-isskirtinis-interviu-su-raketas-buk-kuriomis-buvo-numustas-malaizijos-avialiniju-lektuvas-gabenusio-vilkiko-savininku?p=1#.U-GIxeOSyuZ Alfa.lt, July 29:]<br />
:''This person's testimony is crucial. After it becomes indisputably known that anti-missile system, which shot down a passenger plane was precisely the Kremlin-sponsored terrorist hands. ''<br />
Here, separatists are throughout called "terrorists" (Bezler is "the "People's Republic of Donetsk" terrorist gangs ringleader"). Vassili says these took over and occupied his company premises on July 8, taking the white truck - they said because it was needed He says they stayed in control of his facility for 8 days, apparently departing on the 9th day - July 17. Becuase of this, he and his staff - especially his drivers - were unable to do anything that whole time. He's entirely certain it's his truck in the videos (the phone number says so) as it's the only one of its type in that part of Donetsk (Žinoma, ji – vienintelė tokia Donecko srityje, tokios kitos nėra. Tokios „Volvo“ su tokia kabina). He says he still hasn't seen it since.<br />
:''...more and more irrefutable evidence that Russia supported the terrorists shot down over the temporary control of the territory in the east of Ukraine aboard passenger "Malaysia Airlines plane, and later sought to hide evidence.''<br />
But as Paris Match noted, they couldn't be bothered to detach the phone number to the guy with the whole dang story. <br />
:''Alfa.lt knowledge of the personal data, company name, knows his responsibilities and phone numbers (one is (050) 471-41-80), but because of '''the danger to his life''' that can not be published. "Stop saying my name, and I already have enough problems," said new horrific crime witness Vasilijus.'' <br />
This is valid; of course his best defense would have been to simply ''not'' implicate the separatists mostly running Donetsk, but it's too late now. DPR authorities might want him for questioning. And especially now that he's been publicized as a "crucial witness," others will want him to '''appear to have been brutally murdered by them''' (he will have served his main purpose by now, perhaps). I hope someone's able to arrange protective custody quickly enough, or that he can arrange his own vacation, or convince his friends (he'll know the ones) of his continuing usefulness to them alive. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Titan Gate blurry.png|left|380px]]Further bits on the business: Wikimapia has labels. One for the front building is generic. In English writing: [http://wikimapia.org/#lat=48.0399571&lon=37.794637&z=16&l=0&m=b&show=/24479492/Ochakivska-vulytsia-19 Ochakivska vulytsia, 19]. Beneath: Category: safety, '''private security company.''' Around this, a bigger labeled area including the back building and surrounding lot. Label: Территория службы охраны "Титан" Translated, it says "Territory protection service "Titan" (Donetsk)." Beneath it: "Category: '''Do not display name''', fenced area." (не отображать название, огороженная территория) Below, their gate area as it appears in Human Rights Investigation's still, and three versions I've seen randomly changing over the last day or so with different parts that could be the name blurred out (most recently back to not blurred). Is that unusual? I predict further twists in this, with the truck found somewhere bolstering the Kiev story, and with the company's "outing" being manipulated somehow. Feels a little spooky. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
;Assessing "Vassili's" Story<br />
<br />
There are a number of problems with and interesting questions about this witness' story and how it meshes with other allegation (details forthcoming).<br />
<br />
In Vassili's defense, I'll say the world needs to hear more. What happened in these eight days? Were Russian officers coming and going? Poring over air charts in the side room, before closing the door with an annoyed look? A lot could have happened - this could be a gold mine of direct evidence for war crimes trials of these terrorist gang's leaders (as understood). --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
[[File:MH17 Vassili's Truck August 1c.png|right|400px]]<br />
An apparent support: as HRI found, [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/08/07/new-sighting-of-volvo-linked-to-buk/ New sighting of Volvo linked to BUK?] August 7 - One of those provocatively deleted tweets, quite recent with a supposedly same-day (dawn or sunset) photo from somewhere in Donetsk - outskirtsy, like where <s>rebel</s> I mean Kiev junta forces proudly claim to almost be. this photo (saved by HRI) shows "a truck" carrying a tank, driving behind another tank. The posted thought it was for a new roadblack/barricade (concrete slabs were also being hauled). It appears to be the same truck Vassili says he lost, or one just like it. And this does look like the type of thing seaparatists would do if they had seized it, and still didn't realize how famous it had become. This thing likes to drive at dawn, doesn't it? How are checkpoints then, a little sleepy maybe? Hmmm... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::(added later: inset image - from the photo, color-corrected and cropped on just the truck - for full view see the article or below) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: FTR I took up HRI's challenge to identify the truck on that picture and did so with almost 100% certainty. It's a Volvo FH second generation (2001-2013) with low cabin. Like [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Volvo_LKW_Fahrerhaus.JPG this one] which has a higher cabin but other than that is quite a match. Also FTR, I noticed that the twitter account has "Donbass Bandera" as location, which can but must not mean anything. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: Bandera might mean something, in context, but no time to puzzle too much. Good ID work there. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Vassili's Truck August 1 Loc.png|left|380px]]The article passes on a geo-location I can confirm: [https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Makiivka,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine/@48.04073,37.967479,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m5!1e2!3m3!1s78165143!2e1!3e10!4m2!3m1!1s0x40e08e984a0db9a9:0xe4e52efde2e0641c Here on Google Maps,] photo taken, as described, from "opposite the Vostochno-evroppeyskiy restaurant & lounge “Atrium” in Makiivka on the H-21." A site photo of the "Atrium" is included. The graphic I made at left shows the approximate view, including the stairwell (to a subway station?), though the billboard is less clear. The view is roughly towards the rising sun northeast - a rough azimuth measure suggests the sun is shining from about <s>66</s> 71 degrees from north, for a time of around <s>5:24</s> 5:52 AM (elevation: <s>1.8</s> 6 degrees). --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC) and corrections --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
FWIW, I went over to militaryphotos.net and scanned [http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?236005-Situation-in-the-Ukraine-Crimea-*Photos-Videos*-ONLY/page200 the thread about Ukraine starting on page 200] in very early July, up until page 225 when all the known truck/BUK info and disinfo was posted. Watched countless military convoys, including a whole bunch from Donetsk in the time between. Not a sign of the truck in question. If it was in "rebel" hands since July 8 like the alleged owner claims, they used it only for "special ops", alone in the early morning or so, not in their larger relocation operations. Two things remotely interesting: in an operation [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0JdcC324Ek reactivating a WWII tank from a war museum in Donetsk], a similar trailer is used, but the truck is a different one. And in [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2eGNPJlkMo this video from July 5] but without given location, the Ukie army does some operations and two BUK TELARs are seen. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Possible Launch Sites ==<br />
*Launch site discussion here is based on a photo of disputed provenance, said to be made '''near [[Category_talk:Ukraine#Torez|Torez]]''', showing a plume of smoke (see on the right and below). Exact date is disputed, but it was posted shortly after the accident. A late update or second version of the photo emerged in December 2014; this is further discussed in the [[File_talk:MH17_Launch_Plume.png|talk page for the photo]]. A different launch location in '''Artemovsk''', based on Bezler account, is discussed elsewhere [[Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17#Bezler_Account|(link).]] . <br />
<br />
===What do we know? ===<br />
Questions about the photo, --if it is genuine-- include:<br />
<br />
*What is shown on the photo? (Likely a missile launch, but can be MANPAD, or some other launch; raising fire smoke not excluded though less likely) <br />
*When was the photo made? (Claimed to be couple of minutes after the MH 17 shootdown launch; but could be made on earlier days)<br />
*Where was the photographer, and where is than the 'launch site" Photograph claimed to be made in Torez (4 microdistrict?) . Claimed launch sites locations are [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/launch-location-detected-of-missile.html SE] or [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2107 NE] from the photographer. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
A site, or maybe a couple of locations, have now been forwarded, based on compelling evidence, as likely SAM launch sites of July 17 or thereabouts. This is worth careful consideration here. To start:<br />
<br />
* [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10984530/MH17-the-clues-which-may-lead-to-missile-launch-site.html UK Telegraph, July 22] This report with some detail and a photo visits a few areas where signs of possible BUK launcher movement and firing occurred recently. Caterpillar tracks, mostly light, signs of burning, various debris left behind, all or mostly "in the area of the town of Snizhnoye." These details might suggest whoever did this had multiple launchers set up in different areas that left as soon as the operation/accident was done. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
::So far, signs are saying it was just the one. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Below: The site shown on video, stitched panoramic view (with confusing curve). This helps get the fullest set of geo-location clues. I may even check if this is the same spot identified by Ukraine@War, below. It should be, or we might have two firing locations pretty near each other, which would be odd. The firing direction from here would be northwest, almost directly along MH17's flight path. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
[[File:MH17 Telegraph site.png|center|940px]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Launch Plume.png|right|340px]]Ukraine@War: [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/launch-location-detected-of-missile.html Launch location detected of missile that brought down MH17] The photo at right, cited by Kiev as proof of a BUK launch in the right area, July 17. The anlysis here looks good on first blush and lines the filming to northern Torez, plume on a line including a supposed patch of cat tracks just revelaed by fresh Google/GeoEye images of some fields [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Donetsk&hl=en&ll=47.989347,38.773155&spn=0.078813,0.195522&t=h&hnear=Donetsk,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&z=13 here] by Snizhne. As traced, the tracks look realistic to me. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: There is (a disappeared) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUvK5m2vxro BBC video ] suggesting that smoke is from a direction of Saur-Mogila (= constant fighting) and a coal mine. <br />
::Thus smoke may be unrelated to the launch. Also timing of photo is unclear. <br />
:: Buk trail from unrelated launch videos appears considerably [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDXScnEKaP0 more impressive than on the photo] , and traces well visible trajectory, likely attracting attention of many people . But there appears to be no witness reports. <br />
::Buk appears to use [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_navigation proportional navigation method], and if so, its navigation control will try to guide it on a straight path to impact.<br />
::Unless it was doing something else (but can it??? the answer requires expert knowledge), it was most likely on a straight line trajectory which can be deduced from the impact direction.<br />
--[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 00:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Yes, an odd video. I'm not certain they even picked the right view, but it looks about right - I think she and Oliphant (Telegraph) point to the same monument as a landmark - a place of fighting. Seems like they got close, but didn't have a specific spot like U@W picked, and didn't find anything. As for angle, I think it can maneuver around, but would prefer to fly straight (not an expert, don't know what "prefer" means here). And if it was hit head-on like the impact marks suggest, then it probably did fly just about straight into the jet. Obviously if it came over the wing, and was fired from here, it would have to curl around, but I don't think that's the case. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
<br />
The satellite images cited at Ukraine@War are available if you have Google Earth. As explained [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/satellite-images-reveal-how-buk-has.html here,] there's a .kmz package you can download [https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxEeOqcjSE5uQXlkWkxKeVhDaEk/edit here] that loads on Google Earth new, murky images from July 20 (but the display still says August, 2013). The tracks he highlights are visible, faintly. There are a couple sets perhaps connecting - some could be local paths - there's no recent enough images to say there weren't there July 16. One important missing thing is a patch of burnt grass it seems should show up up differently - it's not identified there, and not evident right around these tracks. From this, it's not a great fit, except that line of sight pointing here. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Plastic Debris 1.png|left|280px]]So is the Telegraph site and the Ukraine@War site the same thing? Well, the Telegraph article says they went to the spot identified on a blog, but found, as the image suggests: Two possible launch sites – a rundown collective farm and a nearby wheat field – showed some track marks but no sign of any rocket launch whatsoever." It was a farmer plowing his fields there who pointed them to ''a field nearby'' that burned the other day, and that 's the unclear site they show. "The location of the fire lies on the supposed flight path of the rocket, and track marks – though indistinct – are present. Some unidentifiable bits of green plastic littered the site of the fire." There were also discarded bottles (type unclear) and apparently this oddity, shown in a photo but not mentioned - soft bakelite-type plastic ... thing, with years in the 1980s and 1990s stamped in it. It's all near enough to the rebel town, the Russian border, and concealed rebel positions that they think only rebels could operate there. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
First, let's note that author "P. Martin" connects these possibly relevant tracks with the surveillance video showing the Buk launcher driving south The Telegraph spot, from the burnt grass, must the spot the exhaust pushed off from, and the burn line should probably be to the northwest. There's no sign of that alongside these track marks found on that visual line. That's a problem, as the exhaust never said a luncher was driving around thataway, but rather launching from thataway. <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Telegraph Spot Mapped.png|right|380px]][[File:MH17 Telegraph Spot Cleared.png|right|320px]]Rather, it's the nearby "Telegraph spot" - not quite on his line but close - that [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com/2014/07/exact-location-pinpointed-of-mh17.html Martin thinks is the EXACT location] That, he thinks, is in the next field south. It should be visible in the updated imagery, but it turns out this is just off the edge of the area they provided, so it can't be verified or ruled out based on that. The inset graphic shows this cut-off line, his previous possible firing locations (track-based, seemingly un-burnt, in yellow) The spot yields a best placement with coordinates already noted by Petri in a section [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Map#Buk locations and flight paths|here.]] (I picked out the spot myself, best guess, and got the same but 3 seconds east) It can't be checked like that for the telltale stripe to the northwest, but it looks pretty likely to me. The main view down the tracks (left half of the panorama above) would be looking south, and the near line of trees on the right running west. The pretty obvious tracks he identifies as likely launcher tracks, and they do seem to curve in where it stopped. Otherwise, to me, this has more the look of a pre-travelles semi-road on the line between fields. Either way, it probably drove that way, and fired from here, and not from the un-burnt spots north. All the tracks he notes, none certain in themselves, are supported in their possible relevance by this being what's at the end of the trail. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC) and [[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Added in November, the image below that. I noticed Google Maps had new post-crash imagery up, and re-checked the spot for burn marks, since it was just off the grid before. This replacement - overlayed with translucence - seems too late. The strip most likely to show the signs has apparently been harvested/cleared before this image Some will say that constitutes a coverup. And it might, but probably just out of stupid reflexive nervousness. I just wanted to measure its angle and stuff. There is a nice track right up to the spot, likely pre-existing and just unclear before, and what they used to get there. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Location Challenged ===<br />
<br />
The above stuff, as of now and as I've been running it mainly, seems to bear out the vaunted "social media sleuths" placing the launcher and probably the launch in "separatist-held territory." I agree with all locations provided, and times too. Everyone acknowledges date is less sure. There are compelling clues pointing to concrete firing spot, that seems to be lined up the hit the jet head-on, as it's starting to seem the airliner was hit. In this narrative, the questions people should be asking is who was really running that. But readings differ, and some differing views can be considered here. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* [https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByibNV3SiUoobnpCVDduaHVORHM/edit?usp=sharing MH17 Analysis] – CDN <br />
<br />
Petri posted this to the front page, a 25-page report with many graphics and explained reasoning. One of its conclusions, based on range to impact, mainly, meant that "the missile that downed MH17 was not fired from Snizhne." At the moment, I disagree. Petri, who is CDN, and are they soliciting feedback? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::The anonymous PDF was published via Saker's blog: [http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/08/detailed-expert-analysis-of-mh17-downing.html Detailed expert analysis of the MH17 downing] "CDN" has [http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/08/detailed-expert-analysis-of-mh17-downing.html?showComment=1407347983141#c8862773971299986141 responded] [http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/08/detailed-expert-analysis-of-mh17-downing.html?showComment=1407350196815#c7564049628743605813 twice] in the comments. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 00:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
I think these might be part of what threw the author(s) off:<br />
# the heading seems to be off, too southerly to trace back like that. At the end, maybe close enough<br />
# possibly too-wide debris field starting too early - final breakup likely E-NE of their spot (ie closer to in range)<br />
# Wrong presumed angle of impact <br />
# Lack of knowledge, specified on page 23, of this contrail image or, obviously, the supporting clues pointing to what might be "the Telegraph site" excluded here. "Why are there no images of the rebel missile and its impressive launch contrail?" Oops, there is and it point there. <br />
--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: I just skimmed it before coming here. It was posted [http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.de/2014/08/detailed-expert-analysis-of-mh17-downing.html over here] where you can join the discussion (which I haven't read yet just saw that Petri is there chiming in in comment 2 of currently 93). I think it's first valuable in presenting the known capabilities of the Buk etc. If your stuff above is true and it is one single truck with one single TELAR that was seen in the different locations, then it shows quite conclusively that the Telegraph position can not be the launching point, because even if the Ukie claim of disappearance from Radar 50km from the Russian border is not true, due to the position of the debris it could only be further away, not closer, which adds to the argument. My 2 cents for the moment. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
: Oh, not directly related to the critique, but driving around with a huge phone number that leads to a Titan security of all places is more than a bit suspicious, I'd say. ;o) --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: "the Telegraph position can not be the launching point" if my "stuff above is true and it is one single truck with one single TELAR that was seen in the different locations" - how? "because even if the Ukie claim of disappearance from Radar 50km from the Russian border is not true, due to the position of the debris it could only be further away, not closer, which adds to the argument." Huh? I think the field is placed really vaguely in that report, and that's what sets the impact point - it looks maybe kilometers off, to the west. Placed right, the implied impact point is further east, ie closer to the launcher. It is a valuable report, but that point should be re-checked more carefully before I could be convinced to write off all the other evidence pointing there. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::: Take a careful look at pages 9 and 10 of the PDF. Place the spot to where you think it's "right". Think how that would change the picture. The argument is based on the empirical location of the debris and unless I've missed some serious flaw in the numbers and basic calculations made on the pages leading to that, I think it's by rule of thumb a very sound argument. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 13:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::: I'll do my own soon - I can say it would end further east, relative to the border there, and probably start further east too, but maybe I'm unaware of some outlying debris - but first a though on the debris field I just had, even more relevant than size and placement - what does it actually say re: the plane? He presumes it would follow the trajectory east. Not much, really. With only so much momentum and breaking up, with five miles to fall, the main factor will be wind. Even a breeze has five miles to act on it. That was so with PA 103 - the wind was about perpendicular to the path, and that determined just where stuff scattered on a line across the borders area right to the north sea - only the cockpit and a few things were off much from that line. Here, if it blewa along the flight path, the reasoning would work fine. If it blew back, to the west, the plane was probably shot further east than the field suggests. Ie, closer yet to in range. The Zuhres video above shows wind apparently to the northwest, and pretty strong. Worth a review and re-think in that light. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 14:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::: With an initial speed of 907 km/h I see no reason to take wind into serious account. I see no reason at all for going into more detail in this rule of thumb argument, not on the debris, not on the alleged launching point. But I'm as always looking forward to what you can come up with. ;o) --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::: btw there's no exact calculation of the traveled distance of the falling pieces, it's just found plausible resulting from other data. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::::: There's good reason. [http://martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/PA103_debris.gif past precedent.] I did read it wrong - the blue oval is about right, I thought the scale by it, which is way off. That's the 20 km drift - if the wind was blowing due east at the right speed... to the near edge of the oval and 30 km to the far edge... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 15:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 four last points.png|center]]<br />
<br />
Debris fields as shown in MH17 WSJ data combined.jpg. The two tracks, 118 per Flightradar24 and other sources, and 111 from a Russian graphic (see label C), just in case. They cross at point E just to look cool - superimpose wherever to visualize a track-back on these or any line between. <br />
<br />
The four red "last points", eyeballed onto the map as shown in the various graphics used here (all pretty approximate): <br />
<br />
A: last return, flightradar 24 (erred, I think, way too far along - I suspect some inherent offset...)<br />
<br />
B: Russian ATC last return, '50 km' from the border (vague description, likely close to accurate)<br />
<br />
C: end of 111 track shown in MH17 radar 1.png (maybe arbitrary, lower resolution)<br />
<br />
D: report, deduced point of impact (presuming 20-30 km flight due east after impact, wind app. not considered at all)<br />
<br />
E: My guess for breakup point, where the damaged front came apart (should maybe be further east, right over the south part of the first orange blob). Actual impact point, an unclear distance back. probably not very far - downward flight could start anytime after that, decreasing the lateral distance traveled) . <br />
<br />
The cockpit, aerodynamic, shows the most like forward trajectory of this, relatively minimal wind complication. The heavy forward parts had more drag, wound up NW of there. A bit further NW, the light, high-drag, punctured upper fuselage. That these parts aren't spread further out suggests the jet managed to descend some ways before the front totally fell apart, and/or that the wind was fairly light. From there, most of the plane remained together, kept more momentum and little wind effect, and crashed kilometers east. The last part of this plummet, about one minute seen on video, it was nose-free and essentially nose-diving. A slight north trend, perhaps curtailed eastward progress, largely just down, leaves it all hitting together by Hrabove, scattering woth the fireball trajectory and wind deciding where these bits landed. That it only got so far from the forward parts again suggests this breakup was fairly low in the fall - maybe just before the start of the one video. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I'd say forget point D, it is way too far west, this plane was not going to fly 25km once hit. On debris, I'd put breakup where the "f" is in your word "forward" and impact not very far NW of that, lifting the whole 118 line a little northwards. You can't bring breakup below impact and count on wind pushing wreckage "uphill" because that first group of wreckage included 37 bodies, which would not "sail". The impact would be enough to knock the course slightly south, to drop the cockpit at Rozspyne, where it turned NE to end up at Grabovo. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 03:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Thanks. D is the presumed point used to rule out this launch location, the original point of this sub-section. That dot fails by a good margin. My E and your guess are both north of the flight path, along which all the red dots are (this graphic is confusing, needs updating, if I didn't flatten it). I was thinking a NNW wind did the north and west spreading, but the records say the wind was flat "east" (to the west). I'm left suspecting now the plane banked hard left just before it started breaking up. Actual impact, just before that. The "C" label is pretty arbitrary, but it keeps seeming about right. On the imagined red line 1t 117-118, I dunno, maybe 20-30 pixels back. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::Winds are described as 'from' not 'to. So a wind blowing to the NNW is reported as a SSE wind.<br />
::::A slip - I'm trying to say it that way now. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::Getting on to the wind. The actual breeze direction is usually a function of altitude - veering or backing from ground level observation. It can easily be 90 degrees out from ground level. You need to look at the vertical profile used in aeronautical soundings to see where debris will in the main blow to. --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 11:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::Sounds like a real headache to map. There's also changes over time, where east at 5:00 may change briefly ten minutes later, or 10,000 feet up. All that seems can be counted on is easterly winds in general - no exception to that. And generally, even if they measure it at the airport, it must extend up to the clouds, which can be seen swirling east over the area. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::No it doesn't extend to the clouds except by accident. Major direction change can happen in hundreds of metres altitude especially at night. Examples of wind shift between ground level and 700 millibars (9800 ft) in day time can show a direction change of 90 degrees - e.g. North to West. This is significant with MH17 where the breakups occurred between 33,000 feet and probably a few thousand feet for the final disintegrations. --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 11:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::FYI Here is all about [http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/48/ Veering and Backing] --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 11:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::As for the spread issue, I'm re-thinking it. As for the bodies, it depends on a few things but I take your point - bodies are dense. And I didn't know that detail - worth considering. Also a sad side-note: most bodies would be alive and aware, from what I learned looking at Lockerbie. Lack of O2 would black them all out at first, but gravity makes it so there's enough in that final stretch those not dead already (the lucky few) would probably "wake up" in time to both feel their injuries and their fall, and to see the "separatist-held" fields rushing up to kill them. :( ---[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::: My indications are they were all dead when they hit the ground. That's not to say some didn't suffer from the first blast up there. Using my (very long ago) rescue triage training, I examined all the body photos for type of injury. The main findings were (a) almost no blood (as the separatist intercepted call rightly claimed) (b)a lot of legs at angles suggesting hip/pelvic fracture (a very common injury in air crashes to people wearing seat belts) and (c) all the bodies appear swollen (in first-day photos). We are thinking of what happened as a decompression, a low-pressure event. But that was preceded by the blast detonation of the missile just outside... a high-pressure event. The very high pressure shock wave compresses the blood vessels and severely damages the lungs. Blood pressure and heart rate go sky high trying to compensate. In 1/2 a second the blast wave is gone and they are in decompression.The heart can't adjust fast enough. The lack of blood flow makes the brain and liver swell up, too, so normal blood circulation cannot be re-established even if the heart recovers. The Lockerbie bomb, and various exploding fuel tank cases, were lower pressure explosions; sadly many would have survived those until ground/water impact.[[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 20:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::So there is evidence of blast wave, not _just_ decompression alone? But no shrapnel wounds? --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 21:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::(cut my comment - I had misread - taken to [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Debunked topics#Bloodless bodies – fake Facebook profiles?|bloodless bodies spot]] FWIW - but I disagree with both the lack of blood and the validity of many "separatist" communications, but if we're not arguing a planeload of corpses being shot down, I won't argue it much.) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
More to the point, leaving the above graphic aside, would be this newer one I should finally add. Basic straight path, 118 and placed as agreed by most sources. Alleged launch location, measures app. My best guess is a 2 km range from 22.75 to 24.75, weighted to the center. Or most likely about 23.75 km out (irrespective of actual projectile flight path, that's where it made contact, but this helps visualize how the alleged launch site might line up with [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Forensics#Direction of projectiles?|the directional forensics]]). --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
[[File:MH17 missile intercept distances.png]]<br />
::Straight line from launch is okay. But impact has to be further north, ie before the most westerly debris. You've used the map which assumes that debris to be blown back by wind. That can't be right, as it included bodies (too dense to blow back) and witnesses saw them and plane sections falling straight down. This only makes about 1 mile difference to the missile range, so does nothing to exclude that launch location. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 01:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::The map of spread is only app., some orange area I made. The pink dot and lines are from a map, Russian analysis, as you say apparently presuming a SSE wind. Debris including people ''would'' be blown back to some degree, all of it, varyingly; trajectory can only do so much when you have five miles of falling, with the breezes acting the whole time, and the lightest parts will be back a bit, whatever direction and as mentioned above, a SSE winds at some time or altitude still isn't ruled out at all). Do we know just where in that area those passengers landed, and what types of things are its far end? ? <br />
(<br />
:::I mean, you could be right and it's a bit further back, maybe with a continuation due east from there and no real wind effect except slightly back. It was only 9-12 mph, and maybe it fell halfway before starting to fall apart, which means less spread. I'm thinking about a possible left turn to explain the north aspect, or it could be wind, or being further back (more north, as well as west), or a combination. The turn has to be a certain size, the wind direction is not certain aside from east prevailin, ... whatever point best explains whatever happened ... we're down to a shrinking agreed range, and as you say, it's all within range of the one spot, so it's not ruled out after all. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 04:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
At this stay of play, I feel it will be helpful to have displayed prominently an overall map reflecting best guess on impact location as well as already flagged suspected launch sites, that is the two launch sites we have been discussing (near Snezhny ; near Chernukhino) , PLUS launch locations flagged and TIMED by released satellite data (currently only Russian data is available). I would be generous with the range here, we can find range suggested by public sources but presumably actual range depends on a number of things (height, radar range, trajectory, wind), and may exceed the "official" range. Another useful graphics piece info would be indicating the front lines, if there is a way to have those known. '''I would be extremely cautious with displaying graphics reflecting just one way of thinking (whether "worst", "best", or "middle of the way"), for the reason that any graphics is easy for human brain to absorb, more than words spread out on all our numerous pages, and ''no graphics at all'' is better than displayed ''skewed'' graphics.''' One-sided graphics may be '''inviting''' even more noise releases "supporting" some already skewed scenarios, and I feel that was already happening way too often. I feel that most helpful stance at this point would be as neutral as it gets. (Regarding trajectories, a default guess is a straight line, anything else requires an explanation. Straight line is implied so no strong need to actually display it, especially if it ends up curling in suggestive funny ways on graphics). --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 09:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::I've been doing a lot of graphics, so not all fired up for more. But if you are, I wouldn't mind making another if it helps. Maybe this is best taken to [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Map#Interception Location]] (a lot of this is redundant, and I might move it, but at least I can say let's stop piling intercept stuff here as well as there). Up to picking a certain spot around Chernukino? Some outskirts area, on a major road, it'll be a guess. A couple guesses could be mapped. Also, if it seems worth it, I can do updates and upload the new version as needed. Any timed satellite launches, let me know. Front lines, not known and IMO misleading in this case. Those who would know would try - and maybe manage - to sneak this thing behind them... the caution about leading labels, I can leave to you - you could just tell me what to put. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
:::::Would take me forever, may try later on, but not immediately; some cleanup/re-arrangement seems the easiest option. (If there are tools for collaborative mapping, may be good to start using those; but not aware of any) --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 11:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The preliminary [[Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Dutch preliminary report|Dutch report]] says the flight recorders were suddenly lost at 13:20:04 UTC at a point that almost exactly matches the 22.6 km mark. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 22:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Plume Location Re-challenged ===<br />
There is another video, essentially giving a bellingcat in voice-altered Russian. We discussed all that essentially; but he seems at least to end up with a claim for geolocation for the plume photo. Seems to be a new one (or I forgot the old one already by now). The claim is based on [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2055 unrelated panoramic photo] somebody took nearby, and [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2025 claimed to be geolocated by presenter]. Here it is on <br />
[http://maps.yandex.ru/-/CVG0nLo~ yandex map] ; it is taken from a terricon located at Lutuginskii bugor(=hill). There is a cableway from there to TsOF (remember, Khuevyi Torez tells about cableway from Lutugino to TsOF, so here they are); [http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=48.012722&lon=38.665695&z=14&m=b&show=/10590043/ru/ЦОФ-им-Киселёва TsOF is central enrichment plant]; photos from TSOF do show a similar [http://photos.wikimapia.org/p/00/00/62/81/85_big.jpg cableway] . So based on that and an audio of locals of unknown provenance and authenticity, discussing a missile-looking trail in the direction of [http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=48.041767&lon=38.741055&z=14&m=b&show=/18687650/ru/Химмаш Khimmash], our presenter [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2107 ends up] with this [http://maps.yandex.ru/-/CVG0rMnO claimed plume location] , somewhere near this Mochalino village. And apart from this, his contribution to the topic is the claim of a white spot on the other side of 3'2 Buk which he claims to match on the way out. I do not believe all those Buk sightings were taken on the same day, and so do not believe in the overall glue-up of the story, but geolocating the plume, no matter what the plume is, remains legitimate. This author gives his answer to that question. Is this geolocation correct? I do not know, it is not tight, there are lots of cableways out there I presume, and some posts nearby are not too unusual. I do not see a tight fit between Lutuginski bugor photo and the plume photo--some elements do match, but those are obviously not identical places. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 02:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Excellent. Let's keep the title. But I guess you just forgot the previous location. This is the same view. The plume could be added, but I doubt it, and it's to that view at a consistent time on a consistent day. I'm not convinced ''all'' Buk sightings are same day, but most of them being so is a good fit with this plume that way, and a plane down with damage that seems consistent to me. (I hate this case) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::Are you sure it's the same? This new one is NNE from Torez, I thought it was placed SE from Torez by [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/launch-location-detected-of-missile.html U@W ]--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::Going back to check, this is a different filming location proposed. Line of sight isn't included, but it seems to be the same line over the same area to the same place. Even before he could see the distinctive mound, Petros (U@W) had [http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-cfSqhRb2dKo/U80x2OxK1XI/AAAAAAAATNk/r42WpH-Bf-Q/s1600/missile+trail+9.jpg this lineup], which includes this spot. Right where Petros pic says "trees" is what this guy decided were the foreground trees where it was filmed. I wondered when checking but decided on the further version. And seems to be the same result either way. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::I don't think this is accurate, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2107 video at this timestamp] gives 'место пуска ракеты' (launch location) near [http://maps.yandex.ru/-/CVGgVPJN Molchalino]. I have not seen this elsewhere, I only seen the one claimed to be SE of Torez. He does not discuss filming location, but shows it on video and assumes it is in Torez near the terricon, which is close to what other sources assume. He does show the line of site on the video; it is nearly perpendicular to U@W. Lots of terricons, coalmines (so likely cableways), and power lines leading there in this area, so location now seems uncertain. As I understand, no solid evidence for either of these two being the correct geolocation (those cableways seems to be quite common) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::::I am/was confused then. I thought it showed a SW view, just from closer to the mound. Now I see at 33:45 a view from right by it, looking NE? Can't explain the other one you see in the distance in the fuller view (right ?) That's kind of towards Molchalino, but that won't explain anything I suspect. (and what a bad fake or odd coincidence to have a plume up there and a the Buk tracking imagery lead to south of Snizhne, oops!) We'll see south and west faces of buildings if looking NE, so sun will be shining from well east of south, but also quite high, like mid-day in the early AM - or maybe just earlier mid-day, like 11 am. That would be another sloppy mistake. I doubt the details will line up. BUT a couple minor things didn't quite seem to the other way, so maybe worth a try (later). --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I will send this comment also to<br />
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/01/27/is-this-the-launch-site-of-the-missile-that-shot-down-flight-mh17<br />
The US map launch location can best best and almost exactly located from the last magnified picture:<br />
https://wp4553-flywheel.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/32.jpg<br />
That location is here:<br />
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.9571993,38.7466343,488m/data=!3m1!1e3<br />
The triangulation result in the last 3 pictures of the article introduces unnecessary error and clearly does not match the magnified picture.<br />
There is a structure that looks similar to an airfield and it is just south of Chervony Zhovten (=Oktyabr), matching with a witness observation in that place ("it was flying as if from Saurivka", though not matching 2 other witnesses in the zello audio, indicating it came from government held positions further south, [2:00] "Well, it appears everybody saw where the missile has flown from." [2:04] "Well, where you are, everybody saw it, but the Ukrainian media, as usual, will say, will say that that were us.")<br />
It would be outside the range of the plume picture geolocation bounds, which may be either an error given the long distance, or, the plume picture was taken the day before from the reported grad missile launch (as well as the burned field). (The photographer gave his camera to the SBU after twittering the first picture, so later pictures and dates can not be taken for sure).<br />
http://7mei.nl/not-buk-m1-new-video-proof/--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 19:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:(1) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkCcCmYlMZc That audio], as it turns out, was posted by Torezinfo on 24 July, and updated on 1 February. Torezinfo is a favorite posting place of Khuevyi Torez(=KT), who posted a very [https://twitter.com/WowihaY/status/489914266439671808 similar location map on 17 July already]. KT mentions zello recordings on 25 July in the follow-up, so shortly after it gets on torezinfo. With all that stuff linked to this KT poster, I would not put much trust that any of that is genuine. (Or that this KT poster is not acting as a medium for SBU). (2)[http://fr1.sidcdn.net/maps/nsdc/2014/07/large/map-nsdc-2014-07-17-uk-w3000.jpg Ukrainian map] does give us some Ukrainian held area somewhere to the South, but from that map it is hard to tell where exactly opolchenie ends and UAF begins--(I would not know) (3) Actually, going from there, not likely to hit on the left side--so having it from Artemovsk (as Bezler told, indeed) seems most probable --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 21:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:: Here is another map http://liveuamap.com/e/2014/16-of-july-saurivka-is-bombarded-over-and-over-by-rus-grad?ll=47.907137219641115;38.75392913818363&zoom=8<br />
::And here is an article which says that both Marinovka and Tarany were held by National guard. http://www.interpretermag.com/ukraine-liveblog-day-149-russian-tanks-and-artillery-reach-donetsk/#3353<br />
::I just opened bellingcat https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/01/27/is-this-the-launch-site-of-the-missile-that-shot-down-flight-mh17 and see that large parts of the article disappeared, I think they are working on it. That location given by the US photo does not really match well with the plume direction anymore, lets see what they come up with--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 21:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::I believe Marinovka was [http://lifenews.ru/news/136715 taken by opolchenie on 16 July] (lifenews report). Tarany--do not know, perhaps still Ukraine, but not totally sure. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 21:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::: other sources say attack was repelled and forced them to retreat to Stepanivka http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_in_Shakhtarsk_Raion http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/213817.html--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 22:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::: That US photo launch location differs by an angle of about 11 (?) degrees from the brown line in the bellingcat plot (measured from the photographer's location). https://wp4553-flywheel.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/101.jpg (launch location is just visible below the letter 'p' of 'the word 'suspected'). I think this a lot and puts the 'plume' into question. But then there is only the US photo, which itself could be a production based on social media (or worse).--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 22:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Well some believed this is for real, then they got a case to answer [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/22/mh17-us-intelligence-russia-separatists-report Guardian: Photograph: US intelligence community] [https://twitter.com/barbarastarrcnn/status/491559153559932928/photo/1 @barbarastarrcnn] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
In the following, I assume that most of the social media pieces and leaked audio tapes are correct and connect the dots in a different way:<br />
<br />
1. On July 14, an Ukrainian Antonow 26 airplane was shot down by a missile near the Russian border town of Donetsk.<br />
http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/what-weapon-was-used-to-shot-down-ukraine-air-force-antonov-26-at-july-14/<br />
The video in above link showed the missile flying for 39 seconds until it hit. Only a BUK can fly that long, a manpad or Pantsir, also claimed to have been used, not (see first comment in link).<br />
<br />
2. According to a recorded audio tape published by the Ukrainian Secret Service SBU, rebels possessed a BUK ('BUK3x2') in the Donetsk area at least since July 14 ('we already have BUK'). At that date it may have been either on Russian or already rebel held territory.<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVAOTWPmMM4<br />
<br />
3. A social media search discovered only one other system in the area, capable of shooting down AN26 - a Pantsir. However, a Pantsir can't fly for 39 seconds. Based on a max.speed of 780m/s and max range of 20km, it can only fly for about 25s.<br />
http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.co.nz/2014/11/unnoticed-video-of-26-downing-confirms.html<br />
Therefore and because of the crew's intent to engage in the civil war, it is likely that AN26 was shot down by BUK3x2. Afterwards BUK3x2 had only 3 missiles left.<br />
<br />
4. On July 16, Ukrainian and rebel statements both confirmed the shoot down of a SU-25 plane near the "Marinivka border crossing", which is only a few kilometers south-south east of Pervomaiske, the destination of BUK3x2. Ukraine's defence ministry said: "It is likely that [the hit] was carried out by air-to-air rockets from the Russian air force which were patrolling the border in a pair." <br />
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-28345039<br />
This may have been another reason to install a BUK system in this area on the next day, leaving room for an accidental Ukrainian shoot down, apart from an accidental rebel shoot down and a willful Ukrainian false flag shoot down.<br />
<br />
5. On July 16, rebels fired grad missiles from a location near Pervomaiske. The plume may have been photographed as well by an SBU informant in Torez and twittered on the next day, claiming to show the launch of the missile hitting MH17.<br />
http://7mei.nl/not-buk-m1-new-video-proof/<br />
<br />
6. On July 17, BUK3x2 was seen in rebel territory on its way to Pervomaiske, south of Torez. Ukrainian SBU knew about the arrival latest since July 14 and about its destination latest July 17 morning, allowing a false flag operation from positions held nearby.<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVAOTWPmMM4<br />
<br />
7. There was an ongoing battle in the region with "fluent" contact lines. Marinivka and Tarany, about 8 kilometers south-east and south of Pervomaiske, were controlled by Ukrainian National Guard as well as all of the border region. Marinivka would match well with the direction of the Torez plume photo.<br />
http://liveuamap.com/e/2014/16-of-july-saurivka-is-bombarded-over-and-over-by-rus-grad?ll=47.907137219641115;38.75392913818363&zoom=8<br />
http://www.interpretermag.com/ukraine-liveblog-day-149-russian-tanks-and-artillery-reach-donetsk/#3353<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_in_Shakhtarsk_Raion<br />
<br />
8. The Russian Defense ministry claimed in a news conference, that on July 17, Ukraine installed several BUK system near rebel held areas.<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bNPInuSqfs#t=1567<br />
<br />
9. In a popular 'zello' audio recording, witnesses in the area were talking about the launch of the missile hitting MH17. A witness from "Oktyabr" (Chervony Zhovten) claimed "it was flying as if from Saurivka". <br />
Two other witnesses said:<br />
[2:00] "Well, it appears everybody saw where the missile has flown from."<br />
[2:04] "Well, where you are, everybody saw it, but the Ukrainian media, as usual, will say, will say that that were us."<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkCcCmYlMZc<br />
<br />
10. A Reuter's witness also claimed that the missile was fired from Kiev held territory. Reuters, however, said, "off camera, he said that it was launched from a nearby rebel site. Asked why originally he said the opposite he said it was because he was afraid of the rebels."<br />
In a new interview this witness claims that "off camera comments were just made up by the [Reuters] journalist".<br />
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=497_1427729491<br />
<br />
11. BUK3x2 was again photographed in Lugansk with its 3 missiles, no missile fired since July 14.<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4HJmev5xg0<br />
<br />
12. The US presented a very low resolution satellite photo with the track of a missile added. The launch location does not match well with the direction geolocated with the Torez plume photo, it deviates by about 11 degrees in angle, hence either or both appear to be incorrect.<br />
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/01/27/is-this-the-launch-site-of-the-missile-that-shot-down-flight-mh17/#comment-12493<br />
<br />
13. Award winning investigative journalist Robert Parry reported about leaked US intelligence "that U.S. intelligence agencies do have detailed satellite images of the likely missile battery that launched the fateful missile, but the battery appears to have been under the control of Ukrainian government troops dressed in what look like Ukrainian uniforms."<br />
https://consortiumnews.com/2014/07/20/what-did-us-spy-satellites-see-in-ukraine/<br />
And later Parry wrote: "But I’m now told that U.S. intelligence analysts ... are concentrating on the scenario of a willful Ukrainian shoot-down of the plane, albeit possibly not knowing its actual identity."<br />
https://consortiumnews.com/2014/08/03/flight-17-shoot-down-scenario-shifts/<br />
<br />
14. During the coming months BUK shrapnel may have been collected from the AN26 wreckage and planted in the MH17 wreckage.--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 00:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Photographer Statement===<br />
[http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com.au/2014/12/interview-with-eyewitness-who-made.html Reported to say] : "That day did not foretell anything special would happen. In the morning I woke up and went to my work. At four ó clock in the afternoon I arrived home. And at 16:20 we heard an explosion. The first explosion was not very heavy. 15 seconds later, something like that, there was a second explosion, which was louder and it made the windows shake."<br />
: Did not foretell --an ass, --is this lawyer-written? 'We heard". --Took till December to polish up ? --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 16:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:: Agreed. 'I did not know in advance this would happen.' Uh, who said you might? And 15 seconds must be rocket travel. Did he hear the firing from there? Could be, not that far. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Time delay consideration ===<br />
Photographer reported two sound booms td=15 seconds apart; an interpretation may be launch and impact sounds arriving to him in Torez. If P=(0,0,0) is photographer cordinates, I=(d,0, h) is impact, with d ground distance between Torez and Rozypnoe, h is the height of flight at 10 km , and L =(x,y,0) is launch location, dist(A,B) is Euclidean distance between A and B, c is peed of sound, and n (about 2.5) is missile speed in Machs, then<br />
<br />
(1). dist (P,L) = dist(L,I)/n + dist (I,P) - td*c <br />
<br />
(2). dist (P,L) >= h/n + dist (I,P) - td*c <br />
<br />
(1) is a biquadratic equation for y given x (square enough times for square root to disappear); plotting that gives a closed 'ellipse-like' curve on (x,y) plane; once on that curve, time delay is exactly td seconds (doing this involves solving quadratic equations and removing spurious solutions not satisfying (1) ) . That curve is at distance about 13 km in NW direction from photographer in Torez, and about 22 km in SE direction from him on the Southern ( Saur Mogila side). <br />
<br />
(2) gives a simple estimate that distance between photographer and launcher is greater than the known right hand side; that distance is more than something like 13 km<br />
<br />
(3) Requiring launch withing the range, --launch is not more than 20 km horizontally from the impact-- selects a NW arc of the curve described in (1) ; that arc is to the NW from Torez, and goes slightly NW from the impact point (meaning its ground projection). <br />
<br />
Conclusion, based on the above, is that launch is too far from the photographer, to match the photo. <br />
<br />
(Knowing exact time delay can tighten the argument. With what's actually known, and objection can be raised that whatever actual time delay was, it appeared to be 15 seconds to the photographer. Graphics of the curve may be supplied if needed). --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Ooh. That kind of math could really come in handy with recorded audio cues, for example. But based on '15 seconds, something like that,' from memory months later, I wouldn't put any weight on it. If that turns out correct and pretty exact, there's a good point. Otherwise, the photo and other stuff is more solid, and says it's just about where it should be, as far as I've seen anyway. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Contrail ==<br />
This is what an "impressive launch contrail" of a big missile might look like.<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3lLwP1y0w8 АТО. Запуск двух ТРК Точка-У. Артемовск.] (ATO. The launch of two TRK Tochka-U. Artemivs'k.) – August 28, 2014<br />
-- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 22:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Something happens in the sky. This is the people's reaction:<br />
* ''20/09/2014 Over many parts of the DPR and LPR were seen circles in the sky.'' [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7310 1,] [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7311 2,] [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7312 3,] [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7313 4,] [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7314 5]<br />
-- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 03:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
Tochka U missile is single stage solid fuel, which is a mixture of ammonium perchlorate with rubber and aluminum powder (Russian [http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/tochka/9ch151.shtml "ДАП–15В" fuel] ).<br />
I could not find information on Buk with a comparable level of detail. Buk missile is single stage, solid fuel of some type, "dual-mode solid propellant (total work time - about 15 seconds)" [http://www.webcitation.org/67kZeZxeh] , [http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-9K37-Buk.html]<br />
Earlier "Куб" ("Cube") missile used [http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/kub/kub.shtml 'ballist' fuel,] [https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%85#.D0.91.D0.B0.D0.BB.D0.BB.D0.B8.D1.81.D1.82.D0.B8.D1.82.D0.BD.D1.8B.D0.B5 gunpowder] + plasticiser type (Russian "ВИК-2") at the start, followed by some sort of ramjet ("direct flow rocket engine") at final stage. It is not clear, but possible, that fuels and contrails of Tochka U and Buk are different. Here are some videos with Buk launch: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDXScnEKaP0] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EAtNpsXrgWs], and [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSXMhaFntrU a longer with stupid music version]. Those videos appear to be shot from a closer distance than Tochka U video; and a contrail on them does look quite impressive. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 10:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:The amount of smoke is highly dependant om Alumin(i)um loading. In general more aluminum is more 'oomph' and also more smoke.<br />
:On the other hand, it's common to alter the loading for other reasons. I refer to the Syrian Volcano (122mm variety) that started out as high Al-load and quite smokey but recent versions have low Al load but perhaps similar characteristics? --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 10:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Here is something that might be a BUK: Ukrainian AN-26 shot down from Russian border area on July 14th. Ukraine@war claims it as a BUK. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 10:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
* [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.fi/2014/11/unnoticed-video-of-26-downing-confirms.html Unnoticed video of AN-26 downing confirms shot down from Russian territory] – Ukraine@war, November 27, 2014<br />
** Video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoS4kgHxPnE Ukrainian Military Aircraft Su-25 Downed After Russian Attack Near Izvarino, July 16]<br />
:::Does not look like Buk, short contrail, --not all the way to the ground like on Buk video launches. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::It was a BUK. It flew 39 seconds in the video, a Pantsyr can't do this, see also first comment in this link http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/what-weapon-was-used-to-shot-down-ukraine-air-force-antonov-26-at-july-14/. Easy maths - at Mach 3 (1020m/s) it can fly for about 42 seconds (range 42 km, bit more because initially it is slower). According to the audio tape, BUK 3x2 was in the area on that day! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVAOTWPmMM4 Ukraine@war needed 5 months to find something else in the area, but the Pantsyr can't fly that long. This is how BUK 3x2 likely lost a missile.--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 21:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::::Well, yes, it does takes 42 seconds to fly 42 km at 1000 m/s , but that does not mean what we see '''must be''' a Buk. They start discussing that plane caught fire at 0:03 on the video already. We do not see what on hell is going on until some 30 s later. This plane likely was brought down by Igla or similar modern MANPAD. Possibly two hits, at 0:03 and another at around 0:30. Or it got on fire at the start of the video and than eventually went down (It is unlikely to have SU 25 pilot bailing out after Buk strike; or particularly likely catching fire as it's not aiming at the engine; contrail is weak for a Buk, too). Pantsir claims are much later from what I have seen,--- and no need for Pantsir to shoot SU 25. ---If something is there on SBU audio and some murky photo, does not mean it's all for real, and that what we do actually see all have to be linked to all that murky SBU stuff. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 22:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::::There may be some confusion here, just a recapture<br />
::::::First video https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xTT6BDRA8_k<br />
::::::0:03-0:11 buring object <br />
::::::0:17-0:33 contrail making a half looping<br />
::::::Second video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoS4kgHxPnE<br />
::::::0:29-0:39 contrail making a half looping + detonation.<br />
::::::ukraine@war http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/11/unnoticed-video-of-26-downing-confirms.html<br />
::::::says both videos show AN26 shoot down on July 14 (second video with wrong label SU-25)<br />
::::::says 2nd video impact at 0:39, claims missile has been burning for at least 39 seconds--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 06:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::::::After reconsideration, I would say ukraine@war is right, both videos show AN26 shoot down, but wrong, people were initially watching AN26 with engine burning and a second missile was fired. That missile was seen burning about 16 seconds in first video, and time has to be added to reach that altitude/location, so likely over 20 seconds. That would exclude man-pad, Pantsir (?), likely BUK, R73 air-to-air, ...--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 06:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Actually, it is interesting to know how contrail of Buk on a long haul launch looks like. It is said that it fires engine for some 15 seconds only (and unknown will it do less, if it can do away with less). That 15 seconds need to put it at a spot where it can reach the target with little, if any, engine work and doing turns only. It is not very clear how much targeting happens in the first 15 seconds, likely it does some; and it is self-guided and doing proportional navigation later on. Knowing details here allows to find exact trajectory, short of that thinking it goes straight to the collision point is a sensible idea. In any case, heavy contrail '''raising from the ground''', perhaps higher than the target is. Contrail is white, and stays put for a while. Seriously heavier than the stuff we see on social media. There are youtube videos of Buk launches giving an idea --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:These 15 seconds are wrong. Here is a video (start at 2:00) showing a SA-11 burn fuel for 35 seconds until its too far to distinguish. It is detonating at 42 seconds. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBlU2hHYJMg (I just copied the comment from here http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/what-weapon-was-used-to-shot-down-ukraine-air-force-antonov-26-at-july-14/ )--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 23:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::That video probably shows a modern version ('over horizon' capability was mentioned somewhere regarding modern developments; this one seems to be showing us something like that). 15 sec is coming from Russian sources [http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/buk/buk.shtml Зенитная ракета 9М38 выполнена с применением двухрежимного твердотопливного двигателя (общее время работы - около 15 секунд)]. Older versions also had shorter listed range. 22-25-35-42 km range, going through modifications. (Would be happier without 15 sec engine limit actually-easier to know trajectory) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::Actually what goes off is [https://digitalempire.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/9m38m1.jpg 9M38M1], the one supposed to have [http://pvo.guns.ru/buk/buk_02.htm 15 sec engine run], but the video lasts for 40 sec. This appears to be edited video, around 2:30 we got two tracks, than one slides right unreasonably for a natural recording. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 02:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::Since this is a point we haven't already covered around that I know of, I'll pop in for it. 42 seconds I gather is the time for the fuel to burn out and the thing to fall, like a grad rocket or the like can only do. But this is a missile with guidance, set to intercept a moving airliner. Therefore, app. 40-45 seconds is the longest, not the shortest, it can fly (or am I just confused?) But 15 seconds is plausible, depending. Still might be untrue, not trusting people saying stuff. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::::After the engine is off it is high up and and at high speed, still can fly until gravity acceleration brings it down, and is on guided flight -unlike Grad-because fins can move causing it to turn. Issues here are visuals (contrail all the way or only about 15 km in flight), and trajectory. With engine on for 40 +secs it will go straight to collision point doing proportional navigation all the way (exploding earlier if it needs to be). If it is only 15 sec, trajectory is less clear, it may for example use engine to climb high up, than do guided fall and proportional navigation to the target from a spot where engine delivered it (for low and close-by target, that may potentially end up with a hit from another side--some drawings from unclear sources were showing opposite side hits at under 1 km and direct hits at 10-15 km). Or it may use engine to end up on a ballistic trajectory hitting target (no side changing than). This is solid fuel engine so there is not much control on how quickly it burns off, that time is a set design feature. What we see on launch video is 40+ seconds of engine work-- will go direct to collision point in that case. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 12:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::::That's another clue that plume of smoke photo is not a Buk launch, that would give at least some 10-15 km worth of contrail, not a plume; with 40+seconds engine, contrail all the way to impact...(or else, launched from far away, over 40 km distance) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 12:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==About accents==<br />
<br />
[http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29109398 This report,] released one day before the preliminary official report, recycles visual imagery already discussed on this page, and attempts a new claim that a BUK crew spoke with Russian-'Muscovite' accent. The claim is made by (British-accent) actors representing 'eyewitness(es)', with a visual imagery of a car at unknown night-lighted location in the embedded video, and some text, provided in English. Regarding 'Muscovite' accent, first it is not easy to tell, for example [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBCfmlMkYMg this video] is Mr. Poroshenko speaking in Russian to a resident of Crimea, replying in Russian, and commented by a presenter, who is speaking 'Muscovite'. Although Mr. Poroshenko has a slight southern accent, there is little difference between the three speakers in practice. Moreover, actors and presenters can easily switch from Southern to Muscovite as required. <br />
<br />
Secondly, if somebody speaks 'Muscovite', this does not mean this person works for Russia or the rebels,--- he can work for any side (PS. No change of condition to the blue dumpster on Zuhres video was reported in this latest update). --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Thanks for bringing this. What a stupid report. "Three eyewitnesses, all civilians, separately told Panorama that they saw a missile-launcher in rebel-held territory a few hours before the Boeing jet was hit." Yeah, video shows the same. It was there. It probably shot down the plane. Accents, as you note, aren't the best indicator of anything, and even the reason sounds vague: the G thing, which even I know about (back to Olga/Olha). The "Russians" might even be Russian dissident mercenaries right from Moscow, for all we know. Who paid them? Their going up to the media and saying "you didn't see us" was not a good plan to stay secret. The witnesses: chosen at random? Directed to them? <br />
::''If correct, the Kremlin has to explain to the relatives of the 298 passengers and crew who died - including ten Britons - why Russian military personnel were allegedly seen in the area escorting a BUK shortly before MH17 was shot down.''<br />
:I think Russia could come up with a reason or two such allegations are made. Those ten Britons' tax dollars fund it. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: Hmm, this foreigner is confused by dat BBC talk: "If correct" ... doesn't that mean it ''wouldn't be'' merely "allegedly" but, well, correct? ;oP --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 23:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::It means "If {made up vague allegation) is correct....then "SHOCK HORROR CONCLUSION IS TRUE". this lets them be as wild or wide off the mark as they like and the magic "if correct" turns it true. Without any effort to check if it IS true in our understanding of that word.[[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 03:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::Another BBC weapon in its arsenal of innuendo and dissimulation is the quotation mark. Whenever they are dealing with something of dodgy provenance, or something of good provenance they want to weaken they put it in quotation marks. e.g. - ISIS beheaded 20 Syrians. becomes ISIS 'beheaded 20 Syrians' or 'ISIS' beheaded 20 Syrians or ISIS 'beheaded' 20 'Syrians' or ISIS beheaded '20' Syrians. No need for corrections later. Any version can be retrospectively justified or otherwise. --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 03:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== If Buk 3x2 Was in Russia ==<br />
Previously, it seemed quite likely the Buk launcher associated with the shoot-down was one of those owned and operated by the Kiev regime, simply snuck into separatist territory, maybe with some cover to make them even invite it in like a Trojan Horse. Then, I saw the November Bellingcat research on "Buk 3x2." As covered [[#Bellingcat and 3x2|above,]] this claims to match that unit with a distinct one seen three weeks earlier, driving in a military convoy well inside Russian territory. This is widely taken as clear proof the Russian military supplied the weapons, and it is strongly indicative of that. However, the general possibilities are worth laying out at this point.--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
All options below share these presumptions: <br />
* MH17 was brought down by the missing SA-11 missile AND/OR (in some cases) at least the launcher's appearance was coordinated to give that impression and is a clue to the plot <br />
* The videos and photos in question are genuine and not manipulated (my usual presumption, same here)<br />
* The Russia geolocations (many of them, making sense in context) are correct - Buk 3x2 as seen was seen in Russia, between Kurk, Stary Oskol, and a bit south of there (not verified but most likely correct) <br />
<br />
Presuming all that:<br />
* Buk 3x2 (seen in Russia) and the mystery one are not the same - this require paint job match and matching damage to the lip above the track to make a Kiev-owned unit look like that one. It's possible, but not the most compelling.<br />
* The two units are the same - it was in the convoy in Russia and also towed around Donetsk oblast July 17. <br />
<br />
If the unit is the same, there are a few possibilities for the nature of that connection, some of them silly or just there for logical fullness:<br />
* It was Kiev's unit and they snuck it over and into this convoy, and...<br />
** ... got it back later<br />
** ... the Russians kept it and used it for their own operation<br />
* It was Kiev's but some other way lost to the Russians <br />
* It was Russia's but Kiev managed to sneak over and steal it out of the convoy and then use it for the false-flag event<br />
* Same, but Donbass rebels then stole it from Kiev <br />
* It was Russian, and someone on the Russian side drove it over and then it was stolen by Kiev forces <br />
* Someone on the Russian side drove it over and it stayed in their control or handed over to their chosen parties, or transferred at the border - that is, no Kiev interference.<br />
<br />
So far, I'm inclined to call Bellingcat's reading (the last option, the widely accepted one) the single most reasonable one, though maybe outweighed by the ''combined'' alternatives. It's not fun to feel almost swayed to a view so close to Kiev's problematic narrative, but this is what I see, pretty basic. Some combined maybes go against the straightforward reading. As for other thoughts I might be missing, well, that's partly why it's here. Let me know, I'm all ears. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Starting from that reasonable if unproven last option, not one but three final types of possibility remain. If it was freely moving in convoy inside Russia, it probably belongs to Russia at the time. Presumed. However, it could be that...<br />
* '''A rogue officer''' at Kursk - maybe a closet Nazi who sympathizes with Kiev, hates Putin, or just took a bribe - provided this unit to Kiev. He would set up this convoy to anchor the thing in Russia, then send the shady unit on, with his own guys or to hand off to Kiev's, who took it from there as I've speculated. The strangely obvious manner it was displayed - on both sides of the border, with its number slowly fading away - is consistent with this motive + intelligence. <br />
* '''It happened as reported''' (one way or another) Putin's military signed off on the loan, apparently with a sent crew or maybe given to local handlers, who for their own purposes did fire that shot. The strangely obvious manner it was displayed is consistent with this + stupidity/sloppiness, providing proof that probably wasn't even needed, just helpful, to start the punishment. At that point, it would be a real problem about as trumpeted, and still I would suggest we consider what the real crime is under the circumstances, if the solutions pursued are fair, or if this is all just geo-politics and warfare by other means cloaked in a cynical disguise of concern for justice. ^ <br />
* '''Koo-koo (?):''' "as reported plus" - a mega conspiracy theory: it goes all the way to the top, and Putin is that rogue general selling the nation out, to demonize himself and Russia and be sure to get caught, in an elaborate staged play - Putin (or whoever's running things presumed to be run by HIM) is somehow controlled, his opposition scripted and ultimately geared towards provoking and achieving an expansion of "The West" into "The North." (I've always considered this possible, and one that's occurred to me more lately, and seems worth listing ... but I don't buy it. I'm going with "rogue officer" with a second bet on one of the other divergence points listed before that - unspecified. Third choice is "as reported.")--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::^ Not to apologize for egregious behavior if it really is that, but let's please compare this to the shoot-down of Iran Air 655 by the USS Vincennes in 1988. A US Naval ship illegally in Iranian waters shot down an Iranian passenger plane with 290 people aboard, despite all the safeguards and sensors working correctly (the consistent clues the ship's computers gave them saying "do not shoot" can only be overridden so totally by choice). But it was deemed by the US to be no crime, just accident and Iran's fault for being provocative, and useful in the effort to compel them to quit the war with Iraq they were just starting to win. In Ukraine, repeated Air Force attacks on rebel-held cities, often hiding their jets behind civilian airliners, might both justify arming the rebels with such defensive weaponry, and invite an honest mistake from a team running this machine in stand-alone mode. The SBU version however overrides this all: it was an accident, but the Russians' intent was never defensive, always planning to kill an airliner, just meaning it to be a different one. That would clearly be criminal in all regards, and it's a sub-set of "as reported" - not a very good one. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Sorry, I can't help you here as I don't share your presumptions. I consider it a waste of time and energy to connect dots that are laid out by "sources" like the SBU and Brown Noses - proven liars and at least in case of the former producers of fraud "evidence" - and therefore I didn't even read your logical chains based on them. Just saying to not make it appear that I agree. ;o) --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 10:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:Poking at specific presumptions could be helpful, but it all could go on and on and remain inconclusive anyway. And I take back what I say about leaning this way or that - I keep leaning different ways and on balance I'm feeling sort of weightless here. I think that comes through in the text... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I don't see the numbers matching, getting close is not good enough, and I quit it there. Yes, it is weird that they are close, and that this murky business is covered by Spiegel, but can't really help with any of that. There is lots of murky weird stuff going on all the time, can't change the whole world to stop it. (Also: the Russian Government would be fully capable of doing a painting job properly if deciding to starting painting at all, their food trucks are all nicely painted, etc; just too sloppy for them to be behind) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:The paint being what it is, between that and the bend and light patch below all lining up, I think we're down to the same unit, or faked to match, and the possibilities branching off those two. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::As discussed earlier, the dot is shifted off the middle, more on Russian video than in PM photo; in Russian video, number 2 has well-curved semi-circle; in PM, it is almost straight segment. Bad photos for comparison but it's off, as far as it's possible to tell. As for the skirt bend, too blurry and distorted on PM to tell; Russian video, I think it is actually dirt, not a bend. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Also, looks like two squares , a bit darker than background, over first digit in PM photo. Unclear is it paint or digital camera effect. Any sane person hiding something will paint over everything, not paint just specifically over the first digit. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::I think I got everything linesd up - it has to be de-skewed the same, and all ines up. You might be scraping bottom on this one. The curve is there, at its elongated part, at an angle. The dent/dirt looks the same, same place, relative to the light patch and all else. It's too much for coincidence by a couple of degrees. BUT I just shifted back to option ... should have numbered them. ... the middle starting option - image authenticity. I hardly ever call digital image fakery, and not calling it here, but... I still haven't checked the new (to us) June videos, so I'll stay presuming it might be okay - video's harder to fake than a photo. But on the other end, it all comes down to the one photo. That I noticed, no other views are close enough to say if these matching clues are present. (the bend, maybe). The squares you noticed, maybe a paint clue or just artifacting. It may too pixelly. I cannot really analyze the technicals properly to say. It looks okay, but possibly fishy too. Maybe the dirty windshield helps hid the painted in pixels to make this thing - just once - or maybe again in other images - look like that Russian 3x2 unit, exaggerated and going into rebel hands... Some kind of coincidences setting that up to work, but it's possible, and an expert should look closer at this picture. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC) <br />
::::I, --at the very start of discussion,-- zoomed picture on screen (by a lot), and measured length ratios (to the dot/ total panel length), parallel to the 2 sides of the panel, using ruler (millimeters one) over screen. I ended up with ratios in horizontal side of panel directions were off, by more than blurring; in vertical, could not tell-within blurring. This is not sensitive to skewing or zooming. So I don't think it's the same. May double-check measurement when have time; or somebody else can. Did not have time to try doing digital version of the same/similar method. Did not look carefully at comparison the 2 after de-skewing , but have an impression this is different; not that much skewing there; it looks essentially straight line on PM, skewing will not make circle into a line. May look at 2's some other time. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::::Finally took a closer look and PM was still off a bit on rotation and vertical-to-horizontal - in line with your observations. Still working out the adjusted graphic. The white is shifted a bit left of lining up perfectly... I think it's still close enough it's the same or is supposed to be, and not far enough off I'd call a bad fake - probably just pixel shift. Will see tonight. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 00:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Okay, I don't have a comprehensible graphic handy yet, but Maybe Resup is seeing what I am now. I was having a hard time aligning it all, so focused just one the one rectangle panel with the number. Still, on the PM photo I trace apparent edges, best line of dark pixels ... it lines up, proportion-wise, with the white spots on or a hair to apparent left. But when the whole image is placed by lining up that center, the rest of it doesn't line up - both sides seem shifted right, or the middle shifted left. (also the track areas appear far to the left, but they stick out a bit, and from the back angle flattened like this, that's why. Each difference in relief from "true flat" plane of the side will cause this... maybe I'm just not correlating it right, and maybe it's a clue the photo is messed with. possible offsets in both white patches as well, but maybe too in the natural fuzz zone. ?? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
If the launcher was driven over the Russian border, fired once then driven back again after it had carried out its mission, the part of the story that doesn't make sense is the sighting on a stolen flatbed truck outside Donetsk. If the Russians were prepared to supply a launcher but not a truck, the stolen truck would have had to be driven to the border to be loaded and there'd be no reason to risk a journey back to Donetsk. The west to east journey is more consistent with CL's original suggestion of a launcher from the Ukrainian base north of Donetsk. If this was a false flag, there would have had to be a paint job to give it Russian markings (maybe to match one in a recent video). Otherwise the videos would point to separatists with a captured Ukrainian BUK, leaving the Ukrainian government liable for failing to close its airspace when it knew that a BUK had gone missing. [[User:Pmr9|Pmr9]] ([[User talk:Pmr9|talk]]) 16:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:Now this sounds engaged, thanks P. Yes, why drive it to Donetsk? (Other than to be seen in the smoking-gun rebel capitol, before getting seen in Lugansk too) And I never thought of that why it had to be Russian. Indeed, for liability reasons, it had to be a snuck-in surprise, not captured (unless they could come up with a reason why they didn't learn about it, and I suppose they could). The suggestion has problems and was slow to gain adherents, but maybe this kind of thought has swayed people to realize Kiev "must be right" about that... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Sunday Times story: original is behind paywall but reprint [http://malaysiandigest.com/news/531506-ukraine-ignored-warning-to-close-malaysia-airlines-flight-mh17-airspace-before-tragedy.html here]. Eurocontrol's experts "spoke privately to their Ukrainian counterparts" about their concerns but Ukraine refused to close its airspace. "Ukraine intelligence sources said they had been made aware that several anti-aircraft systems had crossed from Russia into Ukraine at least a week before the MH17 incident. But they claimed the intelligence was not “100 per cent reliable” and could not have been used as grounds for 'drastic moves' such as shutting airspace". [[User:Pmr9|Pmr9]] ([[User talk:Pmr9|talk]])<br />
:::Okay, well there's a train headed this way then. Several units? The whole June convoy? We do have this alleged maybe-Buk launch just before on July 14, an associated loader seen later, etc. And Ukie intel somehow did point to this number "312" you can't see on the unit they tracked so quickly. Did they already have that obscure Russian video everyone missed until now? And more yet showing the "1" still there? That early on? (that's all very speculative, but interesting). It has to be snuck in, maybe, but then it helps that you can vouch for it - so they fudge and average this aspect. Main point then seems to be, whatever failures they mumble out on their own end, it has to implicate both Russia (provided weapon) and the rebels (held the space needing demonized).--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references /></div>Antidyatelhttps://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17/BUK_Tracking&diff=23637Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/BUK Tracking2015-08-03T05:59:49Z<p>Antidyatel: /* Reported SIghtings */ Peter Leonard</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:MH17]]<br />
==Who Has the BUK Launchers in Ukraine?==<br />
=== Kiev's Holdings ===<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3MomxNHnUA#t=288 Ukrainian Buk in ATO area], 16 July 2014. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 23:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC) <br />
*[http://sputniknews.com/europe/20150607/1023057320.html Twitter users found an announcement on the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense website detailing the transfer of a Buk-M1 system to the Ukrainian military over a month before the MH17 disaster]--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 18:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
*[https://twitter.com/wowihay/status/489814576452878336 wowihay] И они говорят у них нет #БУК'ов ? Еще 08.05.14 в #Краматорск=And they say they have no Buks? Already on 08.05.14 in [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1Oztlf4nYM #Краматорск]<br />
: google gdata no longer seems to work--what happened? but a user posted gdata earlier: Олег Гинзбург 10 months ago Опубликовано=published 2014-05-09T03:02:09.000Z (но деревья голые=but trees have no leafs) Обновлено=reposted 2014-07-19T12:29:10.000Z. Has Ukrainian style markup 121. <br />
и еще= [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGYfFeGRh90 and also]<br />
:Ukrainian-style markup 332, and one more Buk in his company --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:07, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CBQbFC9loc#t=350 Captured map] of 1 battalion of UAF 95 air-mobile brigade, dated beginning of July 2014, show location of 2 positions of Ukrainian Buks. Basurin points them on the map; but video resolution is insufficient to see those. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 05:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
:Maps can be faked, but still I'm curious what it shows. I imagine there might be a flat image of the map somewhere. Resup, could you maybe have a look? It's too slow for me to try an image search with translated words. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
::I have not seen the map in news reports mentioning the finding; and now I see it says explicitly that they are not going to make it public, [http://real-info.info/novorossiya/13429-vlasti-dnr-ne-budut-obnarodovat-karty-vsu-do-okonchaniya-rassledovaniya-krusheniya-mh17 until MH 17 investigation is completed]--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 23:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::Here is a press conference report--with video but not the map --[https://vk.com/strelkov_info?w=wall-57424472_57351 (Basurin press conference)]--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 23:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
It is possible to understand what it means when they say Ukr army controlled territory. But what is rebel controlled territory. Even if we take the maximum estimate for rebel numbers in July 2014 of 10,000 fighters, it gives a fraction of a rebel per square km, if we assume uniform distribution. In reality rebels very concentrated in Lughansk, Donetzk, Saur Mogila, 2 cauldrons. So everything else is free for all territory. When MSM declares rebel controlled territory, they just rely on Kiev's maps. Very reliable source. --[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 13:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)-- Antidyatel June 6<br />
:That's a good point that really came into play with the [[Mariupol market shelling]] incident - turns out all this eastern fire form rebel-held areas is from areas listed by Kiev as places they don't have full control over, that any crazy thing could happen from and it's prob'ly not them. Might even be a section on that here, if not, could be. There is an apparent pass right through a checkpoint, basically where the Pari Match "photo" was taken. That at least is a problem for a simple slip-in op, but it can be done and otherwise the theory could explain a lot (like, everything maybe) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC) <br />
<br />
<br />
==== BUK 312 and comrades ====<br />
[[File:Buk 312 sbu.jpg|thumb|left|BUK 312 on a trailer. Photo shown on SBU website and later removed. – ''[[:File:Buk 312 sbu.jpg|more...]]'']]<br />
Part of the material the Ukrainian SBU released to suggest that "rebels" shot down MH17 with a BUK, was photo material showing a BUK TELAR numbered 312 on a trailer, alleging it has been photographed on its way back to Russia. This was quickly shown to be extremely questionable as evidence surfaced showing number 312 in Ukrainian hands. The SBU then removed the photos from their website while other material like a suggestive photo showing a "plume" remained there. <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Buk 321.png|thumb|TELAR 321 as posted by @MOR2537 to illustrate what he alleges to have witnessed]]<br />
This was outlined (and a screenshot saved) in more detail [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/07/21/the-mh17-investigation-and-buk-312/ over at Human Rights Investigations]. A [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bj-VZB0ZdEA video embedded there] shows BUK 312 in Ukrainian hands back in March. The other two TELAR's seen in the video are numbers 323 and 321. BUK 321 [http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Ukrainian+government+forces+maneuver+antiaircraft+missile+launchers+they+transported+north+west+from+Slavyansk+eastern+Ukraine+Friday+July+2014+Photo+Dmitry+Lovetsky/10004193/story.html has been seen] in Ukrainian hands just two weeks before MH17 crashed, transported close to "liberated" Slavyansk. <br />
<br />
Interestingly enough, one of the tweets [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com/2014/07/reconstruction-of-whereabouts-of-buk.html spoon-fed by Ukrainian loyalists to imaginative Dutch blogger Ukraine@War] to suggest that there have been eyewitnesses for a "rebel" BUK, is then [https://twitter.com/MOR2537/status/489709431467171841 followed-up by the alleged eyewitness] with a picture of BUK 321 to illustrate what he has seen. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::yep, he is a conduit for Kiev but seems to have outside info, too. Like originals of photos he can get geolocations off (he says). But also has good collection of very early photos etc which have since become hard to find.Not sure I trust him though. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 15:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::I hadn't seen that before, thanks. I'll be considering... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 22:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: More photos: [http://www.armyrecognition.com/images/stories/east_europe/russia/missile_vehicle/sa-11_gadfly/pictures/sa-11_gadfly_anti-aircraft_missile_to_armoured_tracked_vehicle_Russian_army_russia_011.jpg 321] - [http://rt.com/files/news/2a/b1/40/00/640x480.jpg 312] - [http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1870560.1405614701!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_970/correction-ukraine.jpg 321] --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:Buk 312 in Lugansk.png|thumb|left|According to alleged former operator "A", this is BUK 312 after relocation sometime in Spring 2014 in Metallist settlement of Lugansk, with Yubileynaya mines in the background]]<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmI2KCOt_sA Anatolii Sharii] version of events, shows that Buk blamed on Russia has number 312 and was earlier photographed as part of Ukrainian convoy. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 20:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Sharii interviewed a Ukrainian soldier who served on Buk 312; this can be found on [http://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/1947657.html Cassad]. The guy does not know about MH17; but recalls SBU claiming it was this Buk 312 responsible. From this interview, meaning of 312: 3 is division number, 1 battery number, 2 unit number in a battery (there are loading and command vehicles, not just launchers). This UAF Buk is initially from Luhansk; than relocated to Kramatorsk; than places in a field. A serviceman took it on a ride with hand break on, leading to a small fire affecting electrics and requiring repairs. So it was traveling on a trailer at some point. It was than moved to Dnepropetrovsk, village of Novogrigorievka (apparently for repairs, and after trailer photo was taken, but exact date was not given). Buks from Luhansk which were not broken were moved by UAF elsewhere (and according to the soldier, were photographed in variaous places including Gorlovka; while 3 broken Buks remained in Luhansk) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: Interesting. I see that the "[http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Ukrainian+government+forces+maneuver+antiaircraft+missile+launchers+they+transported+north+west+from+Slavyansk+eastern+Ukraine+Friday+July+2014+Photo+Dmitry+Lovetsky/10004193/story.html has been seen]" link to the Montreal Gazette is dead by now. If anything I'm surprised that it lasted that long. Minitrue at work. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 04:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: [http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2014/12/17/shooting-down-mh-17-buk-312-story-false- Here] (and mirrored [http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2014/12/17/buk-312-crew-member-says-rebel-shoot-down-of-flight-mh17-story-is-false-transcript/ here]) is an English translation of the interview. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: And [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2rRCSNp33I here] is the video itself with English subtitles. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 20:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:What you said about the accident and the photo showing the damaged BUK on a trailer is about the very photo the SBU showed on their website as "evidence" and later removed. Also adding that he says friends in Lugansk saw "rebels" trying to repair the units they had left behind, but he knows that "whole equipment units" were lacking so the remaining stuff was "unusable". And that he says that he asked his ex-comrades still operating the BUK if they dunnit, and they said they didn't. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Good to see this section expand. Interesting additions from the alleged operator, and reasonable-sounding (the photo might show smoke stains to the back left side). But in the end, this issue might be not so relevant. I doubt it was Kiev's unit 312 that was used, and seeing how Kiev always was eyeing a supposedly Russian unit 3x2, maybe 312 ... In fact, if the middle number connotes unit number, and it's done the same, the launcher is always 1 and it would be 312 (or is that mixed-up?) So maybe all this really shows is how Kiev knew but didn't want to say all along, implausibly picking their own 312 to illustrate that knowledge with an embarrassing but harmless "error", while awaiting ... as it turns out, the independent Bellingcat investigation that finds 3x2 somehow in Russia... That tracked this ludicrous Buk field trip, as presented and followed on this page, which almost seems tailor-made for them, but Kiev wants us to know they they were secretly on the ball too from the start. (all thoughts in progress, a bit distracted too) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::::If SBU wanted to point out they knew the TELAR had number 312, why would they publish the photo in [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmI2KCOt_sA such a low resolution] that the number could not be read? -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 21:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: As Resup summarized, 1 is the battery number. The leading 3 means it's from the Lugansk division. If this is true, the fact that 312, 321 and 323 have been seen together on video in March perfectly fits with what the alleged operator said: That they were removing units in usable state from (all batteries of the division) Lugansk early on, leaving the crap behind. And the view that the SBU just published everything they could find to fit their tale that the "rebels" used a BUK to down the plane, including this photo, cut-together and taken out of context audio tapes and that ridiculous "plume" pic, and the 3x2 bellingcat nonsense from lately is meant to distract from these facts, is much simpler and straight forward than what you tried to come up with here on the fly. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::Ah, I see it now, not when I was typing, sorrys. Middle number could be anything, bust mostly we always see low numbers, so odds are good it was a "1". 3 means from Lugansk if that's true (presuming so) and it's Ukrainian. Diff. number paintjob though, as noted below. But I'm sure the Ukies just faked this exact 312 to a different style of 312 and then painted it out partly, and just let it slip with the one photo of how it looked before...? We'll have a hard time agreeing here, as the stuff you just dismiss as "nonsense" looks kind of like possible evidence with details I'm sort of trying to consider. I don't see how you can just ignore it as if it must be wrong somehow, and all made up to distract from ... this 312 disguised as 3x2 theory? Where it wasn't even at the end of that fake plume anyway and might be totally irrelevant or entirely fake? Or, what am I missing? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::Didn't you say that you haven't even watched the videos and checked the geolocation/origin yourself, if they really are from Russia etc.? Well, I certainly won't. Because I have no reason to believe that the sources are more truthful with the "evidence" than they have been before, and that track record is well established. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::::Yeah, which is why I'm neither in a good position to say they aren't wrong/fake, nor to go against my usual presumption it will be sound (has been so far, on this subject anyway) And by the supposed stills compare to supposed satellite imagery, it looked like a good match (I did skim the site once I could). I don't like the implication either, and I want it to be wrong. And it may well be, but I'll want to see how. And hey, there's a whole other section or two about this below... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
:::: I watched the video [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bj-VZB0ZdEA with the Ukie BUKs in March] again. There are actually more than the three I mentioned earlier. It starts with 323, which is not a TELAR. Followed by the two TELARs 321 and 312. Then comes what is also not a TELAR but what looks differently than 323: Number 301. Followed by two more TELARs, 331 and 332. So they could all be from the Lugansk division, parts of batteries 0 to 3. But one would suspect that the batteries are internal always numbered the same way. "A" says:<br />
::::: ''BUK is a complex of 4 specialized military vehicles: command post, mobile target detection and assignment station, loading and starting station, self-propelled fire installation.''<br />
::::So if 1 and 2 are TELARs, why are there two of them and why is 301 what could be the detection station with a radar? Is 323 a loading station? --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::::Too rusty, but good questions. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::: Ah, I think we can sort this out [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SA-11 thanks to wikipedia]:<br />
:::::''A standard Buk battalion consists of a command vehicle, target acquisition radar (TAR) vehicle, six transporter erector launcher and radar (TELAR) vehicles and three transporter erector launcher (TEL) vehicles. A Buk missile battery consists of two TELAR and one TEL vehicle.''<br />
:::: So our "A" didn't mean that a battery consists of 4 vehicles, but that the whole BUK consists of 4 different kinds of vehicles, some more than once. From this I deduce that "0" is for command and detection units (here our main radar 301) of the Lugansk division 3, and the batteries 1,2 and 3 each consist of two TELARs (numbered 1 and 2, here 312,321,331 and 332) and one TEL (numbered 3, the first vehicle in the video, 323). Makes sense? --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 13:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::Russia said Ukraine had 27 BUK launchers in the crash area, i.e. one brigade, or what ever comes in the hierarchy above battalion. If all units are numbered the same way, from 101 to 333, then one TELAR in 18 should be numbered 312. Maybe [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:9K37_Buk_of_the_Ukrainian_military,_Independence_Day_parade_in_Kiev.JPG not.] Russian numbers seem to reach higher. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 01:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::::Good find. The existence of 114 and 115 makes it more complicated. The [http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buk_M1 German Wikipedia article] says, contradicting the English one, that one battery consists of one command vehicle, one main radar, four TELARs and four TELs. But if that's true, there's no logical place for Radar 301, and why would one TEL be number 3 and the other three TELs numbers 6 to 8? --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 10:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
How to read BUK numbers<br />
This is how you decipher 312:<br />
<br />
3 stands for the third (Lugansk) division,<br />
1 stands for the battery number, ours was no. 1,<br />
2 stands for one of the 2. service units in each battery, ours was no.2<br />
<br />
according to a Ukrainian who explains it was "his" bUK (but not in his hands at the time)that shot down MH17. One of th many reports [http://www.opednews.com/articles/Shooting-Down-MH-17--BUK-by-Michael-Collins-Buk-312_False-Accusations-Of-Terrorism_False-Flag-Attacks_Mh17-Airline-Crash-141217-104.html about this interview] This claim is now superceded by the Capt Voloshin air-to-air claims. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 15:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
That solder knew nothing about who shot the Boeing. He was talking to Sharii, who previously made a video showing that Buk shown on SBU website is actually Ukrainian Buk 312. Later, the soldier emerged, saying that Buk 312 was his. (Claim of this one shooting Boeing is not his, it is SBU early claim) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 16:48, 26 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
While Voloshin story may be a play on destroyed by SBU evidence. There is supposed to be a log of flights, missiles fired, likely those logs no longer exist. Also before they claimed SU 25 were lost on 16 of July, but SBU denial of Voloshin story had SU 25 shot on 17 of July. And that Dnepropetrovsk airport traffic control lady vanished without a trace. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 16:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Supposed 321 belonging to KIEV<br />
::video shows three BUk sets [http://eurazya.today/2015/04/11/about-the-buk-312-who-allegedly-shot-down-mh17/ from 0.31 mark] but I can't really pick the number, they say it is 321. at Gorlovka in March. One on a white lowloader. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 12:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== Russian claims ====<br />
As part of their July 21 presentation of evidence, the Russian Ministry of Defense published satellite images allegedly showing Ukrainian BUK positions around Donetzk ([http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ RT report]). It's no secret the Ukrainian military maintains a base with anti-aircraft units. The facility shown in the Russian presentation (best seen [http://rt.com/files/news/2a/9a/00/00/4.jpg here]) I located - it's south of Avdeyevka, 3 km north of the airport, about 5 km north of Donetsk like they say. Visual match first, then noticed the label could have found it for me ... [http://wikimapia.org/#lat=48.0999781&lon=37.7578908&z=16&l=0&m=b&show=/16956839/ru/Зенитно-ракетный-дивизион-в-ч-А-1428&search=Donetsk on Wikimapia]. Labels, translated: Anti-aircraft missile battalion (in / h A-1428) One of the three anti-aircraft missile battalions ("Buk-M1"), located in Avdeyevka, Mariupol and Lugansk." BUK-type launcher photos included. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The counter-arguments to this at least sometimes fail. [http://www.interpretermag.com/mh17-and-moscows-magical-mystery-jets/ Interpreter rag] decided "the presence of Ukrainian government air defense systems is something of a red herring, not least given the clear evidence that the separatists had deployed at least one Buk system in the area." The side with a ''motive'' and clear, moving and likely operating units of the things on that day (see below) is irrelevant and shouldn't be considered because there's apparently also proof the presumed bad guys also had the units they needed to be so presumed. The very fact that separatists aren't ruled out means the other side should be free of any danger of being ruled in, and the separatists should ruled in just as automatically as they were ''before'' this social-media verification came in. This is clearly an irresponsible suggestion. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC) and --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Kiev's Buks Shuffled?===<br />
<br />
* From Russia's military press conference: [http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ RT, 10 Questions] - [http://www.ruaviation.com/docs/1/2014/7/22/83/ in more detail]<br />
:''3. Why was a large group of air defense systems deployed to the militia-held area if the self-defense forces have no planes?''<br />
:“As far as we know, the Ukrainian military had three or four air defense battalions equipped with Buk-M1 SAM systems deployed in the vicinity of Donetsk on the day of the crash. This system is capable of hitting targets within the range of 35 km at the altitude of up to 22 km.”'' <br />
:''4. Why did Kiev deploy BUK missile systems on the edge of militia-controlled zones directly before the tragedy?''<br />
:''“We have satellite photos of the places where Ukraine had its air defense units deployed in the southeastern parts of the country. The first three photos were made on July 14. The first photo shows Buk launchers 8 km northwest of Lugansk. You can clearly see a TELAR and two TELs. The second photo shows radars 5 km north of Donetsk. You can see two TARs along with other equipment and technical structures. The third photo shows air defense systems north of Donetsk. You can clearly see a TELAR launcher and about 60 military and auxiliary vehicles, tents for vehicles and other structures.''<br />
<br />
:''“Here’s a photo of the same area made on July 17. Please note that the launcher has disappeared. The fifth photo shows a battery of Buk missiles at the village of Zaroshchenskoye 50 km east of Donetsk and 8 km south of Shakhtyorsk on the morning of the same day. The sixth photo shows the same area on July 18. As you can see, the battery has left.”''<br />
<br />
Note: the <s>latter</s> fourth photo of July 17 has substantial cloud cover, but unless they happened to hide the launchers in those areas (or Russia's satellites waited until the area was covered) it appears the noted vehicles have left to go do something - on/by the 17th, where they say launchers appear and then disappear in a town closer to the crash on the 17th. Zaroshchenskoye [http://maps.yandex.com/?text=Ukraine%2C%20Donets'ka%20region%2C%20Shakhtars'kyi%20district%2C%20Zaroshchens'ke%20ville&sll=38.446008%2C47.98844&ll=38.517419%2C48.048098&spn=0.810242%2C0.300187&z=11&l=map on Yandex maps] - 13 miles SSW of the crash sitel, 9 miles W-SW of Torez..--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
On July 30, Vitalyi Naida, head of Ukrainian Security Service SBU’s counter-intelligence, came up with a series of slides ([http://euromaidanpress.com/2014/07/30/russia-fakes-mh17-crash-site-satellite-images-says-sbu/ short article], [http://www.sbu.gov.ua/sbu/control/en/publish/article?art_id=129610&cat_id=35317 announcement on SBU website] with link to [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ut1JExQKV-0 youtube-video showing the slides (presumably Ukrainian language)]) allegedly showing that the Russian material was "faked". He points to a patch of trees, claiming they had been cut down shortly before the 17th, while Russia's images show the trees intact. On August 1, the Russian Ministry of Defense published [http://eng.mil.ru/en/analytics.htm a rebuttal] advising that<br />
:''Instead of presenting hastily doctored evidence to the international community, the SBU could do with better control over all the mercenary units in the areas around Donetsk and Lugansk organized by Kolomoisky, Lyashko, Yarosh and others, who shell Ukrainian territory without any control from those in charge of the anti-terrorist operation.''<br />
<br />
The trees probably are cut down by now, but we'll have to wait for the true details of just when they were and when the image showing that was taken, or if the image shown is even of any one day and not a composite - "doctored" as Russia says. Other clues suggest launchers moving out of this area at that time: The [[#Paris Match Photo]] - ostensibly from the morning of the 17th - shows the infamous launcher-loaded truck seen in Lugansk, or one just like it, being carried on a truck belonging to a company just south of the missile base in northern Donetsk. That was seen carrying the launcher east out of town at 11:15 AM, purportedly on July 17 (and with the location completely fudged to say Snizhne, when it was only headed there).--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Zaro redeploy.png|left|600px]]The Russian military press conference said "The fifth photo shows a battery of Buk missiles at the village of Zaroshchenskoye 50 km east of Donetsk and 8 km south of Shakhtyorsk on the morning of the same day. The sixth photo shows the same area on July 18. As you can see, the battery has left." (#5 inset) The Ukraine@War blog's analysis decided this image as well was fake. That's mentioned [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com/2014/08/ukrainian-sbu-comes-with-conspiracy.html here] if not elsewhere. The reason: "the shadows of these BUKs have a different direction for all three of them. It means these were pasted into the image." I have to admit, it looks a bit like that. The trees have consistent shadows to the west, in a morning image. The furthest vehicle to the left has a visible shadow about like that. The other two don't seem to, and the one furthest right seems to have a shadow on the wrong side (looks like early PM). I wracked my brain just a little thinking of other explanations aside from just low resolution. Nothing much came up. Anyone else? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br /><br /><br />
<br />
<br />
: '''New video proves UKIE BUKS ACTIVE'''<br />
: video has surfaced, posted to Youtube on July 16, taken a few days before, showing a Ukie BUK radar [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3MomxNHnUA being rotated]. The reporter is taken somewhere in a helicopter and proudly shown the BUK. Segment starts around 4.17 in the chopper, BUK shown briefly at 4.45. Label does not say where exactly, just reads "Officers of Ukrainian Armed Forces patrolling in the ATO zone". <br />
: This ties in with claims that they were doing anti-aircraft exercises, probably in response to claims/fears the Antonovs were brought down not by the rebs but by aircraft from Russia. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 10:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::Thanks! We had this July 16 video [[Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17/BUK_Tracking#Kiev.27s_Holdings| elsewhere]], but here is a good place... The other video, from March, was not seen. There were few more early sightings of Ukrainian Buks, uncertain locations, with those 3** numbers; maybe should get a good place to keep them all --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::: Location of sighting is unclear. But according to some reports ([http://lifenews.ru/news/136731 LifeNews]), on July 16 UAF SU 25 was shot down from a height of 6 km by opolchenie MANPADs. That was near Russian border, --reports say the plane actually crossed into Russia, not far from Marinovka. It could be suspected by Ukraine that a Russian plane was involved, so it will be plausible to have Ukrainian coverage of the accident area by BUKS. On July 14, it was reported that [http://m.rosbalt.ru/ukraina/2014/07/16/1292690.html AN 26 was shot down in Luhansk] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
There is strange twist of Logic in Bellingcat's report about satellite photos. The photo with Buks in the field is claimed to be manipulated.They found that July 17 image was manipulated but only in the region of clouds. They don't say that BUK was removed by software (there are 4 more vehicles missing). But on all Google earth photos BUK never moved (and those 4 vehicles). So did it move ever or not? Manipulation of Google earth photos or likely their source is not new.[http://www.imediaethics.org/News/130/Exclusive__google_investigating_photoshopped_gogle_map_image_.php]<br />
<br />
Surprising Google earth have more updated photos on the BUK base location and nearly nothing for the location where Russians seen BUKS. There is something strange about RUSSIAN supposed fakery. Doesn't make sense to me.--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 13:33, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Separatist Holdings===<br />
While much certainty has been shown it was a separatist BUK system responsible, everyone seems to acknowledge that ordinarily, they didn't have any, that were known of. Fresh sighting of them in the field, supposed admissions, and existing presumptions remain the strongest evidence. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;June 29 Seizure?<br />
The Open Newsroom team have latched onto a June 29 message from a Twitter account associated with the Donetsk People’s Republic, @DNRpress claiming separatist forces had conquered a base with anti-air BUK missiles. This is apparently the A-1402 base, as an Itar-Tass report specified. That report noted ... It seems to just cite the tweet which, it was found, used a dated photo online since mid-2013. In essence, there's no good evidence they ever did seize this place. But it was referred to by some as "Deleted DNR tweet confirming Russian rebels indeed have a BUK-M1." The crew at large seems a bit vague on the status of this base:<br />
:'' It appears that the A-1402 military unit was moved into the Donetsk region in 2007 from Odessa, and reports note that the unit was based near Donetsk airport. Local reports from June 29 cited ATO spokesman Alexei Dmitrashkivsky as stating that separatists had attacked the military unit.'' <ref name="Story1" /><br />
As we just found with geo-location, it's 3 km north of Donetsk airport, and it's the same place Russia believes is firmly government-held. It's the place they say at least one BUK-type launcher was removed from on July 17 for some reason, by Kiev's forces who run it. If [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Donetsk_Airport this basic Wikipedia article on the battle for the airport] is correct and/or in line with [[Attack on Donetsk Airport|our page on it]], the airport and anything military-related north of it would probably be government-held continuously to the present time. It's possible some launchers could have been lost during a brief seizure of the base, but this too seems doubtful. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
:Social media published many photos of the "liberated" Buk missiles. I searched for them on Google Image Search; all were old photos from more peaceful times. I have no idea what really happened. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 23:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Thanks. I hadn't looked into it myself, but recycled images made sense given the other clues that they never did take that base, or at least get anything out of it. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 00:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
Something in English [https://www.facebook.com/TruthfromUkraine/photos/pb.1452285018328179.-2207520000.1409095455./1515506872005993/ on Facebook,] with links to Russian souces. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 23:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Your geolocation is wrong. The former [http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-SAM-Site-Configs-A.html SA-2 launch site] to the north of the runway is called A-1428, at least according to the [[:File:Donetsk Airport battles 5 Oct 2014.jpg|map by Komsomolskaya Pravda]]. The site was rebuilt sometime between 2002 and 2009 with new garages covering part of the SAM ring. Tactical maps say today it is still held by Ukraine, but may have been in NAF hands earlier. Base A-1402 is located south of the new terminal building along Stratonavtiv Street.<br />
<br />
When looking at the latest airport battles I noticed that Military Maps already shows structural damaged to the new terminal building. I did not expect Google to provide any relevant satelite data. In Libya we had almost daily satellite images of Tripoli, but in Syria we have seen no new photos of the battle-effected areas.<br />
<br />
I opened Google Earth to see what has changed during the war. It seems that the war has had no effect on either base. There is still a lot of military hardware parked on both bases. Most of the trucks and whatever are parked just w--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 18:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)here they were last year, or on many cases in 2007. I did not see anything that I could identify as a BUK launcher. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 02:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;Held by July 14?<br />
The US embassy in Kiev said in [http://ukraine.usembassy.gov/statements/asmt-07192014.html a press statement of July 19]:<br />
:''Intercepts of separatist communications posted on YouTube by the Ukrainian government indicate the separatists were in possession of a SA-11 system as early as Monday July 14th. In the intercepts, the separatists made repeated references to having and repositioning Buk (SA-11) systems.'' (also quoted [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/20/malaysia-airlines-mh17-videos-missile-launcher-torez-snizhne at the Guardian])<br />
As "Corporal Frisk" [http://corporalfrisk.wordpress.com/2014/07/21/comment-on-the-us-assessment-of-the-downing-of-flight-mh17/ aptly responded:]<br />
:''Having perhaps the world’s best intelligence network, and then using easily faked videos of separatist communications posted on YouTube as evidence sure has a degree of ridicule attached to it, but is also an inidcation that US intelligence believes at least some of these transcripts are real.''<br />
That's totally apt if one suspends the usual definition of "believe" (to include "wants to appear to believe," etc.) In the same piece, the author apparently gives more "credibility to the charges that the Buk-M1 is indeed Russian supplied (and possibly crewed), as opposed to stemming from captured Ukrainian stocks." As covered below, this I can agree with if we suspend the usual definition of "Russian" (to include "allegedly Russian villains," "the Ukrainian version of [http://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2011/07/african-mercenaries.html Libya's African Mercenaries] and [http://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/wiki/The_Shabiha:_Ghost_Stories%3F Syria's Shabiha]," etc.) this would be spot-on. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:54, 10 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
(more allegations to cover?)<br />
<br />
;The One That Matters<br />
Whatever the evidence rebels had Buk systems by the 14th, Kiev also has suggested, and many have accepted, that ''the one that mattered'' at least - the launcher unit that shot down MH17 on the 17th - wasn't theirs at all, but brought in and operated by Russians for the day only. If only for that reason, all the above is likely moot. See next section. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Unknown owner ===<br />
Appears to be [http://vk.com/albums-22680516 A 1402 unit album] ; has Buks but photos are from 2011. [http://vk.com/albums-22680516?z=photo-22680516_205618115%2Fphotos-22680516 Buk number 122] photo. Old photos-unknown what happened thereafter. [http://vk.com/albums-22680516?z=photo-22680516_277084156%2Fphotos-22680516 Another- unknown number]. Also something like Strela 10 shown on [http://vk.com/albums-22680516?z=photo-22680516_351678270%2Fphotos-22680516 photos] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 18:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Only non-working Buks remained there when it was 'partially captured' by opolchenie, according to Ukrainian [http://www.pravda.com.ua/rus/news/2014/06/29/7030482/ reports]. Working ones were moved elsewhere by Ukraine. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 18:39, 21 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Russian Buk Field Trip? ===<br />
The Kiev regime's narrative also suggests separatists had no BUK systems of their own. Rather, someone else brought one in to their area, took it on some kind of tour through several towns thought accessible only to rebels and allies, and got it seen in each place. Then these people '''shot the airliner down themselves on the separatists' behalf.''' That party is the Russians, they say. This is perhaps best encapsulated by "counter-terrorism" chief Vitaly Nayda's early assessment. AP's July 25 report summarized it, saying "the account was based on information from intercepts, spies and resident tips."<br />
:''Nayda laid the blame fully on Russia: He said the missile launcher came from Russia and was operated by Russians. ... According to Nayda, at 1 a.m. on July 17 the launcher rolled into Ukraine across the Russian border aboard a flatbed truck. He cited communications intercepts that he would not share with the AP. By 9 a.m., he said, the launcher had reached Donetsk, the main rebel stronghold 125 miles (200 kilometers) from the border. In Donetsk it is presumed to have been off-loaded from the flatbed and started to move in a convoy on its own.''<br />
:''Nayda said the Buk turned back east toward Snizhne. Townspeople who spoke to the AP said it rolled into Snizhne around lunchtime.''<br />
:''...As for the Buk, Nayda said, intelligence suggests it went back on the move shortly after the attack. That very night, he said, it crossed the border, back into Russia.''<br />
<br />
This is full of details that don't line up with the emerging record, but the gist including a grand-circuit tour including both separatist stronghold/capitols Donestk and Lugansk plus the disaster zone, seems about right. But the evil they allowed came from and returned to Russia.<br />
<br />
This does however jibe with the Kiev allegation (I learned of through [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/07/25/snizhne-mh17-and-rebel-held-territory/ this excellent and relevant HRI article] that '''Russian jets''' violated Ukrainian airspace to '''bomb an apartment building in Snizneh on July 15th, killing 11 civilians.''' This all makes a bit of sense in context; that false flag attack was blamed by locals on Kiev'a noble Air Force - almost understandably! It "created the conditions" by which people ''might'' accept apparent a team of apparent Russians with a Buk launcher in their town two days later. The best guess for any single firing location is a field just southeast of that town (see [[#Possible Launch Sites|below]]). The locals might smile at, and later even cover for, this poisonous gift. But a trojan horse is a trojan horse, of course. They should have looked it in the mouth better, and been more aggressive with their questions. Because Russia has it in for the separatists, Kiev implies, using its skilled and well-documented team to murder 298 people in a horrific way on the separatists' behalf. This is not an accident, Kiev must know, but proof that Russia and its "inhuman" terrorists they must hate (and who do not seem to have any Buk launchers of their own, BTW) are the new global menace du jour. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Markings and the Mystery Launcher ===<br />
[[File:MH17 Buk 321 Parismatch comp.png|right]]A serial number on the launcher's side is apparently standard in Ukraine's arsenal (see [[#BUK 312 and comrades|above]]). Inset, an image comparing the side of the unit seen in [[#Paris Match Photo]], the one blamed for the shoot-down on the 17th, to TELAR unit 321. The side panels are easy enough to correlate and see the unit in the photo lacks a number, but does have a sliver of white paint (or similar) in one corner. Whoever was moving this painted it it out before this, so there is some attempt at concealment. Is this color of paint only available in Russia? The white sliver here could be part of the number, if it were painted higher up/larger than Ukraine usually does. I can't say yet how they do it. I did a Dogpile Photo search, lots of pictures, context unclear, different vehicles from different sides, mainly Vitaly Kuzmin photos so app. Russian military parades and such: --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
* Number shown, diff. vehicle: [http://military-vehicle-photos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/9881.jpg #1(loader?)] - [http://pix.avaxnews.com/avaxnews/8a/6f/00006f8a_medium.jpeg #2 same?] <br />
* Launchers with no visible numbers: [http://77rus.smugmug.com/Military/May-5th-Parade-rehearsal-2014/i-t7RjrzP/0/M/5may14-33-M.jpg #1] - [http://77rus.smugmug.com/Military/12-April-Parade-2013-rehearsal/i-KHVD3Tv/0/M/12aprilrehearsal_33-M.jpg #2] - [http://livedoor.blogimg.jp/gunzichannel/imgs/b/e/be60ae58.jpg #3] - [http://military-vehicle-photos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/9880.jpg #4] - [http://77rus.smugmug.com/Military/13th-April-rehearsal-Alabino/i-fKQdjW4/0/M/13April-Rehersal-Alabino-26-M.jpg #5] <br />
* Same vehicle, Buk TELAR launcher with numbers: not found. <br />
<br />
At the moment, the lack of a number almost makes it look Russian. The next panel over seems to have smaller numbers, or characters anyway. Nothing yet tells me the Russians add a smaller number on the panel behind that, with or without special stencils available only in Russia. Is that even a number, or does it say return to Putin? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== Bellingcat and 3x2 ====<br />
:''moved from [[#Paris Match Photo]]''<br />
<br />
Adam: somebody's favorite Bellingcat is now saying, I understand, that he is capable to read off the number of this Buk from this blurry low resolution Paris Match photo, using unspecified colored magic and some expertly fitted proprietary boxes. Well actually this is so proprietary that he can ONLY read the first number 3, and the last number 2, but is completely unable to read the middle one. Because, he does not want this to be this Ukrainian [http://uainforg.livejournal.com/1811500.html Buk 312] , nah, noway. He rather want it to be the Russian Buk 3 X 2, where X stand for Russian, and for secret, as somebody is said to unearth this dirty monster in Russia, as he says (I guess). This looks too much baloney as far as I am concerned; you can read any number you set in advance from this blurry photo, and fit there any other crap, boxed-shaped or wiggly, all essentially at will. Just recording this latest saga page in case somebody has more enthusiasm to chase it than myself. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 00:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
:No, you didn't quite understand, but thanks for the tip. An interesting twist I wish I'd caught sooner. First, this helps the West at large get in synch finally with Kiev - it was Russia, not the separatists, who owned and perhaps ran that unit. Second, it seems to me the match is at least as good as they say, but there's at least one aspect of it I think is hilarious and I wouldn't be surprised if they managed to miss it. I'll be back - this one deserves a quick blog post. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: I agree with Resup, this stinks of baloney designed to divert attention from the [[#BUK_312_and_comrades]] story. The worst thing about Brown Noses and cohorts is the amount of coordinated promo they get in pre$$titute media. SPIEGEL today [http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/jan-fleischhauer-ueber-wladimir-putin-und-mh17-abschuss-kolumne-a-1004898.html has a op-ed piece by a particularly douchebaggy example] on those independent genius investigators as well. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::I need to brush up on what that 312 story is... because it looks like this used to say 312. Ultimately I suspect its some kind of baloney, but just where it breaks down I don't know. It is amazing how they get such praise for investigating the right things (never did get back to the Houla Massacre) and finding the right truth... Daily Fail says "The authors said that 'our investigation was made possible by the examination of open source material overlooked by other organisations'." Oh goodness, that technique they must have invested ... maybe if we started doing that we'd get praises too! --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/11/08/origin-of-the-separatists-buk-a-bellingcat-investigation/<br />
The report and whole site was not coming up when I tried (might be a problem on my end), so I don't even know what's behind their pay-wall. In the interim I checked around. [http://thetruthserumblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/an-open-and-transparent-investigation.html Here's a critical blog article I like] that mentions another article praising the report. But what was useful was [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2827853/Russian-military-supplied-missiles-ahead-MH17-shooting-says-new-independent-report-evidence-points-Russian-separatists-responsible.html the Daily Mail's Australian promo article] with the cover and a few images from the report as well as a summary. The 3x2 ... This lets me quickly see what 3x2 refers to. And actually, it looks like a good description and even a good match. The number is not from Paris Match photo but from footage I haven't noticed, they say from inside Russia - presumably a Russian unit then - seen conspicuously moving towards Ukraine in late June. (the source of these images and details might be worth checking into) ... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 3x2 Comp.png|right]]Bottom is Paris Match, skewed to match. Top is the new (to me) Bellingcat June 23 image As I just put together [http://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2014/11/how-russians-covered-up-truth-partly.html here,] they seem to be onto something here. It's something silly. But it's something strongly suggested by real paint in recognizable patterns.<br />
<br />
Implied: Russians wanted to hide this thing's identity, maybe because they were about to do something secret with it. So first they painted out the number in the middle - I think it was a one. Except they left one little corner of white visible. Just got tired. It's identifiable (in both images). <br />
<br />
Then before it appeared in Ukraine, it was rendered totally unidentifiable: they boldly blacked out the 3, and perhaps at the same time even, the 2 - except for a larger identifiable sliver. Just got tired. It's next to the other dot. <br />
<br />
Haha, no way to connect these now! Also a light patch next to the small number (and the number, as far as we can see) matches, as does a light patch along the lip below that. My guess: this is the same suspect vehicle seen gettin' hauled all over on the "stolen" truck with the phone number left on. Was it actually in Russian territory as well as near so many rebel checkpoints around dawn? For how long was it there? Bellingcat cannot confirm that Russian unit 3x2 ever returned to its base in Russia ... nor, I guess, that it ever actually left, or was ever Russian, or didn't have its truncated paint job simulated and expanded on another vehicle... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
::He got some photos of an actual [http://www.kavicom.ru/news-view-12861.html convoy], almost certainly in Russia, fairly hi-res photos, no 3*2 there. Than out-of-a-blue-or-elsewhere, he gives photos from convoy made by 'local residents', now with discolored 3*2 photo(s) there; I could not spot details where this photo is now coming from. He claims it "shows on 8 out of 16 videos", but I do not know where is a single one. He also compares tank track and plate above profiles for these 2 photos; details are blurred (and also those profiles change from use), can't say how much they match each other by eye; don't trust his fitted lines, or his conclusion accepting those, but did not try matching myself (no tools to do it quickly; or enough photo resolution to feel strongly motivated). This is doable but doing it tool-free takes time; and not knowing that second photo is definitely in Russia, I am not convinced spending a lot of time is worthwhile. This is clearly a well-supported operation, so the burden of proving their own version is on them; and they did not bother even linking the videos, no clue where are those. His report downloads without problems at this time. <br />
::Also details such as dirty rear skirt and a bend there likely are common; dirt is because exhaust is through the opening above; skirt likely is bent when there is servicing, or example changing tracks or doing something else, like maybe servicing engine. Buk 321 above on this page has dirt and bend, for example. This bend is something which can be easily produced, same goes with the painting job, both things together can be done in well under 1/2 hour. If they had an example of how something in Russia looks like, not difficult to do it for a blurry photo. Clearly, with phone well-displayed, etc, the purpose of all this is a demo job. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Here is a publication [http://censor.net.ua/video_news/274823/ukraina_zaschischaet_donetsk_ot_napadeniya_rossii_zenitnoraketnye_kompleksy_buk_zanimayut_pozitsii_fotovideo Ukraine defends Donesk from Russiam attack, missile complex Buk takes positions], with photo, video of Ukrainian BUks, numbers 323, 321, 312, 301, 331,332. (Some of them have dirty skirts, e.g. 301 looks dirty and bent...). Ukrainian radio is playing on the video. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 21:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Thanks, and I get the lack of motivation, and the ambiguity. That #312 I'll compare later ... looks like a different number style (thinner) with vehicle color less clear ... I guess this could be innocent dirt instead of black paint, but it's some thick dirt, and by the end almost totally covering the numbers on this particular unit ... or two that can seem the same. (?) So it still seems most likely paint, that is deliberate obfuscation - that was also comically slow and incomplete (with clean edges to the white parts and no visible parts of gray half-covered numbers) . It must be a problem with my system (updating soon) but I still can't connect to the site or get the report. I'm not mad motivated myself, but will want to check the alleged video source and geolocation eventually. Before I was seeing this as a Kiev unit simply snuck across the internal line. So the big wrinkle of course is it being in Russia. Options if the geolocation of June 23 is right: <br />
* it wasn't there (faked match-up - As you say, all matching features ''could'' be faked, not just the paint) <br />
* or Ukraine snuck theirs across (with a whole convoy?) just to get it seen there <br />
* or they snuck over and stole this one while it was near the border <br />
* or Russia willingly sent it over, with or without a subsequent theft by people intent on misusing it on the separatists' behalf. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
There is actually a 3*2 Buk in Russia, he put links to videos on his [https://www.mapbox.com/labs/bellingcat/index.html map], I looked at 06/23 Troitskiy (Odnoklassniki) goroskop odnoklassniki ru/video/14723648043?fromTime=25 . But I doubt it can be concluded that Paris Match is a match (number itself can't be read, this is just bogus). For example, that dot in the Russian version appears to be a bit further to the right (60 % of total panel length) , while Paris Match is closer to 50 (I got 52 %). Also, in Russian version, it is almost level with protruding to the right part of number 2; in Donetsk photo, I'd say it's a bit lower (but blurriness creates problems to measure) . Panel to the left of number panel appear to look very different; in Russian case, clear horizontal line above the main bottom line; not so in Donetsk, a messy lower line. As for the skirt, it it dirty but actually does not look broken in the Russian version, just some frames create such impression. In Donetsk, hard to know (to blurry to tell crack from dirt) but there is serious change in angle there somehow; (could be the windshield playing some tricks). (Also, in Donetsk, it is dirty windshield, not actually certain what makes the dot; but it is roughly where expected, so I can go with this being paint assumption). <br />
:No point for the rebels to display it prominently in Donetsk (not far from UAF BUK base), than go towards Snizhne; this just has no point at all. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 00:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
:I'm the one, ironically, claiming to see things in that griny mess. I'd never do it unless I saw t spot well whiter than the others AND seen in another view ... didn't even notice until then. To note, your descriptions are of the first version of the graphic, now updated. Becuase of overall problems, I cut what seemed just the number panel (including shadowed edge) and put it on top of where it should be. Same proportions, within a pixel or two, "find edges" to mark the white patches, and it remains lining up. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 3x2 comp 2.png|right|420px]]At right: it can't be the embarrassingly misrepresented Ukrainian 312 they're hiding, unless that was painted over before this other one .... FWIW, the middle dot would still line up with the serif on that "1." As the updated blog article notes, if "the Russians" were smart, they would have painted this slender 312, or other recognizable number and style, on there. Instead, this nonsense.... <br />
<br />
I suppose that Ukraine ''might'' have known about this 3x2 video and match in advance (and never mentioned it?) and that's why they found a photo of ''a Buk 312''' (not checking what it actually showed, and just claimed they knew was en route to escape into Russia, after parking for yet another photo?) No, that doesn't make much sense. But I sense a link. Maybe that's because I'm seeing 312 when maybe it's 872, for all we really know. Maybe instead of partly painted out it was just left never fully painted in. Too many unknowns and now I'm unenthusiastic about it. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Whatever one thinks of this graphic comparison and interpretation, the strange and suspect thinking it implies is consistent with what else we know about how this "secret" operation was carried out. If true, it would fit this broader pattern (real or reported clues left by whoever, all open to interpretation, and here couched in the terms of allegations by Kiev and supporters):<br />
<br />
* Recalling that this whole weapon itself would have no normal business in the area and would be denied later, it should have been kept secret. Instead, it was driven around in broad daylight on the same day as the crime, just partly covered with a tarp but revealing all clues needed to identify it, its hidden ID number, and its full rack of missiles.<br />
* The truck it was so displayed on was stolen in Donetsk, and kept with the huge sign on its side with the apparent owner's phone number on it. When the media called that number, little surprise, the owner told them pro-Russian "fighters from Slaviansk" who took over his whole trucking company on July 8 (see [[#The Truck Owner's Story|here]]) Put lightly, this is a stupid way to secure a rig one intends to use for a secret operation like this was supposed to be.<br />
* They loaded the truck in Donetsk, likely at the commandeered site in the north of Donetsk, near the Ukrainian base with Buk launchers, in a coincidence. This truck then got seen leaving Donetsk on the 17th, parked pointing east at the east outskirts, then seen driving in convoy (a couple civilian cars with the operational crew moved with the truck) past Zuhres and then through Torez to the east. They were seen arriving in Snizhne around noon, then the Buk unit seen off the truck and driving in stand-alone, and it was then seen again driving south out of Snizneh, towards the apparent launch location.<br />
* The people running the convoy made sure AP journalists saw them in Snizhne just before the shoot-down from a bit south of there. The convoy stopped, and a man in unusual uniform "approached the journalists. The man wanted to make sure they had not recorded any images of the missile launcher. Satisfied that they hadn’t" filmed that secret missile launcher there, but had noticed it, and their intention to remain sooper seekrit "the convoy moved on." All this was made quite clear to the media and apparently published even before the news that MH17 was shot down. ([http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/what-happened-the-day-flight-17-was-downed/2014/07/25/716c36e4-142b-11e4-ac56-773e54a65906_story.html AP Via Washington Post]) <br />
* After the disastrous attempt to secretly provoke a Russian invasion, with utmost discretion the operators put the smoking gun, its rack of one-less missiles left uncovered, back on the same truck and drove it and the phone number back to Russia - by a strange detour on a long route towards the other easily-recognizable smoking gun rebel capitol, Lugansk ... when government ATO forces had just battled their way to the edge of Lugansk ... and got seen there passing at dawn on the main highway south, apparently having come from the center of town, and then presumably drove to Krasnodon (rebel-held) and to Russia....<br />
<br />
The fail delivery here is almost flawless, with no mistake left unmade and hardly any reasonable gaps to call for deduction. Letting multiple camera views on both sides of the porous border capture and track the gradual move to this stealth mode seems pretty consistent to me.--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Note: the implications of this contested finding, and the visual basis for it as well, is continued below under [[#If Buk 3x2 Was in Russia]] --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
I think one point is still not discussed here. Look at this video from 26 June 2014. You might have seen it before. But what is striking, all the Buks shown do not have numbers painted on them. Not only it will allow to paint new numbers or any clumsy painting on the side, using video of a known BUK, it also means that those BUKS were not accounted for when Ukrs presented evidence, if they ever presented, about the location of all the existing and operational BUKS <br />
[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BBEYZHOT0bQ]--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 13:29, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== General Observations === <br />
*It is clear that pro-Kiev side produced early and persistent stream of fakes, misrepresentations, or selective half-truths, all aimed to place the blame on Russia and/or "separatists" as a part of well organised and supported information warfare. This information warfare did not establish an objective to prove the blame of Russia or "separatists", as any of those media creations will not survive a rigorous scrutiny, and there is nothing to bring to court in particular. However it successfully altered Western perceptions in early days past the catastrophe, and helped to impose sanctions and other 'increased costs' on Russia, bringing the world on the brink of another cold war. It brought situation in Ukraine closer to perpetual chaos, and kept closely related people to continue killing each other every day. Although those fakes and misrepresentations were later realized to be such, those costs and calamities were not reversed. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*After moving equipment close to border, why would Russia send just a single TELAR to Ukraine in a highly visible manner as it was alleged? For meaningful operation of Buk, one would send at least 1 TELAR, 1 TEL (to be able to load missiles), and 1 command vehicle (as radar on TELAR gives only poor basic operation)? There are also lots of support vehicles seen, in case of something meaningful all that is needed. So moving single TELAR is all but pointless from military standpoint. Single TELAR is mostly for a show of sort. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Reported SIghtings == <br />
(consider along with the visual sightings below) <br />
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/what-happened-the-day-flight-17-was-downed/2014/07/25/716c36e4-142b-11e4-ac56-773e54a65906_story.html AP via Washington Post] <br />
<br />
The link is not accessible anylonger.<br />
Here is direct link to AP<br />
[http://bigstory.ap.org/article/what-happened-day-flight-17-was-downed]<br />
<br />
Apparently this Peter Leonard was assigned for the job just in time on july 8th 2014 [http://www.ap.org/Content/AP-In-The-News/2014/AP-names-Peter-Leonard-as-its-Ukraine-correspondent]<br />
<br />
--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 05:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
shows the separatists strategy to not be seen as they rolled the murder weapon around:<br />
:''Even before the plane was downed, the AP had reported on the presence of the missile launcher in the town July 17. Here is what that dispatch said:''<br />
:''“An Associated Press reporter on Thursday saw seven rebel-owned tanks parked at a gas station outside the eastern Ukrainian town of Snizhne. In the town, he also observed a Buk missile system, which can fire missiles up to an altitude of 22,000 meters (72,000 feet).''<br />
:''AP journalists saw the Buk moving through town at 1:05 p.m. The vehicle, which carried four 18-foot (5.5-meter) missiles, was in a convoy with two civilian cars.''<br />
:''The convoy stopped. A man in sand-colored camouflage without identifying insignia — different from the green camouflage the rebels normally wear — approached the journalists. The man wanted to make sure they had not recorded any images of the missile launcher. Satisfied that they hadn’t, the convoy moved on.''<br />
<br />
That kind of pro-Russian sooper-seekrisy aimed at the media in front of the media should stop them being seen, right? No, oddly, it didn't. See below. The clumsy bastards could hardly have implicated themselves any more thoroughly than they did that day. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
One interesting post at the Ukraine@War blog mentions two tweets, both from July 17 and before the crash, mentioning this BUK launcher on a trailer at places consistent with the video record. [https://twitter.com/MOR2537/status/489702736766586880 One of them] (translated) sounds perhaps ''too'' informed, and says "Was driven missile system on the tractor cover + two cars after Thorez (Torez) in snowy (Sniznoyeh) in 12-10 (at 12:10? Too early...)." [https://twitter.com/_StradivariuS_/status/489704260045910016 The other one] says "(someone this) morning wrote that (the truck) stood (parked for some time) on b.Shahtostroiteley not intersection with Ilchicha, aside (heading towards) Makeevki. waiting to see (to be seen?) If that's an intersection named, it's a different parking spot identified as being [https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=48.002515,37.854917&spn=0.010222,0.02444&t=h&z=16 here on Google Maps,] one km west of the spot it was parked for the "Paris Match" photo. Otherwise, it refers only to the same place. The contributor noted "Another interesting detail in that tweet is that “it was standing” and “they were waiting”. My understanding of that phrasing is that the #Buk was actually parked there for some time. Meaning there might be witnesses." <ref name="UWD">[http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com/2014/07/reconstruction-of-whereabouts-of-buk.html CONFIRMED the BUK that shot down MH17 has indeed been in Donetsk] P. Martin, Ukraine@War, July 23, 2014</ref> There was a witness with a camera, and a photo sent to the Western media. That almost seems to have been the idea - to get witnessed like that. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== SBU Wiretap Clues ==<br />
I just had a look at the SBU wiretap transcripts, ones released July 19. In it is a segment tying in with the above stop or stops in Donetsk, the exact spot of the [[#Paris Match Photo]], and the general orders to drive east with the launcher. I'm not up on the wiretap stuff - if this is the same material said to be corroborated by the US as the real people talking. But briefly, know that parking spot in just past a roundabout, by a motel and a bus station, well short of a crossing Hornostaivska street halfway to Makiivka. Important clue to why it was here this thing had to get seen and talked about: one source claims this roundabout at the edge of town is "a big separatist checkpoint established on Jun 3 at the road circle." <ref name="UWD" /> This is supposed to all be pretty damning, and I must say it's at least looking like a pretty slick plan may be going on here, with pre-scripted parts that come into play later, etc. From Kiev mouthpiece UaToday, parts of a transcript they ran with the video and other allegations, on the 19th - How credible is this evidence?<br />
:''Khmuryi: Sergei Nikolaevich Petrovskiy, year of birth 1964, officer of Main Intelligence Directorate of Russian Federation, Deputy Chief of Ihor Girkin on Intelligence, at the time of the interception he was in Donetsk.''<br />
:''“Buryat” – militant of terrorist organization “DNR” (to be indentified).''<br />
:''Buryat: – Where should we load this beauty, Nikolaievich?''<br />
:''Khmuryi: Which one? This one?''<br />
:''B: Yes, the one I’ve brought. I’m already in Donetsk.''<br />
:''K: Is it the one I’m thinking about? “B…,”M” one?''<br />
:''B: Yes, yes, yes. “BUK”,”BUK”.''<br />
:''K: Is it on a tractor?''<br />
:''B: Yes, it’s on it. We need to unload it somewhere, '''in order to hide.'''''<br />
:''K: Is it with a crew?''<br />
:''B: Yes, with the crew.''<br />
:''K: '''Don’t hide it anywhere.''' She’ll go there now.''<br />
:...<br />
:''Khmuryi: – Tell me, have you brought me one or two?<br />
:''Buryat: One, one. Because they had a misunderstanding there. They didn’t give us a tug. We loaded it and went at their own pace.''<br />
:''K: Did it go on her own or on a tug?''<br />
:''B: It crossed the line (border).''<br />
:''H: And now have you brought it on a tug? Don’t put in anywhere… I’ll tell now where it should go, it will go together with “Vostok” tanks.''<br />
:...<br />
:''K: Sanych, the point is that my “BUK–M” (modified Russian SAM system) will go with yours, it is on a tug. Where should I drive it to put in a column?''<br />
:''Sanych: There, behind “Motel”, not reaching Hornostaevka.''<br />
:''K: Just after the Motel, right?''<br />
:''Khmuryi: Listen to me carefully, behind the circle near “Motel” there will be you know what. Call to “Bibliotekar” (Librarian).'' <br />
The next part, to me, suggests that as far back as the 19th or earlier, people talking on tape were seeding, or working by, the SBU-proposed Aeroloft plot with the town mix-up. In that light:<br />
:''...Bring inside only those, who just came back, only as much as you need for the convoy. Leave everyone else here. Not far away '''there is Pervomaiskoe, look at the map.'''''<br />
:''DNR militant: I got it.'' (Or did he not quite get it?) <br />
:''Khmuryi: Settle somewhere in that area, bring there those who are left. Your task is reserve, plus protection of this piece (BUK–M), which you will drive now. “Giyrza” will come there too. If anything, I’m on line.'' <ref name="Trans">[http://www.uatoday.info/?p=2579&lang=en SBU releases more conversations implicating Russia in shooting down Malaysia Airlines flight (VIDEO, TRANSCRIPT)] UAToday, July 19, 2014</ref><br />
--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The veracity of that recording needs challenged well now ... the day too early claim [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17#SBU wiretap video|did not pan out,]] so it won't be that easy. Has anyone really done a good analysis tearing it apart some other way? Could it even be half-legit, with some local rebels tricked by some undercover (wire-wearing, not wire-tapping) supposed defector delivering it "with a team" coming "from Russia" (meaning Parubiy et al.)? Who knows? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Imagery Mapping ==<br />
[[File:MH17 Storyful video mapping.png|right|330px]]There have been quite a number now of photos and videos showing BUK launchers ostensibly in separatist strongholds, on July 17. The geo-location of these in such towns by social media networks has been the subject of some recent media commentary. These purported placements are worth collecting and considering here. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
One somewhat comprehensive and updated/evolving page: [http://blog.storyful.com/2014/07/19/how-social-sleuthing-uncovered-evidence-of-anti-aircraft-missile-system-in-eastern-ukraine/#.U9oY_Ua3498 How Social Sleuthing Uncovered Evidence of Surface-to-Air Missile Systems in Eastern Ukraine] Inset is a small preview of the interactive map they made of all placed images (as it stands at the end of July - [https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=200399683004956931329.0004feca5d1fbab0a1d25&msa=0&ie=UTF8&t=h&source=embed&ll=48.206371,38.968506&spn=1.281328,2.334595&z=8 full-size presentation with links, on Google Maps]) <ref name="Story1" /> <s>Note that one of them is way up in Lugansk - which one is a little unclear at the moment - the site may be wrong</s>) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;List of Scenes, placed or not<br />
* Billboard Video: released by Interior Ministry, filmed in Krasnodon before dawn, the Interior Minister says. Russian military analysis places it in Krasnoarmeysk, and the Open Newsroom crew contradicts both and decided "collaborative geo-location was able to place the footage in southwestern Luhansk.'' <ref name="Story1">[http://blog.storyful.com/2014/07/19/how-social-sleuthing-uncovered-evidence-of-anti-aircraft-missile-system-in-eastern-ukraine/#.U9oY_Ua3498 How Social Sleuthing Uncovered Evidence of Surface-to-Air Missile Systems in Eastern Ukraine] Storyful blog, July 19, 2014 and onward (updated)</ref> <br />
* Surveillance Video: located to Snizhne by Eliot Higgins, date unclear. <ref name="Story1" /><br />
* Zuhres video: Pre-geo-located by the uploader [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=48%C2%B0+1'1.38%22N++38%C2%B018'6.04%22E&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=48.034019,38.391724&spn=0.629958,1.564178&gbv=2&hnear=H21,+Zuhres,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&gl=us&t=h&z=10 here in Zuhres.] Higgins confirms, 100% sure, and others concur. Driving east. <ref name="Story1" /><br />
* Torez square photo - located by an associate of Higgins - filmed app. 11:40 AM in central Torez. See below. <br />
* Another photo placed: Snizneh, nearest the shoot-down area (f/c)<br />
* [http://www.parismatch.com/Actu/International/EXCLU-MATCH-Un-camion-vole-pour-transporter-le-systeme-lance-missiles-577289 Paris Match photo] - allegedly Snizhne, reportedly placed '''in northern Donetsk city.''' See below. <br />
<br />
===Billboard Video===<br />
(to be condensed) <br />
A video released by the Ukrainian Interior Ministry is highly dubious and worth some analysis. It shows what seems to be a BUK launcher loaded on a truck driving some direction in some town at what seems to be early twilight (or pre-dawn, depending). The [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4HJmev5xg0 original posting] (with almost 2 million views already) gives no details: "Militants take out missile system "Buk" to the border with Russiam" the title translates. "No description available," it says below, and no comments allowed.<br />
From what I've seen no one knows where this is filmed. Daily Mail says it's a "separatist stronghold," unnamed, and headed south, back towards Russia. "Ukrainian spies reportedly filmed the launcher used in the attack being smuggled to Russia - with two missiles missing." Eliot Higgins was cited by [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/20/malaysia-airlines-mh17-videos-missile-launcher-torez-snizhne the Guardian] with his new team of fundraistigators as geolocating some video and photo but not, apparently, this one. As explained at [https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1278239551/bellingcat/posts/919158 the kickstarter link] they give, Higgins writes:<br />
:''In the above video, posted by the Ukranian Ministry for Interior claiming to show the Buk missile launcher being driven towards Russia it was possible to match the transporter in the video to the transporter in Torez, details of which... (you have to subsidize their operation to see)'' --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== Avakov's Placement: Krasnodon or Lugansk ====<br />
Interior Minister Arsen Avakov said in [https://www.facebook.com/arsen.avakov.1/posts/670837696339673 a Facebook post of July 18] Google-translated: <br />
:''Covert surveillance units of MIA of Ukraine today July 18 at 4.50 am was recorded caterpillar tractor loaded with missile complex, moving in the direction through Krasnodon, toward the border with the Russian Federation. The video can be seen uncovered missiles. Two missiles in place - the average is not visible. ''<br />
:''There is an analysis of this and other information gathered. Presumably this is the missile system "Buk" that made a last shot at a civilian plane from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur .. ''<br />
:''Criminals try to hide the traces of this heinous crime. Not succeed. Security Service and Interior Ministry of Ukraine has collected and collects more irrefutable facts and evidence, the author points out the tragedy of the terrorist organization DNI / LC and its Russian backers Putin.'' <br />
:''The investigation of events MIA issue a comprehensive report on the information. This fragment consider it necessary to publish immediately.''<br />
<br />
By the 22nd, "online sleuths" had placed it in Lugansk (see below). Avakov then confirmed this - he was wrong the first time. One article makes it sound like he wasn't just echoing the sleuths:<br />
:''On July 22, Ukraine's Minister of Internal Affairs, Arsen Avakov, gave the exact coordinates of the video’s location: separatist-held Luhansk, about a 45-minute drive from Krasnodon. Locals quickly verified this claim by photographing the scene, which perfectly matches the landmarks seen in the video.'' ([http://globalvoicesonline.org/2014/07/29/russia-ukraine-mh17-conspiracy-buk/# article by one of the sleuths])<br />
<br />
====Krasnoarmeysk====<br />
One source venturing a guess is [http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ the Russian government and RT witrh their 10 intriguing questions:]<br />
:''“For example, media circulated a video supposedly showing a Buk system being moved from Ukraine to Russia. This is clearly a fabrication. This video was made in the town of Krasnoarmeisk, as evidenced by the billboard you see in the background, advertising a car dealership at 34 Dnepropetrovsk Street. Krasnoarmeysk has been controlled by the Ukrainian military since May 11.”''<br />
[[File:MH17 Billboard Vid Russian Analysis.png|right|250px]]There is a sign, but I cannot make it out just yet, if ever. Can they really? Even if that's so, surrounding towns might be good places for a dealership in Krasnoarmeysk to advertise. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
At right now is a still from a video claiming to show this, I still don't see it. They seem to think the gray span says that, perhaps from seeing a clearer view of this ubiquitous sign elsewhere. Opps. There's no reason to say a dealership in one town can only have billboards in that town. This alone fails. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 14:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Krasnoarmiis'k,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&hl=en&ll=48.323387,37.919312&spn=1.252829,3.128357&sll=48.226502,37.386475&sspn=0.627601,1.564178&oq=Krasnoarm&t=h&doflg=ptk&hnear=Krasnoarmiis'k,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&z=9 on Google Maps as Krasnoarmiis'k] - ''not'' to be confused with the Krasnoarmeisk not far away in Russia. Distance: about 100 km almost due west of the crash site. Panorama, possiblt location, directions/implications forthcoming. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Dnepropetrovsk Street is the main street of Krasnoarmeisk, leading northwest to Dnepropetrovsk. It tried matching this to the street corner where the car dealership is located. Yandex Maps did not provide a street view. It could be there, but too few details to make a positive match. Whatever this is, it is not evidence for anything. The least the SBU could have done is provide the location and some corroborating photographs.<br />
:The same applies to all so called "evidence" provided by Ukraine and the US State Department. As far as I can tell it is only cut-and-paste of unrelated footage to ''illustrate'' the claims made. A perfect example of this illusion is the "satellite photos" of Russian artillery shelling Ukraine released on Sunday morning. A photo of Russian GRADs on some unidentifiable field was placed next to a satellite image with an arrow pointing "Here Be Monsters!" Purely illustrative and no proof. There is a difference between legerdemain Hocus Pocus and outright forgery. The Russian video presentation displayed screen capture recording from the ATC radar, usually stored for two weeks. For this to be a hoax, Russia would need to create a forged tape of the radar data. Highly unlikely, as the the claim of authenticity had support of the full authority and prestige of the Russian Armed Forces. If the US presentation turns out to be hoax, State Department will claim the photos were never meant to be evidence. Some internee was told to prepare a presentation using stock images for some facts they ''knew'' to be true – trust us! -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 14:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: You must have missed [https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BtZSVQrIMAARzKr.jpg:large this], Petri! ;oP --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 18:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
::: That is an awesomely perfect picture for this sorry episode so far. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 14:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
::It would be neat though if we could show where this is and thus which way its's headed. The Kiev authorities, I think, know what happened. They say it was this exact launcher missing two missiles. It could be. Where is it at filming time and where headed? If it's true this same one was in Torez (dubious but possible) we'd have a direction traveled until that point also, and a rough time, 8:30 or so. [http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jul/27/mh17-storyful-social-media-twitter-youtube The Guardian again] citing Storyful's open-source investigation: <br />
::::''“There are now four pieces of content – three pieces of video and one image – which, in the case of three, conclusively show a Buk [surface-to-air] missile within rebel-held territory and in the case of the fourth, almost definitely in their territory,” says Storyful executive editor David Clinch. “Of those four pieces, individual groups or companies probably verified in or around the same time one or another of them.”''<br />
:''Open Newsroom verified three pieces of content and is investigating the fourth, thanks to its 900-strong network of journalists and experts. ''''<br />
:The fourth is this video. Wouldn't it be a coup if we were the first to place it? Force that intern excuse and then laugh at it. That said, it's not the most likely to place but you, Petri, especially, might be able to. I think I might. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 22:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* [https://plus.google.com/118234537318646233652/posts/LZV1XZD854E James Miller Google + July 21] "Was a Buk sighted in Krasnoarmeysk or Krasnodon (continued analysis)? We've taken a new look at this video which has been debated since it was posted days ago. We're fairly confident, though not 100% confident, in this geoanalysis, but we're making significant progress. Any more information would be extremely helpful. " Cited: [http://www.interpretermag.com/russia-this-week-lurid-anti-ukraine-propaganda-broadcast-on-state-tv/#1753 Russia This Week: Defense Ministry Claim on Buk in Billboard Video Doesn’t Add Up]<br />
:''...As we reported on our Ukraine Liveblog, the Buk was spotted before the shoot-down of the Malaysian airplane and ultimately geolocated to the town of Torez, near the location of the crash in Grabovo. Then the video, taken early the next morning on 18 July, showed a scene in Krasnodon,... <br />
--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Google Earth has one photo [http://www.panoramio.com/photo/55329278 from ул. Днепропетровская.] The street has about the same width. The streetlights are not quite the same. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 14:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
::That image doesn't help a match, especially since by now it looks like Lugansk. For the record, there was a go by pro-rebel social media people at identifying a spot in town to explain the video scene, but it didn't do that either. [http://wikimapia.org/#lat=48.276196&lon=37.176087&z=18&l=0&m=b this spot on Wikimapia] is what they pointed to - filmed from the marked building, they say, looking southwest to the mall. No matching anything. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 02:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== Placed in Lugansk! ====<br />
[[File:MH17 Billboard Vid-Lugansk Match.png|right|800px]]Storyful's rundown states of this video:<br />
:''The footage is not the original, however we believe that the first instance of this footage was removed by the uploader and the version below is the earliest we can find. Ukrainian Interior Minister, Arsen Avakov, made early claims that the video was filmed in the Ukrainian town of Krasnodon near the Russian border, however collaborative geo-location was able to place the footage in southwestern Luhansk.'' <ref name="Story1" /> <br />
It links to "Bellingcat," which you have to pay to see much of. [https://plus.google.com/118234537318646233652/posts/bMdeBzY8yty James Miller] passes on that it's "Mystery SOLVED: Video released by Ukraine's Interior Ministry does in fact show a Buk, possibly missing several missiles, in Lugansk headed east from the MH17 crash site and in the direction of Russia." The spot they think matches the video (better panorama coming) is [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=48%C2%B032'44.7%22N+39%C2%B015'52.6%22E&ie=UTF8&ll=48.545926,39.265147&spn=0.002436,0.00611&t=h&cid=0&z=18 here on Google Maps]. Was that a highway? Where's the cross-street? I see elsewhere they have a high view showing the same basic billboard there, but that's going to be true of several spots in this area. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
My impression of the scene - based on the panoramic view below - is far from matching with this. That does not look like a highway, and it just seems like a small town. However, I finally saw some of the supporting images (see [http://news.bigmir.net/ukraine/827864-V-Lygansk-vehala-kolonna-voennoi-tehniki--SMI here] and [https://twitter.com/djp3tros/status/491651820188860416/photo/1 here] - source of the inset image.) It seems a likely match after all. I won't say I confirm it with any certainty, but I don't think I'll be challenging it like I was preparing to do. Note the different billboard in the right spot, and the matching one over there. There are other images, apparently more current, showing that that they moved the one sign over to the right spot They don't point to the pinkish roofed building beyond the red-roofed one, but that adds to the match (compare to below). Whenever this video was made and whatever it really means, it seems quite likely it was at this spot in Lugansk shortly before dawn. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
There is another video from June 2014 showing the same billboard with the same car ad:<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ez8cZ3nqjCs Луганск 02 07 14]<br />
The video shows a column of BMPs with one 9K35 Strela-10 short-range surface to air missile system passing the intersection in Lugansk. I suspect they came from Russia, as [https://www.facebook.com/groups/IOUCO/permalink/584402078339517/ I specifically asked] for Putin to send in the Russian tanks that morning. They passed exactly when I expected them to, at 6 minutes past 4 am. (I estimated it would take 2 hours 6 minutes from the border.) -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 17:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== ACLOS Review ====<br />
As noted above, my review agrees with the placement agreed by the others. For what it's worth, the huge panorama I made (the middle is full-resolution) and starting notes from before I realized no work was needed. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 03:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
[[File:MH17 Billboard Video Pan.png|center|880px]]<br />
It seems to be filmed near the edge of town, or edge of a hill anyway, with a clear view ahead, two vague homes/buildings seen down the slope. Otherwise, very non-descript. The angle of intersection will be one of the better clues - it looks to me not 90 degrees ( |- ), but with the road the truck is on either slanting or curving somewhat towards the camera ( /- ). One important observation: '''there's no logical reason he should have been just happening to film this area''' unless he knew something interesting would drive by at just this odd time. That's clarified by how he zooms in just before it enters frame - he was waiting for that truck. How did he know about it? Informants on the other side of town phoning ahead makes enough sense, I suppose. <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 launcher truck composite.png|left|480px]]Another issue: If this is dusk (sunset 8:20 PM local), isn't this facing roughly northwest? If so, this vehicle is driving roughly north, not south. And we might start looking on the west edge of town. There's a highway out to the northwest, back towards Kiev. This street is too narrow and unmarked to be the highway, obviously, but it might be driving that way, for example. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
:Or, alternately, he's facing towards the sun about to rise, early on the 18th, as alleged by the Interior Ministry) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
::That he happened to be filming just before dawn is even less likely than dusk. He clearly knew this was coming, whatever that means. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 03:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Above is the composite scene without truck. At left is the truck without background. Besides lightening the scene, it seemed worth getting the clearest details from different frames into a composite view of the truck and its load. This helps compare to the launchers seen in other areas and different times. So far, they all seem to look the same and perhaps be the same. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 03:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br /><br />
<br />
==== HRI ====<br />
Pretty good points [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/08/05/mh17-the-lugansk-buk-video/ from Human Rights Investigations]:<br />
:''To sum up, the statement of Avakov, the film and its location suggest the Ukrainian authorities had advance knowledge of this BUK and trailer’s movements or control over it. It is also extremely strange that this BUK, allegedly after shooting down MH17, is supposedly filmed by a Ukrainian surveillance team in ostensibly rebel territory, with its covering missing, as if to show the world a missile is missing.''<br />
--[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Paris Match Photo ===<br />
[[File:MH17 Paris Match.png|770px]]<br /><br />
* [http://www.parismatch.com/Actu/International/EXCLU-MATCH-Un-camion-vole-pour-transporter-le-systeme-lance-missiles-577289 Originally published by Paris Match] on July 25, with the claim the picture was taken by their own reporting team near Snizhne at mid-day on the 17th. Note the prominent, apparent, telephone number prominently centered in the picture - (050) 471-41-80. The truck and launcher, as far as can be seen, are quite similar to or the same as the one seen in the billboard video anyways. How many of its missiles the unit has at this moment is unclear. <br />
<br />
* [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/07/28/why-is-paris-match-on-the-location-of-a-buk/ Human Rights Investigations:] "it turns out to have been taken in Donetsk, 75km away" (citing someone else's geo-location - [https://www.google.com/maps/@48.004592,37.87265,3a,75y,63.38h,82.21t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sRGnHwZ5YZnuGO-n_VvruWg!2e0 site link given.] <br />
:''We know this because the phone number on the truck panel (050 471 4180) leads straight to this hire place (photo):<br />
:''According to Paris-Match, the proprietor of this establishment claimed “rebels” had stolen a number of his vehicles earlier in the month. If we go from here to towards Snizhne we find the location of the Paris-Match photo, near a car dealership on Makiivske Highway on the outskirts of Donetsk:''<br />
:''After informing Paris-Match of the mistake regarding the video location, the author of the article Alfred De Montesquiou has now got back and explained:''<br />
:''Hello, indeed, it appears there was a mixup in caption : the picture was taken leaving Donetsk on road to Snijne, not in actual Snijne'' <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Donestk Buk Map.png|thumb|right|480px|Map: this truck location, the company's apparent headquarters ([https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Molodykh+Shakhtariv+St,+19,+Donetsk,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&ll=48.044923,37.783184&spn=0.079187,0.195522&hnear=Molodykh+Shakhtariv+St,+19,+Donetsk,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&t=h&z=13 GM link]), and the A-1402 missile base relative to each other.]]<br />
<br />
'''Questions:''' Was it a caption mix-up, or did their team really not know where it was taken, and just believed the real source when he said Snizneh? Who is the true photographer who knew to catch this picture near the company's base, apparently at the outset of a rather epic journey? Why did the rebel thieves leave the prominent phone number on the stolen truck used for such an important task? It wound up leading to man who pointed right to the rebel thieves, and prove yet again separatists, not Kiev allies, were the ones driving BUKs around. Was that so hard to foresee? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''To Do:''' Verify the geo-location - set a time, presuming July 17, by sunlight and that location - establish which way it's traveling relative to the government-run anti-aircraft base just a few km north of here and relative to the other places and times this truck and others were spotted rolling around prominently and getting filmed a lot by the right kind of people, in areas presumed to be impenetrable to any such frame-up operation - look into this company, etc. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''Location:''' I can't confirm it with certainty, but it's extremely consistent. Two standard but distinct pole types that close together on the right with a pull-over lane ending at the blue one, and consistent-scale foliage behind. Proceding on the location as likely enough to warrant the work. The stretch of highway identified runs northeast, heading 33 degrees. The truck is most likely not driving at the moment, as it's in the pull-over lane. But it's pointed as if ready to leave Donetsk as soon as they finish doing something in theis spot. All we can see they're doing is getting filmed, and maybe that's just what they're waiting for. Ahead would be the an industrial area, the eastern suburb of Makiivka, then Khartsyzk, etc. and further east Torez and Snizhne (driving times unsure, date also unsure. Russia claims the one launcher left the northern base sometime between in August 14 and 17 images. <ref name="RT10">[http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ 10 more questions Russian military pose to Ukraine, US over MH17 crash] RT. July 21, 2014</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
There is more to consider about this truck, its company, its owner, and his story. But other than this photo's extra-clear view of the phone number and apparent proximity to headquarters, those are better covered in the section below [[#The Truck Owner's Story]].<br />
<br />
==== Time? ====<br />
[[File:MH17 Paris Match elev.png|right|220px]]'''Time:''' I'm not sure how exactly to set this up, but the shadows appear to stretch almost right across the highway, with only a slight northern shift. The azimuth thus appears to be fairly close to to 140˚ (reached at 11:09 AM). As for solar altitude, trying to line up the launcher's corner with its shadow gives a reading of app. 56˚ (= 10:50 AM, with azimuth 133˚) or perhaps 59˚ (= 11:18, az 143.5). The graphic shows both readings. Which is better? I used [http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/solcalc/ NOAA solar calculator], with coordinates: lat 48.017102 long:37.9037626 time=GMT+2, DST +1 --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Bellingcat was originally claiming that photo was taken at 9 am. [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/09/08/images-show-the-buk-that-downed-flight-mh17-inside-russia-controlled-by-russian-troops/] <br />
<br />
Then they were claiming 11 am as an obvious time without retracting previous 9am claim. [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/11/08/origin-of-the-separatists-buk-a-bellingcat-investigation/] <br />
<br />
Seems like 9am was more comfortable for them to match to photos from Zuhres and Torez. <br />
<br />
Sorry, using smartphone. Not very easy to comment --[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 01:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:<small>Looks like you put the same link twice, -it says 11 a.m.--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)</small><br />
::Antidyatel, welcome! Resup, thanks! I'd like to see any 9 am citation. But otherwise they agree on it being around 11? Good. The significance below is if the Zuhres square photo was taken at 11:40 AM as they say, it's basically impossible these images are from the same day as alleged - 69 km, 1 hour 14 mins drive between the spots, when there's only 20-40 minutes between the images. However, fudging it - let's say this is 10:50 and the other is 12:00 as I read it - that's 1:10 between, almost a perfect match. So maybe this isn't a great lead (I was never convinced it was). But 9:00 is way off and suggests they were fudging it to fit at that point. Would be good to document. BTW, on talk pages you can sign with <nowiki>--~~~~</nowiki> or the sign/scribble button. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: [https://web.archive.org/web/20141109132514/https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/11/08/origin-of-the-separatists-buk-a-bellingcat-investigation/ First archive.org snapshot] from the day after publishing (edit: a good three months after you called it :o)) says 11 am already. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 10:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: Okay, the links were fixed once or twice and [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/11/08/origin-of-the-separatists-buk-a-bellingcat-investigation/ the November report] says 11 am, not citing an azimuth or anything, just Paris Match saying it was "about 11 am," which doesn't count much for verification. The [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/09/08/images-show-the-buk-that-downed-flight-mh17-inside-russia-controlled-by-russian-troops/ earlier report from Sptember] might be based on something else when it mentions "a well known image from Paris Match, which shows a Buk in Donetsk at 9am on July the 17th." Neither one sounds like a firm final version. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== Screenshot from dashcam video? ====<br />
[[File:Paris Match on dashcam 1.jpg|right|400px]]<br />
[[File:Paris Match on dashcam 2.jpg|right|400px]]<br />
It it possible to identify if the photo was made by dashboard camera, smartphone, or other type of camera. Paris Match claimed that they made the photo. There are no date markings on the photo, which is strange. Position of the camera is such that it was either dashboard camera or the driver was making a photo (front and left side of the car). Paris Match was also implying in their report that it was a group of people in the car. "A sytem BUK missile launcher is photopgraphie by the team of Paris-Match in the suburbs of Donetsk, on the road to Snizhne the morning of July 17, hours before the flight Malaysia Airlines MH17 crash."[http://m.parismatch.com/Actu/International/EXCLU-MATCH-Un-camion-vole-pour-transporter-le-systeme-lance-missiles-577289]<br />
<br />
Why would they ask driver to make a photo? Dangerous or uncomfortable - illogical. If it was a dashboard camera, why not to release a video? And most importantly it would have a time stamp. <br />
<br />
Also in this report [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/01/17/new-images-of-the-mh17-buk-missile-launcher-in-ukraine-and-russia/] gives a new, a bit extended photo. Surprisingly the back of the BUK is nicely in focus, same as the truck cabin. While middle of the BUK is defocused. No wonder Paris Match cropped it. Bellingcat, that likes being so strict about photos, totally ignores this part. <br />
-- [[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 23:55,, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Yes, I agree. The two photos are crops from screenshots from a dashcam video. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 00:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
::Those must be two different shots at close-by time --look at position of street lamppost with respect to the truck cabin, one has it over black pipe, and the other more to the right from there. Can't think of a natural way for camera to focus on two different distances (maybe dirty and curvy windshield can be blamed but on tricky side here)-- FWIW. Usually dashboards have short focal length so that anything appear to be in focus; don't know why not the case here --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
RESUP, you are right. Those are two different shots. There is cable reflection from the windshield. Probably the cable is another indication of the dashboard camera.--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 13:35, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::I heard somewhere that it was a dashcam still, and I thought probably so. We all agree on that. As for the two images, I didn't know, will compare. Might compare. Why no video is a good question with at least o-ne true answer. Keep an eye out for possible ones. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:53, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Look at the link name for the Paris-Match photo https://wp4553-flywheel.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/PM2-BUK-Snijne17072014.jpeg<br />
Why would they name this photo from Donetsk using the name Snijne? What is PM2? Was it some folder that only consistent the storyline with focus on Snijne? Did Bellingcat have other options to fall back after they can’t defend it anylonger<br />
<br />
Funny thing about Bellingcat’s questionable standards of research. So much effort of looking for manipulation in Russian MOD photos. Let’s do the same trick with Paris-Match photo. Here http://fotoforensics.com/analysis.php?id=17a82272d17dbbb2abb0b784f10b3c64d5870562.186081<br />
BUK is very distinct from other objects in the ELA picture. Does it prove that photo is fake or photoshoped. Don’t know and don’t care. Just enjoy exposing Bellingcat hypocrisy. Why weren’t they interested to do the same if they are so confident in that tool and that picture is so critical for their story<br />
--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 10:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
:Those b-cats used their monies to produce another [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/06/12/july-17-imagery-mod-comparison/ opus]. Not sure I have spare time or enthusiasm to look much into this; after a brief look, clearly different viewpoints, different squeeze distortion on some photos at least, and different image quality -for example, black field with small variations in MoD may be not inconsistent with roads in that field seen in higher quality color photo; etc. Not sure how accurate is timing on either of the versions; do they really have photos of every place at every hour/ half hour/etc at DG? If Buk was moved, it was moved at certain time, and shortly before that time it can be photographed staying put there--need to have enough accurately timed photos for a conclusion. Now with MoD doing press conference, they would not through their best photos as they are at the journos; need to look at what they released officially to the investigation for saying anything meaningful. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Torez Square Photo ===<br />
[[File:MH17 Torez Buk Analysis.png|left]]This is another image geo-located by the Brown Moses network (ally Aric Toller) to central Torez, [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Donetsk&hl=en&ll=48.023472,38.614014&spn=0.004923,0.01222&hnear=Donetsk,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&t=h&z=17 here on Google Maps.] Like others, it was initially stated as in another locale - Snizhne - and that had to be corrected. I can agree the location pointed to is either the photo's site or one strangely like it. [http://mashable.com/2014/07/23/citizen-journalists-mh17-spies/ Mashable noted] "Toler and Higgins were able to establish that the photograph was shot around 11:40 a.m. local time." I tried a quick azimuth measure, eyeballed relative only to the blue car, and got 165 degrees (yellow line, read backwards). This equates to a time of almost exactly 12:00 noon (about 30 minutes before solar noon, and 20 minutes later than their estimate). Seeing they're close to right, I'll presume they're closer than me and defer to 11:40. <br />
<br />
If this photo is taken at 11:40 AM, and it's the same truck seen leaving Donetsk around 11-11:20 AM, it's impossible these images are from the same day as alleged (Gmaps says it's 68.8 km, 1 hour 14 mins drive, when there's only 20-40 minutes between the images). That would mean multiple mobile launchers with multiple "Titan" trucks, or just one but with some date fudging. The company says a number of its trucks were stolen, so matching multiples are entirely likely. But so is date fudging, multiples or not. If that's so, I suspect the Donetsk photo was from July 15 or 16, and this one more likely from the day of the crime. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 04:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br /><br /><br /><br />
=== Zuhres Video ===<br />
[[File:Buk Zuhres Vid.png|right|480px]]Again, a truck of that same type loaded with the same apparent weapon is briefly seen driving east (detail at right). This one was never reported wrong and was in fact pre-geo-located by the uploader [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=48%C2%B0+1'1.38%22N++38%C2%B018'6.04%22E&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=48.034019,38.391724&spn=0.629958,1.564178&gbv=2&hnear=H21,+Zuhres,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&gl=us&t=h&z=10 here in Zuhres.] Higgins confirms, 100% sure, and others concur. <ref name="Story1" /> Zuhres location: on highway H21 halfway between Donetsk and the general disaster zone - 36 km east by road from the position of the truck in the Paris Match photo. I agree with the location, refined below as I lined up in the still used here - the blue line runs between the blue thing and the building corner (footprint, not roofline) to the front of the truck as it passes. <br />
<br />
The sky is fairly overcast, so solar angles can't be measured precisely; the differences in facet lighting are clear but not massive. A broad and inclusive azimuth range of 167˚ to 214˚ (rounded) is shown by the yellow arrows below. This yields a range (to the nearest minute) of 12:09 PM and 1:45 PM. The best middle is a bit early - 185 degrees. That would be 12:44 PM. Altitude, at solar noon, helps little. 12:09, 12:44, and all times between round off to 63˚. if that simply looks too high, we're forced to the later end of the time frame. - 57˚ at 1:45. My super broad-estimate: 12:45 +/- 50 minutes. Weather at this time on whatever day - as noted, it partly overcast, and it's windy. The clouds are moving fast, with slight lighting changes visible in just these few seconds. Winds by the swaying trees are from the southeast, perhaps, blowing northwest - at least at the building with a face running that way.<br />
[[File:Buk Zuhres analysis.png|center|680px]]<br />
<br />
==The Truck Owner's Story==<br />
The apparent owner of the white truck so important to the MH17 operation was of course tracked down via the giant phone number for his compant on its side. Interviewed at least twice now, first by Paris Match, then by Lithuanian agency Alfa, this businessman has been anonymized as Vassili (then Vasilijus). Thorough summary of the related, alleged facts, from each (translated) report:<br />
* [http://www.parismatch.com/Actu/International/EXCLU-MATCH-Un-camion-vole-pour-transporter-le-systeme-lance-missiles-577289 Paris Match, July 25:]<br />
:''Photographs of Paris Match showed that the rebels had failed to remove the billboard on the truck they had stolen. Thus we joined the owner of the vehicle. Vassili said the rebels occupied warehouses on the outskirts of Donetsk since July 8. "They are fighters Slaviansk. They landed and told me they loved my premises and we had to escape. They shipped me a dozen large vehicles, including the white truck. I do not know what happened to them, "admitted Vassili, distraught.'' (that was actually just what they published, aside from context material) <br />
<br />
* [http://www.alfa.lt/straipsnis/472203/alfa-lt-isskirtinis-interviu-su-raketas-buk-kuriomis-buvo-numustas-malaizijos-avialiniju-lektuvas-gabenusio-vilkiko-savininku?p=1#.U-GIxeOSyuZ Alfa.lt, July 29:]<br />
:''This person's testimony is crucial. After it becomes indisputably known that anti-missile system, which shot down a passenger plane was precisely the Kremlin-sponsored terrorist hands. ''<br />
Here, separatists are throughout called "terrorists" (Bezler is "the "People's Republic of Donetsk" terrorist gangs ringleader"). Vassili says these took over and occupied his company premises on July 8, taking the white truck - they said because it was needed He says they stayed in control of his facility for 8 days, apparently departing on the 9th day - July 17. Becuase of this, he and his staff - especially his drivers - were unable to do anything that whole time. He's entirely certain it's his truck in the videos (the phone number says so) as it's the only one of its type in that part of Donetsk (Žinoma, ji – vienintelė tokia Donecko srityje, tokios kitos nėra. Tokios „Volvo“ su tokia kabina). He says he still hasn't seen it since.<br />
:''...more and more irrefutable evidence that Russia supported the terrorists shot down over the temporary control of the territory in the east of Ukraine aboard passenger "Malaysia Airlines plane, and later sought to hide evidence.''<br />
But as Paris Match noted, they couldn't be bothered to detach the phone number to the guy with the whole dang story. <br />
:''Alfa.lt knowledge of the personal data, company name, knows his responsibilities and phone numbers (one is (050) 471-41-80), but because of '''the danger to his life''' that can not be published. "Stop saying my name, and I already have enough problems," said new horrific crime witness Vasilijus.'' <br />
This is valid; of course his best defense would have been to simply ''not'' implicate the separatists mostly running Donetsk, but it's too late now. DPR authorities might want him for questioning. And especially now that he's been publicized as a "crucial witness," others will want him to '''appear to have been brutally murdered by them''' (he will have served his main purpose by now, perhaps). I hope someone's able to arrange protective custody quickly enough, or that he can arrange his own vacation, or convince his friends (he'll know the ones) of his continuing usefulness to them alive. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Titan Gate blurry.png|left|380px]]Further bits on the business: Wikimapia has labels. One for the front building is generic. In English writing: [http://wikimapia.org/#lat=48.0399571&lon=37.794637&z=16&l=0&m=b&show=/24479492/Ochakivska-vulytsia-19 Ochakivska vulytsia, 19]. Beneath: Category: safety, '''private security company.''' Around this, a bigger labeled area including the back building and surrounding lot. Label: Территория службы охраны "Титан" Translated, it says "Territory protection service "Titan" (Donetsk)." Beneath it: "Category: '''Do not display name''', fenced area." (не отображать название, огороженная территория) Below, their gate area as it appears in Human Rights Investigation's still, and three versions I've seen randomly changing over the last day or so with different parts that could be the name blurred out (most recently back to not blurred). Is that unusual? I predict further twists in this, with the truck found somewhere bolstering the Kiev story, and with the company's "outing" being manipulated somehow. Feels a little spooky. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
;Assessing "Vassili's" Story<br />
<br />
There are a number of problems with and interesting questions about this witness' story and how it meshes with other allegation (details forthcoming).<br />
<br />
In Vassili's defense, I'll say the world needs to hear more. What happened in these eight days? Were Russian officers coming and going? Poring over air charts in the side room, before closing the door with an annoyed look? A lot could have happened - this could be a gold mine of direct evidence for war crimes trials of these terrorist gang's leaders (as understood). --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
[[File:MH17 Vassili's Truck August 1c.png|right|400px]]<br />
An apparent support: as HRI found, [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/08/07/new-sighting-of-volvo-linked-to-buk/ New sighting of Volvo linked to BUK?] August 7 - One of those provocatively deleted tweets, quite recent with a supposedly same-day (dawn or sunset) photo from somewhere in Donetsk - outskirtsy, like where <s>rebel</s> I mean Kiev junta forces proudly claim to almost be. this photo (saved by HRI) shows "a truck" carrying a tank, driving behind another tank. The posted thought it was for a new roadblack/barricade (concrete slabs were also being hauled). It appears to be the same truck Vassili says he lost, or one just like it. And this does look like the type of thing seaparatists would do if they had seized it, and still didn't realize how famous it had become. This thing likes to drive at dawn, doesn't it? How are checkpoints then, a little sleepy maybe? Hmmm... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::(added later: inset image - from the photo, color-corrected and cropped on just the truck - for full view see the article or below) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: FTR I took up HRI's challenge to identify the truck on that picture and did so with almost 100% certainty. It's a Volvo FH second generation (2001-2013) with low cabin. Like [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Volvo_LKW_Fahrerhaus.JPG this one] which has a higher cabin but other than that is quite a match. Also FTR, I noticed that the twitter account has "Donbass Bandera" as location, which can but must not mean anything. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: Bandera might mean something, in context, but no time to puzzle too much. Good ID work there. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Vassili's Truck August 1 Loc.png|left|380px]]The article passes on a geo-location I can confirm: [https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Makiivka,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine/@48.04073,37.967479,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m5!1e2!3m3!1s78165143!2e1!3e10!4m2!3m1!1s0x40e08e984a0db9a9:0xe4e52efde2e0641c Here on Google Maps,] photo taken, as described, from "opposite the Vostochno-evroppeyskiy restaurant & lounge “Atrium” in Makiivka on the H-21." A site photo of the "Atrium" is included. The graphic I made at left shows the approximate view, including the stairwell (to a subway station?), though the billboard is less clear. The view is roughly towards the rising sun northeast - a rough azimuth measure suggests the sun is shining from about <s>66</s> 71 degrees from north, for a time of around <s>5:24</s> 5:52 AM (elevation: <s>1.8</s> 6 degrees). --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC) and corrections --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
FWIW, I went over to militaryphotos.net and scanned [http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?236005-Situation-in-the-Ukraine-Crimea-*Photos-Videos*-ONLY/page200 the thread about Ukraine starting on page 200] in very early July, up until page 225 when all the known truck/BUK info and disinfo was posted. Watched countless military convoys, including a whole bunch from Donetsk in the time between. Not a sign of the truck in question. If it was in "rebel" hands since July 8 like the alleged owner claims, they used it only for "special ops", alone in the early morning or so, not in their larger relocation operations. Two things remotely interesting: in an operation [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0JdcC324Ek reactivating a WWII tank from a war museum in Donetsk], a similar trailer is used, but the truck is a different one. And in [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2eGNPJlkMo this video from July 5] but without given location, the Ukie army does some operations and two BUK TELARs are seen. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Possible Launch Sites ==<br />
*Launch site discussion here is based on a photo of disputed provenance, said to be made '''near [[Category_talk:Ukraine#Torez|Torez]]''', showing a plume of smoke (see on the right and below). Exact date is disputed, but it was posted shortly after the accident. A late update or second version of the photo emerged in December 2014; this is further discussed in the [[File_talk:MH17_Launch_Plume.png|talk page for the photo]]. A different launch location in '''Artemovsk''', based on Bezler account, is discussed elsewhere [[Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17#Bezler_Account|(link).]] . <br />
<br />
===What do we know? ===<br />
Questions about the photo, --if it is genuine-- include:<br />
<br />
*What is shown on the photo? (Likely a missile launch, but can be MANPAD, or some other launch; raising fire smoke not excluded though less likely) <br />
*When was the photo made? (Claimed to be couple of minutes after the MH 17 shootdown launch; but could be made on earlier days)<br />
*Where was the photographer, and where is than the 'launch site" Photograph claimed to be made in Torez (4 microdistrict?) . Claimed launch sites locations are [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/launch-location-detected-of-missile.html SE] or [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2107 NE] from the photographer. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
A site, or maybe a couple of locations, have now been forwarded, based on compelling evidence, as likely SAM launch sites of July 17 or thereabouts. This is worth careful consideration here. To start:<br />
<br />
* [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10984530/MH17-the-clues-which-may-lead-to-missile-launch-site.html UK Telegraph, July 22] This report with some detail and a photo visits a few areas where signs of possible BUK launcher movement and firing occurred recently. Caterpillar tracks, mostly light, signs of burning, various debris left behind, all or mostly "in the area of the town of Snizhnoye." These details might suggest whoever did this had multiple launchers set up in different areas that left as soon as the operation/accident was done. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
::So far, signs are saying it was just the one. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Below: The site shown on video, stitched panoramic view (with confusing curve). This helps get the fullest set of geo-location clues. I may even check if this is the same spot identified by Ukraine@War, below. It should be, or we might have two firing locations pretty near each other, which would be odd. The firing direction from here would be northwest, almost directly along MH17's flight path. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
[[File:MH17 Telegraph site.png|center|940px]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Launch Plume.png|right|340px]]Ukraine@War: [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/launch-location-detected-of-missile.html Launch location detected of missile that brought down MH17] The photo at right, cited by Kiev as proof of a BUK launch in the right area, July 17. The anlysis here looks good on first blush and lines the filming to northern Torez, plume on a line including a supposed patch of cat tracks just revelaed by fresh Google/GeoEye images of some fields [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Donetsk&hl=en&ll=47.989347,38.773155&spn=0.078813,0.195522&t=h&hnear=Donetsk,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&z=13 here] by Snizhne. As traced, the tracks look realistic to me. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: There is (a disappeared) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUvK5m2vxro BBC video ] suggesting that smoke is from a direction of Saur-Mogila (= constant fighting) and a coal mine. <br />
::Thus smoke may be unrelated to the launch. Also timing of photo is unclear. <br />
:: Buk trail from unrelated launch videos appears considerably [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDXScnEKaP0 more impressive than on the photo] , and traces well visible trajectory, likely attracting attention of many people . But there appears to be no witness reports. <br />
::Buk appears to use [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_navigation proportional navigation method], and if so, its navigation control will try to guide it on a straight path to impact.<br />
::Unless it was doing something else (but can it??? the answer requires expert knowledge), it was most likely on a straight line trajectory which can be deduced from the impact direction.<br />
--[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 00:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Yes, an odd video. I'm not certain they even picked the right view, but it looks about right - I think she and Oliphant (Telegraph) point to the same monument as a landmark - a place of fighting. Seems like they got close, but didn't have a specific spot like U@W picked, and didn't find anything. As for angle, I think it can maneuver around, but would prefer to fly straight (not an expert, don't know what "prefer" means here). And if it was hit head-on like the impact marks suggest, then it probably did fly just about straight into the jet. Obviously if it came over the wing, and was fired from here, it would have to curl around, but I don't think that's the case. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
<br />
The satellite images cited at Ukraine@War are available if you have Google Earth. As explained [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/satellite-images-reveal-how-buk-has.html here,] there's a .kmz package you can download [https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxEeOqcjSE5uQXlkWkxKeVhDaEk/edit here] that loads on Google Earth new, murky images from July 20 (but the display still says August, 2013). The tracks he highlights are visible, faintly. There are a couple sets perhaps connecting - some could be local paths - there's no recent enough images to say there weren't there July 16. One important missing thing is a patch of burnt grass it seems should show up up differently - it's not identified there, and not evident right around these tracks. From this, it's not a great fit, except that line of sight pointing here. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Plastic Debris 1.png|left|280px]]So is the Telegraph site and the Ukraine@War site the same thing? Well, the Telegraph article says they went to the spot identified on a blog, but found, as the image suggests: Two possible launch sites – a rundown collective farm and a nearby wheat field – showed some track marks but no sign of any rocket launch whatsoever." It was a farmer plowing his fields there who pointed them to ''a field nearby'' that burned the other day, and that 's the unclear site they show. "The location of the fire lies on the supposed flight path of the rocket, and track marks – though indistinct – are present. Some unidentifiable bits of green plastic littered the site of the fire." There were also discarded bottles (type unclear) and apparently this oddity, shown in a photo but not mentioned - soft bakelite-type plastic ... thing, with years in the 1980s and 1990s stamped in it. It's all near enough to the rebel town, the Russian border, and concealed rebel positions that they think only rebels could operate there. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
First, let's note that author "P. Martin" connects these possibly relevant tracks with the surveillance video showing the Buk launcher driving south The Telegraph spot, from the burnt grass, must the spot the exhaust pushed off from, and the burn line should probably be to the northwest. There's no sign of that alongside these track marks found on that visual line. That's a problem, as the exhaust never said a luncher was driving around thataway, but rather launching from thataway. <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Telegraph Spot Mapped.png|right|380px]][[File:MH17 Telegraph Spot Cleared.png|right|320px]]Rather, it's the nearby "Telegraph spot" - not quite on his line but close - that [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com/2014/07/exact-location-pinpointed-of-mh17.html Martin thinks is the EXACT location] That, he thinks, is in the next field south. It should be visible in the updated imagery, but it turns out this is just off the edge of the area they provided, so it can't be verified or ruled out based on that. The inset graphic shows this cut-off line, his previous possible firing locations (track-based, seemingly un-burnt, in yellow) The spot yields a best placement with coordinates already noted by Petri in a section [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Map#Buk locations and flight paths|here.]] (I picked out the spot myself, best guess, and got the same but 3 seconds east) It can't be checked like that for the telltale stripe to the northwest, but it looks pretty likely to me. The main view down the tracks (left half of the panorama above) would be looking south, and the near line of trees on the right running west. The pretty obvious tracks he identifies as likely launcher tracks, and they do seem to curve in where it stopped. Otherwise, to me, this has more the look of a pre-travelles semi-road on the line between fields. Either way, it probably drove that way, and fired from here, and not from the un-burnt spots north. All the tracks he notes, none certain in themselves, are supported in their possible relevance by this being what's at the end of the trail. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC) and [[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Added in November, the image below that. I noticed Google Maps had new post-crash imagery up, and re-checked the spot for burn marks, since it was just off the grid before. This replacement - overlayed with translucence - seems too late. The strip most likely to show the signs has apparently been harvested/cleared before this image Some will say that constitutes a coverup. And it might, but probably just out of stupid reflexive nervousness. I just wanted to measure its angle and stuff. There is a nice track right up to the spot, likely pre-existing and just unclear before, and what they used to get there. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Location Challenged ===<br />
<br />
The above stuff, as of now and as I've been running it mainly, seems to bear out the vaunted "social media sleuths" placing the launcher and probably the launch in "separatist-held territory." I agree with all locations provided, and times too. Everyone acknowledges date is less sure. There are compelling clues pointing to concrete firing spot, that seems to be lined up the hit the jet head-on, as it's starting to seem the airliner was hit. In this narrative, the questions people should be asking is who was really running that. But readings differ, and some differing views can be considered here. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* [https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByibNV3SiUoobnpCVDduaHVORHM/edit?usp=sharing MH17 Analysis] – CDN <br />
<br />
Petri posted this to the front page, a 25-page report with many graphics and explained reasoning. One of its conclusions, based on range to impact, mainly, meant that "the missile that downed MH17 was not fired from Snizhne." At the moment, I disagree. Petri, who is CDN, and are they soliciting feedback? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::The anonymous PDF was published via Saker's blog: [http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/08/detailed-expert-analysis-of-mh17-downing.html Detailed expert analysis of the MH17 downing] "CDN" has [http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/08/detailed-expert-analysis-of-mh17-downing.html?showComment=1407347983141#c8862773971299986141 responded] [http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/08/detailed-expert-analysis-of-mh17-downing.html?showComment=1407350196815#c7564049628743605813 twice] in the comments. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 00:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
I think these might be part of what threw the author(s) off:<br />
# the heading seems to be off, too southerly to trace back like that. At the end, maybe close enough<br />
# possibly too-wide debris field starting too early - final breakup likely E-NE of their spot (ie closer to in range)<br />
# Wrong presumed angle of impact <br />
# Lack of knowledge, specified on page 23, of this contrail image or, obviously, the supporting clues pointing to what might be "the Telegraph site" excluded here. "Why are there no images of the rebel missile and its impressive launch contrail?" Oops, there is and it point there. <br />
--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: I just skimmed it before coming here. It was posted [http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.de/2014/08/detailed-expert-analysis-of-mh17-downing.html over here] where you can join the discussion (which I haven't read yet just saw that Petri is there chiming in in comment 2 of currently 93). I think it's first valuable in presenting the known capabilities of the Buk etc. If your stuff above is true and it is one single truck with one single TELAR that was seen in the different locations, then it shows quite conclusively that the Telegraph position can not be the launching point, because even if the Ukie claim of disappearance from Radar 50km from the Russian border is not true, due to the position of the debris it could only be further away, not closer, which adds to the argument. My 2 cents for the moment. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
: Oh, not directly related to the critique, but driving around with a huge phone number that leads to a Titan security of all places is more than a bit suspicious, I'd say. ;o) --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: "the Telegraph position can not be the launching point" if my "stuff above is true and it is one single truck with one single TELAR that was seen in the different locations" - how? "because even if the Ukie claim of disappearance from Radar 50km from the Russian border is not true, due to the position of the debris it could only be further away, not closer, which adds to the argument." Huh? I think the field is placed really vaguely in that report, and that's what sets the impact point - it looks maybe kilometers off, to the west. Placed right, the implied impact point is further east, ie closer to the launcher. It is a valuable report, but that point should be re-checked more carefully before I could be convinced to write off all the other evidence pointing there. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::: Take a careful look at pages 9 and 10 of the PDF. Place the spot to where you think it's "right". Think how that would change the picture. The argument is based on the empirical location of the debris and unless I've missed some serious flaw in the numbers and basic calculations made on the pages leading to that, I think it's by rule of thumb a very sound argument. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 13:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::: I'll do my own soon - I can say it would end further east, relative to the border there, and probably start further east too, but maybe I'm unaware of some outlying debris - but first a though on the debris field I just had, even more relevant than size and placement - what does it actually say re: the plane? He presumes it would follow the trajectory east. Not much, really. With only so much momentum and breaking up, with five miles to fall, the main factor will be wind. Even a breeze has five miles to act on it. That was so with PA 103 - the wind was about perpendicular to the path, and that determined just where stuff scattered on a line across the borders area right to the north sea - only the cockpit and a few things were off much from that line. Here, if it blewa along the flight path, the reasoning would work fine. If it blew back, to the west, the plane was probably shot further east than the field suggests. Ie, closer yet to in range. The Zuhres video above shows wind apparently to the northwest, and pretty strong. Worth a review and re-think in that light. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 14:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::: With an initial speed of 907 km/h I see no reason to take wind into serious account. I see no reason at all for going into more detail in this rule of thumb argument, not on the debris, not on the alleged launching point. But I'm as always looking forward to what you can come up with. ;o) --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::: btw there's no exact calculation of the traveled distance of the falling pieces, it's just found plausible resulting from other data. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::::: There's good reason. [http://martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/PA103_debris.gif past precedent.] I did read it wrong - the blue oval is about right, I thought the scale by it, which is way off. That's the 20 km drift - if the wind was blowing due east at the right speed... to the near edge of the oval and 30 km to the far edge... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 15:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 four last points.png|center]]<br />
<br />
Debris fields as shown in MH17 WSJ data combined.jpg. The two tracks, 118 per Flightradar24 and other sources, and 111 from a Russian graphic (see label C), just in case. They cross at point E just to look cool - superimpose wherever to visualize a track-back on these or any line between. <br />
<br />
The four red "last points", eyeballed onto the map as shown in the various graphics used here (all pretty approximate): <br />
<br />
A: last return, flightradar 24 (erred, I think, way too far along - I suspect some inherent offset...)<br />
<br />
B: Russian ATC last return, '50 km' from the border (vague description, likely close to accurate)<br />
<br />
C: end of 111 track shown in MH17 radar 1.png (maybe arbitrary, lower resolution)<br />
<br />
D: report, deduced point of impact (presuming 20-30 km flight due east after impact, wind app. not considered at all)<br />
<br />
E: My guess for breakup point, where the damaged front came apart (should maybe be further east, right over the south part of the first orange blob). Actual impact point, an unclear distance back. probably not very far - downward flight could start anytime after that, decreasing the lateral distance traveled) . <br />
<br />
The cockpit, aerodynamic, shows the most like forward trajectory of this, relatively minimal wind complication. The heavy forward parts had more drag, wound up NW of there. A bit further NW, the light, high-drag, punctured upper fuselage. That these parts aren't spread further out suggests the jet managed to descend some ways before the front totally fell apart, and/or that the wind was fairly light. From there, most of the plane remained together, kept more momentum and little wind effect, and crashed kilometers east. The last part of this plummet, about one minute seen on video, it was nose-free and essentially nose-diving. A slight north trend, perhaps curtailed eastward progress, largely just down, leaves it all hitting together by Hrabove, scattering woth the fireball trajectory and wind deciding where these bits landed. That it only got so far from the forward parts again suggests this breakup was fairly low in the fall - maybe just before the start of the one video. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I'd say forget point D, it is way too far west, this plane was not going to fly 25km once hit. On debris, I'd put breakup where the "f" is in your word "forward" and impact not very far NW of that, lifting the whole 118 line a little northwards. You can't bring breakup below impact and count on wind pushing wreckage "uphill" because that first group of wreckage included 37 bodies, which would not "sail". The impact would be enough to knock the course slightly south, to drop the cockpit at Rozspyne, where it turned NE to end up at Grabovo. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 03:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Thanks. D is the presumed point used to rule out this launch location, the original point of this sub-section. That dot fails by a good margin. My E and your guess are both north of the flight path, along which all the red dots are (this graphic is confusing, needs updating, if I didn't flatten it). I was thinking a NNW wind did the north and west spreading, but the records say the wind was flat "east" (to the west). I'm left suspecting now the plane banked hard left just before it started breaking up. Actual impact, just before that. The "C" label is pretty arbitrary, but it keeps seeming about right. On the imagined red line 1t 117-118, I dunno, maybe 20-30 pixels back. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::Winds are described as 'from' not 'to. So a wind blowing to the NNW is reported as a SSE wind.<br />
::::A slip - I'm trying to say it that way now. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::Getting on to the wind. The actual breeze direction is usually a function of altitude - veering or backing from ground level observation. It can easily be 90 degrees out from ground level. You need to look at the vertical profile used in aeronautical soundings to see where debris will in the main blow to. --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 11:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::Sounds like a real headache to map. There's also changes over time, where east at 5:00 may change briefly ten minutes later, or 10,000 feet up. All that seems can be counted on is easterly winds in general - no exception to that. And generally, even if they measure it at the airport, it must extend up to the clouds, which can be seen swirling east over the area. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::No it doesn't extend to the clouds except by accident. Major direction change can happen in hundreds of metres altitude especially at night. Examples of wind shift between ground level and 700 millibars (9800 ft) in day time can show a direction change of 90 degrees - e.g. North to West. This is significant with MH17 where the breakups occurred between 33,000 feet and probably a few thousand feet for the final disintegrations. --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 11:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::FYI Here is all about [http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/48/ Veering and Backing] --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 11:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::As for the spread issue, I'm re-thinking it. As for the bodies, it depends on a few things but I take your point - bodies are dense. And I didn't know that detail - worth considering. Also a sad side-note: most bodies would be alive and aware, from what I learned looking at Lockerbie. Lack of O2 would black them all out at first, but gravity makes it so there's enough in that final stretch those not dead already (the lucky few) would probably "wake up" in time to both feel their injuries and their fall, and to see the "separatist-held" fields rushing up to kill them. :( ---[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::: My indications are they were all dead when they hit the ground. That's not to say some didn't suffer from the first blast up there. Using my (very long ago) rescue triage training, I examined all the body photos for type of injury. The main findings were (a) almost no blood (as the separatist intercepted call rightly claimed) (b)a lot of legs at angles suggesting hip/pelvic fracture (a very common injury in air crashes to people wearing seat belts) and (c) all the bodies appear swollen (in first-day photos). We are thinking of what happened as a decompression, a low-pressure event. But that was preceded by the blast detonation of the missile just outside... a high-pressure event. The very high pressure shock wave compresses the blood vessels and severely damages the lungs. Blood pressure and heart rate go sky high trying to compensate. In 1/2 a second the blast wave is gone and they are in decompression.The heart can't adjust fast enough. The lack of blood flow makes the brain and liver swell up, too, so normal blood circulation cannot be re-established even if the heart recovers. The Lockerbie bomb, and various exploding fuel tank cases, were lower pressure explosions; sadly many would have survived those until ground/water impact.[[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 20:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::So there is evidence of blast wave, not _just_ decompression alone? But no shrapnel wounds? --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 21:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::(cut my comment - I had misread - taken to [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Debunked topics#Bloodless bodies – fake Facebook profiles?|bloodless bodies spot]] FWIW - but I disagree with both the lack of blood and the validity of many "separatist" communications, but if we're not arguing a planeload of corpses being shot down, I won't argue it much.) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
More to the point, leaving the above graphic aside, would be this newer one I should finally add. Basic straight path, 118 and placed as agreed by most sources. Alleged launch location, measures app. My best guess is a 2 km range from 22.75 to 24.75, weighted to the center. Or most likely about 23.75 km out (irrespective of actual projectile flight path, that's where it made contact, but this helps visualize how the alleged launch site might line up with [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Forensics#Direction of projectiles?|the directional forensics]]). --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
[[File:MH17 missile intercept distances.png]]<br />
::Straight line from launch is okay. But impact has to be further north, ie before the most westerly debris. You've used the map which assumes that debris to be blown back by wind. That can't be right, as it included bodies (too dense to blow back) and witnesses saw them and plane sections falling straight down. This only makes about 1 mile difference to the missile range, so does nothing to exclude that launch location. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 01:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::The map of spread is only app., some orange area I made. The pink dot and lines are from a map, Russian analysis, as you say apparently presuming a SSE wind. Debris including people ''would'' be blown back to some degree, all of it, varyingly; trajectory can only do so much when you have five miles of falling, with the breezes acting the whole time, and the lightest parts will be back a bit, whatever direction and as mentioned above, a SSE winds at some time or altitude still isn't ruled out at all). Do we know just where in that area those passengers landed, and what types of things are its far end? ? <br />
(<br />
:::I mean, you could be right and it's a bit further back, maybe with a continuation due east from there and no real wind effect except slightly back. It was only 9-12 mph, and maybe it fell halfway before starting to fall apart, which means less spread. I'm thinking about a possible left turn to explain the north aspect, or it could be wind, or being further back (more north, as well as west), or a combination. The turn has to be a certain size, the wind direction is not certain aside from east prevailin, ... whatever point best explains whatever happened ... we're down to a shrinking agreed range, and as you say, it's all within range of the one spot, so it's not ruled out after all. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 04:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
At this stay of play, I feel it will be helpful to have displayed prominently an overall map reflecting best guess on impact location as well as already flagged suspected launch sites, that is the two launch sites we have been discussing (near Snezhny ; near Chernukhino) , PLUS launch locations flagged and TIMED by released satellite data (currently only Russian data is available). I would be generous with the range here, we can find range suggested by public sources but presumably actual range depends on a number of things (height, radar range, trajectory, wind), and may exceed the "official" range. Another useful graphics piece info would be indicating the front lines, if there is a way to have those known. '''I would be extremely cautious with displaying graphics reflecting just one way of thinking (whether "worst", "best", or "middle of the way"), for the reason that any graphics is easy for human brain to absorb, more than words spread out on all our numerous pages, and ''no graphics at all'' is better than displayed ''skewed'' graphics.''' One-sided graphics may be '''inviting''' even more noise releases "supporting" some already skewed scenarios, and I feel that was already happening way too often. I feel that most helpful stance at this point would be as neutral as it gets. (Regarding trajectories, a default guess is a straight line, anything else requires an explanation. Straight line is implied so no strong need to actually display it, especially if it ends up curling in suggestive funny ways on graphics). --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 09:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::I've been doing a lot of graphics, so not all fired up for more. But if you are, I wouldn't mind making another if it helps. Maybe this is best taken to [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Map#Interception Location]] (a lot of this is redundant, and I might move it, but at least I can say let's stop piling intercept stuff here as well as there). Up to picking a certain spot around Chernukino? Some outskirts area, on a major road, it'll be a guess. A couple guesses could be mapped. Also, if it seems worth it, I can do updates and upload the new version as needed. Any timed satellite launches, let me know. Front lines, not known and IMO misleading in this case. Those who would know would try - and maybe manage - to sneak this thing behind them... the caution about leading labels, I can leave to you - you could just tell me what to put. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
:::::Would take me forever, may try later on, but not immediately; some cleanup/re-arrangement seems the easiest option. (If there are tools for collaborative mapping, may be good to start using those; but not aware of any) --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 11:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The preliminary [[Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Dutch preliminary report|Dutch report]] says the flight recorders were suddenly lost at 13:20:04 UTC at a point that almost exactly matches the 22.6 km mark. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 22:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Plume Location Re-challenged ===<br />
There is another video, essentially giving a bellingcat in voice-altered Russian. We discussed all that essentially; but he seems at least to end up with a claim for geolocation for the plume photo. Seems to be a new one (or I forgot the old one already by now). The claim is based on [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2055 unrelated panoramic photo] somebody took nearby, and [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2025 claimed to be geolocated by presenter]. Here it is on <br />
[http://maps.yandex.ru/-/CVG0nLo~ yandex map] ; it is taken from a terricon located at Lutuginskii bugor(=hill). There is a cableway from there to TsOF (remember, Khuevyi Torez tells about cableway from Lutugino to TsOF, so here they are); [http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=48.012722&lon=38.665695&z=14&m=b&show=/10590043/ru/ЦОФ-им-Киселёва TsOF is central enrichment plant]; photos from TSOF do show a similar [http://photos.wikimapia.org/p/00/00/62/81/85_big.jpg cableway] . So based on that and an audio of locals of unknown provenance and authenticity, discussing a missile-looking trail in the direction of [http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=48.041767&lon=38.741055&z=14&m=b&show=/18687650/ru/Химмаш Khimmash], our presenter [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2107 ends up] with this [http://maps.yandex.ru/-/CVG0rMnO claimed plume location] , somewhere near this Mochalino village. And apart from this, his contribution to the topic is the claim of a white spot on the other side of 3'2 Buk which he claims to match on the way out. I do not believe all those Buk sightings were taken on the same day, and so do not believe in the overall glue-up of the story, but geolocating the plume, no matter what the plume is, remains legitimate. This author gives his answer to that question. Is this geolocation correct? I do not know, it is not tight, there are lots of cableways out there I presume, and some posts nearby are not too unusual. I do not see a tight fit between Lutuginski bugor photo and the plume photo--some elements do match, but those are obviously not identical places. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 02:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Excellent. Let's keep the title. But I guess you just forgot the previous location. This is the same view. The plume could be added, but I doubt it, and it's to that view at a consistent time on a consistent day. I'm not convinced ''all'' Buk sightings are same day, but most of them being so is a good fit with this plume that way, and a plane down with damage that seems consistent to me. (I hate this case) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::Are you sure it's the same? This new one is NNE from Torez, I thought it was placed SE from Torez by [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/launch-location-detected-of-missile.html U@W ]--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::Going back to check, this is a different filming location proposed. Line of sight isn't included, but it seems to be the same line over the same area to the same place. Even before he could see the distinctive mound, Petros (U@W) had [http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-cfSqhRb2dKo/U80x2OxK1XI/AAAAAAAATNk/r42WpH-Bf-Q/s1600/missile+trail+9.jpg this lineup], which includes this spot. Right where Petros pic says "trees" is what this guy decided were the foreground trees where it was filmed. I wondered when checking but decided on the further version. And seems to be the same result either way. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::I don't think this is accurate, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2107 video at this timestamp] gives 'место пуска ракеты' (launch location) near [http://maps.yandex.ru/-/CVGgVPJN Molchalino]. I have not seen this elsewhere, I only seen the one claimed to be SE of Torez. He does not discuss filming location, but shows it on video and assumes it is in Torez near the terricon, which is close to what other sources assume. He does show the line of site on the video; it is nearly perpendicular to U@W. Lots of terricons, coalmines (so likely cableways), and power lines leading there in this area, so location now seems uncertain. As I understand, no solid evidence for either of these two being the correct geolocation (those cableways seems to be quite common) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::::I am/was confused then. I thought it showed a SW view, just from closer to the mound. Now I see at 33:45 a view from right by it, looking NE? Can't explain the other one you see in the distance in the fuller view (right ?) That's kind of towards Molchalino, but that won't explain anything I suspect. (and what a bad fake or odd coincidence to have a plume up there and a the Buk tracking imagery lead to south of Snizhne, oops!) We'll see south and west faces of buildings if looking NE, so sun will be shining from well east of south, but also quite high, like mid-day in the early AM - or maybe just earlier mid-day, like 11 am. That would be another sloppy mistake. I doubt the details will line up. BUT a couple minor things didn't quite seem to the other way, so maybe worth a try (later). --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I will send this comment also to<br />
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/01/27/is-this-the-launch-site-of-the-missile-that-shot-down-flight-mh17<br />
The US map launch location can best best and almost exactly located from the last magnified picture:<br />
https://wp4553-flywheel.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/32.jpg<br />
That location is here:<br />
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.9571993,38.7466343,488m/data=!3m1!1e3<br />
The triangulation result in the last 3 pictures of the article introduces unnecessary error and clearly does not match the magnified picture.<br />
There is a structure that looks similar to an airfield and it is just south of Chervony Zhovten (=Oktyabr), matching with a witness observation in that place ("it was flying as if from Saurivka", though not matching 2 other witnesses in the zello audio, indicating it came from government held positions further south, [2:00] "Well, it appears everybody saw where the missile has flown from." [2:04] "Well, where you are, everybody saw it, but the Ukrainian media, as usual, will say, will say that that were us.")<br />
It would be outside the range of the plume picture geolocation bounds, which may be either an error given the long distance, or, the plume picture was taken the day before from the reported grad missile launch (as well as the burned field). (The photographer gave his camera to the SBU after twittering the first picture, so later pictures and dates can not be taken for sure).<br />
http://7mei.nl/not-buk-m1-new-video-proof/--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 19:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:(1) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkCcCmYlMZc That audio], as it turns out, was posted by Torezinfo on 24 July, and updated on 1 February. Torezinfo is a favorite posting place of Khuevyi Torez(=KT), who posted a very [https://twitter.com/WowihaY/status/489914266439671808 similar location map on 17 July already]. KT mentions zello recordings on 25 July in the follow-up, so shortly after it gets on torezinfo. With all that stuff linked to this KT poster, I would not put much trust that any of that is genuine. (Or that this KT poster is not acting as a medium for SBU). (2)[http://fr1.sidcdn.net/maps/nsdc/2014/07/large/map-nsdc-2014-07-17-uk-w3000.jpg Ukrainian map] does give us some Ukrainian held area somewhere to the South, but from that map it is hard to tell where exactly opolchenie ends and UAF begins--(I would not know) (3) Actually, going from there, not likely to hit on the left side--so having it from Artemovsk (as Bezler told, indeed) seems most probable --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 21:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:: Here is another map http://liveuamap.com/e/2014/16-of-july-saurivka-is-bombarded-over-and-over-by-rus-grad?ll=47.907137219641115;38.75392913818363&zoom=8<br />
::And here is an article which says that both Marinovka and Tarany were held by National guard. http://www.interpretermag.com/ukraine-liveblog-day-149-russian-tanks-and-artillery-reach-donetsk/#3353<br />
::I just opened bellingcat https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/01/27/is-this-the-launch-site-of-the-missile-that-shot-down-flight-mh17 and see that large parts of the article disappeared, I think they are working on it. That location given by the US photo does not really match well with the plume direction anymore, lets see what they come up with--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 21:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::I believe Marinovka was [http://lifenews.ru/news/136715 taken by opolchenie on 16 July] (lifenews report). Tarany--do not know, perhaps still Ukraine, but not totally sure. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 21:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::: other sources say attack was repelled and forced them to retreat to Stepanivka http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_in_Shakhtarsk_Raion http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/213817.html--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 22:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::: That US photo launch location differs by an angle of about 11 (?) degrees from the brown line in the bellingcat plot (measured from the photographer's location). https://wp4553-flywheel.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/101.jpg (launch location is just visible below the letter 'p' of 'the word 'suspected'). I think this a lot and puts the 'plume' into question. But then there is only the US photo, which itself could be a production based on social media (or worse).--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 22:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Well some believed this is for real, then they got a case to answer [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/22/mh17-us-intelligence-russia-separatists-report Guardian: Photograph: US intelligence community] [https://twitter.com/barbarastarrcnn/status/491559153559932928/photo/1 @barbarastarrcnn] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
In the following, I assume that most of the social media pieces and leaked audio tapes are correct and connect the dots in a different way:<br />
<br />
1. On July 14, an Ukrainian Antonow 26 airplane was shot down by a missile near the Russian border town of Donetsk.<br />
http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/what-weapon-was-used-to-shot-down-ukraine-air-force-antonov-26-at-july-14/<br />
The video in above link showed the missile flying for 39 seconds until it hit. Only a BUK can fly that long, a manpad or Pantsir, also claimed to have been used, not (see first comment in link).<br />
<br />
2. According to a recorded audio tape published by the Ukrainian Secret Service SBU, rebels possessed a BUK ('BUK3x2') in the Donetsk area at least since July 14 ('we already have BUK'). At that date it may have been either on Russian or already rebel held territory.<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVAOTWPmMM4<br />
<br />
3. A social media search discovered only one other system in the area, capable of shooting down AN26 - a Pantsir. However, a Pantsir can't fly for 39 seconds. Based on a max.speed of 780m/s and max range of 20km, it can only fly for about 25s.<br />
http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.co.nz/2014/11/unnoticed-video-of-26-downing-confirms.html<br />
Therefore and because of the crew's intent to engage in the civil war, it is likely that AN26 was shot down by BUK3x2. Afterwards BUK3x2 had only 3 missiles left.<br />
<br />
4. On July 16, Ukrainian and rebel statements both confirmed the shoot down of a SU-25 plane near the "Marinivka border crossing", which is only a few kilometers south-south east of Pervomaiske, the destination of BUK3x2. Ukraine's defence ministry said: "It is likely that [the hit] was carried out by air-to-air rockets from the Russian air force which were patrolling the border in a pair." <br />
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-28345039<br />
This may have been another reason to install a BUK system in this area on the next day, leaving room for an accidental Ukrainian shoot down, apart from an accidental rebel shoot down and a willful Ukrainian false flag shoot down.<br />
<br />
5. On July 16, rebels fired grad missiles from a location near Pervomaiske. The plume may have been photographed as well by an SBU informant in Torez and twittered on the next day, claiming to show the launch of the missile hitting MH17.<br />
http://7mei.nl/not-buk-m1-new-video-proof/<br />
<br />
6. On July 17, BUK3x2 was seen in rebel territory on its way to Pervomaiske, south of Torez. Ukrainian SBU knew about the arrival latest since July 14 and about its destination latest July 17 morning, allowing a false flag operation from positions held nearby.<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVAOTWPmMM4<br />
<br />
7. There was an ongoing battle in the region with "fluent" contact lines. Marinivka and Tarany, about 8 kilometers south-east and south of Pervomaiske, were controlled by Ukrainian National Guard as well as all of the border region. Marinivka would match well with the direction of the Torez plume photo.<br />
http://liveuamap.com/e/2014/16-of-july-saurivka-is-bombarded-over-and-over-by-rus-grad?ll=47.907137219641115;38.75392913818363&zoom=8<br />
http://www.interpretermag.com/ukraine-liveblog-day-149-russian-tanks-and-artillery-reach-donetsk/#3353<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_in_Shakhtarsk_Raion<br />
<br />
8. The Russian Defense ministry claimed in a news conference, that on July 17, Ukraine installed several BUK system near rebel held areas.<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bNPInuSqfs#t=1567<br />
<br />
9. In a popular 'zello' audio recording, witnesses in the area were talking about the launch of the missile hitting MH17. A witness from "Oktyabr" (Chervony Zhovten) claimed "it was flying as if from Saurivka". <br />
Two other witnesses said:<br />
[2:00] "Well, it appears everybody saw where the missile has flown from."<br />
[2:04] "Well, where you are, everybody saw it, but the Ukrainian media, as usual, will say, will say that that were us."<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkCcCmYlMZc<br />
<br />
10. A Reuter's witness also claimed that the missile was fired from Kiev held territory. Reuters, however, said, "off camera, he said that it was launched from a nearby rebel site. Asked why originally he said the opposite he said it was because he was afraid of the rebels."<br />
In a new interview this witness claims that "off camera comments were just made up by the [Reuters] journalist".<br />
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=497_1427729491<br />
<br />
11. BUK3x2 was again photographed in Lugansk with its 3 missiles, no missile fired since July 14.<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4HJmev5xg0<br />
<br />
12. The US presented a very low resolution satellite photo with the track of a missile added. The launch location does not match well with the direction geolocated with the Torez plume photo, it deviates by about 11 degrees in angle, hence either or both appear to be incorrect.<br />
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/01/27/is-this-the-launch-site-of-the-missile-that-shot-down-flight-mh17/#comment-12493<br />
<br />
13. Award winning investigative journalist Robert Parry reported about leaked US intelligence "that U.S. intelligence agencies do have detailed satellite images of the likely missile battery that launched the fateful missile, but the battery appears to have been under the control of Ukrainian government troops dressed in what look like Ukrainian uniforms."<br />
https://consortiumnews.com/2014/07/20/what-did-us-spy-satellites-see-in-ukraine/<br />
And later Parry wrote: "But I’m now told that U.S. intelligence analysts ... are concentrating on the scenario of a willful Ukrainian shoot-down of the plane, albeit possibly not knowing its actual identity."<br />
https://consortiumnews.com/2014/08/03/flight-17-shoot-down-scenario-shifts/<br />
<br />
14. During the coming months BUK shrapnel may have been collected from the AN26 wreckage and planted in the MH17 wreckage.--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 00:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Photographer Statement===<br />
[http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com.au/2014/12/interview-with-eyewitness-who-made.html Reported to say] : "That day did not foretell anything special would happen. In the morning I woke up and went to my work. At four ó clock in the afternoon I arrived home. And at 16:20 we heard an explosion. The first explosion was not very heavy. 15 seconds later, something like that, there was a second explosion, which was louder and it made the windows shake."<br />
: Did not foretell --an ass, --is this lawyer-written? 'We heard". --Took till December to polish up ? --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 16:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:: Agreed. 'I did not know in advance this would happen.' Uh, who said you might? And 15 seconds must be rocket travel. Did he hear the firing from there? Could be, not that far. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Time delay consideration ===<br />
Photographer reported two sound booms td=15 seconds apart; an interpretation may be launch and impact sounds arriving to him in Torez. If P=(0,0,0) is photographer cordinates, I=(d,0, h) is impact, with d ground distance between Torez and Rozypnoe, h is the height of flight at 10 km , and L =(x,y,0) is launch location, dist(A,B) is Euclidean distance between A and B, c is peed of sound, and n (about 2.5) is missile speed in Machs, then<br />
<br />
(1). dist (P,L) = dist(L,I)/n + dist (I,P) - td*c <br />
<br />
(2). dist (P,L) >= h/n + dist (I,P) - td*c <br />
<br />
(1) is a biquadratic equation for y given x (square enough times for square root to disappear); plotting that gives a closed 'ellipse-like' curve on (x,y) plane; once on that curve, time delay is exactly td seconds (doing this involves solving quadratic equations and removing spurious solutions not satisfying (1) ) . That curve is at distance about 13 km in NW direction from photographer in Torez, and about 22 km in SE direction from him on the Southern ( Saur Mogila side). <br />
<br />
(2) gives a simple estimate that distance between photographer and launcher is greater than the known right hand side; that distance is more than something like 13 km<br />
<br />
(3) Requiring launch withing the range, --launch is not more than 20 km horizontally from the impact-- selects a NW arc of the curve described in (1) ; that arc is to the NW from Torez, and goes slightly NW from the impact point (meaning its ground projection). <br />
<br />
Conclusion, based on the above, is that launch is too far from the photographer, to match the photo. <br />
<br />
(Knowing exact time delay can tighten the argument. With what's actually known, and objection can be raised that whatever actual time delay was, it appeared to be 15 seconds to the photographer. Graphics of the curve may be supplied if needed). --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Ooh. That kind of math could really come in handy with recorded audio cues, for example. But based on '15 seconds, something like that,' from memory months later, I wouldn't put any weight on it. If that turns out correct and pretty exact, there's a good point. Otherwise, the photo and other stuff is more solid, and says it's just about where it should be, as far as I've seen anyway. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Contrail ==<br />
This is what an "impressive launch contrail" of a big missile might look like.<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3lLwP1y0w8 АТО. Запуск двух ТРК Точка-У. Артемовск.] (ATO. The launch of two TRK Tochka-U. Artemivs'k.) – August 28, 2014<br />
-- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 22:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Something happens in the sky. This is the people's reaction:<br />
* ''20/09/2014 Over many parts of the DPR and LPR were seen circles in the sky.'' [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7310 1,] [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7311 2,] [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7312 3,] [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7313 4,] [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7314 5]<br />
-- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 03:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
Tochka U missile is single stage solid fuel, which is a mixture of ammonium perchlorate with rubber and aluminum powder (Russian [http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/tochka/9ch151.shtml "ДАП–15В" fuel] ).<br />
I could not find information on Buk with a comparable level of detail. Buk missile is single stage, solid fuel of some type, "dual-mode solid propellant (total work time - about 15 seconds)" [http://www.webcitation.org/67kZeZxeh] , [http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-9K37-Buk.html]<br />
Earlier "Куб" ("Cube") missile used [http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/kub/kub.shtml 'ballist' fuel,] [https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%85#.D0.91.D0.B0.D0.BB.D0.BB.D0.B8.D1.81.D1.82.D0.B8.D1.82.D0.BD.D1.8B.D0.B5 gunpowder] + plasticiser type (Russian "ВИК-2") at the start, followed by some sort of ramjet ("direct flow rocket engine") at final stage. It is not clear, but possible, that fuels and contrails of Tochka U and Buk are different. Here are some videos with Buk launch: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDXScnEKaP0] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EAtNpsXrgWs], and [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSXMhaFntrU a longer with stupid music version]. Those videos appear to be shot from a closer distance than Tochka U video; and a contrail on them does look quite impressive. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 10:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:The amount of smoke is highly dependant om Alumin(i)um loading. In general more aluminum is more 'oomph' and also more smoke.<br />
:On the other hand, it's common to alter the loading for other reasons. I refer to the Syrian Volcano (122mm variety) that started out as high Al-load and quite smokey but recent versions have low Al load but perhaps similar characteristics? --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 10:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Here is something that might be a BUK: Ukrainian AN-26 shot down from Russian border area on July 14th. Ukraine@war claims it as a BUK. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 10:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
* [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.fi/2014/11/unnoticed-video-of-26-downing-confirms.html Unnoticed video of AN-26 downing confirms shot down from Russian territory] – Ukraine@war, November 27, 2014<br />
** Video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoS4kgHxPnE Ukrainian Military Aircraft Su-25 Downed After Russian Attack Near Izvarino, July 16]<br />
:::Does not look like Buk, short contrail, --not all the way to the ground like on Buk video launches. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::It was a BUK. It flew 39 seconds in the video, a Pantsyr can't do this, see also first comment in this link http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/what-weapon-was-used-to-shot-down-ukraine-air-force-antonov-26-at-july-14/. Easy maths - at Mach 3 (1020m/s) it can fly for about 42 seconds (range 42 km, bit more because initially it is slower). According to the audio tape, BUK 3x2 was in the area on that day! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVAOTWPmMM4 Ukraine@war needed 5 months to find something else in the area, but the Pantsyr can't fly that long. This is how BUK 3x2 likely lost a missile.--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 21:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::::Well, yes, it does takes 42 seconds to fly 42 km at 1000 m/s , but that does not mean what we see '''must be''' a Buk. They start discussing that plane caught fire at 0:03 on the video already. We do not see what on hell is going on until some 30 s later. This plane likely was brought down by Igla or similar modern MANPAD. Possibly two hits, at 0:03 and another at around 0:30. Or it got on fire at the start of the video and than eventually went down (It is unlikely to have SU 25 pilot bailing out after Buk strike; or particularly likely catching fire as it's not aiming at the engine; contrail is weak for a Buk, too). Pantsir claims are much later from what I have seen,--- and no need for Pantsir to shoot SU 25. ---If something is there on SBU audio and some murky photo, does not mean it's all for real, and that what we do actually see all have to be linked to all that murky SBU stuff. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 22:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::::There may be some confusion here, just a recapture<br />
::::::First video https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xTT6BDRA8_k<br />
::::::0:03-0:11 buring object <br />
::::::0:17-0:33 contrail making a half looping<br />
::::::Second video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoS4kgHxPnE<br />
::::::0:29-0:39 contrail making a half looping + detonation.<br />
::::::ukraine@war http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/11/unnoticed-video-of-26-downing-confirms.html<br />
::::::says both videos show AN26 shoot down on July 14 (second video with wrong label SU-25)<br />
::::::says 2nd video impact at 0:39, claims missile has been burning for at least 39 seconds--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 06:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::::::After reconsideration, I would say ukraine@war is right, both videos show AN26 shoot down, but wrong, people were initially watching AN26 with engine burning and a second missile was fired. That missile was seen burning about 16 seconds in first video, and time has to be added to reach that altitude/location, so likely over 20 seconds. That would exclude man-pad, Pantsir (?), likely BUK, R73 air-to-air, ...--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 06:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Actually, it is interesting to know how contrail of Buk on a long haul launch looks like. It is said that it fires engine for some 15 seconds only (and unknown will it do less, if it can do away with less). That 15 seconds need to put it at a spot where it can reach the target with little, if any, engine work and doing turns only. It is not very clear how much targeting happens in the first 15 seconds, likely it does some; and it is self-guided and doing proportional navigation later on. Knowing details here allows to find exact trajectory, short of that thinking it goes straight to the collision point is a sensible idea. In any case, heavy contrail '''raising from the ground''', perhaps higher than the target is. Contrail is white, and stays put for a while. Seriously heavier than the stuff we see on social media. There are youtube videos of Buk launches giving an idea --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:These 15 seconds are wrong. Here is a video (start at 2:00) showing a SA-11 burn fuel for 35 seconds until its too far to distinguish. It is detonating at 42 seconds. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBlU2hHYJMg (I just copied the comment from here http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/what-weapon-was-used-to-shot-down-ukraine-air-force-antonov-26-at-july-14/ )--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 23:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::That video probably shows a modern version ('over horizon' capability was mentioned somewhere regarding modern developments; this one seems to be showing us something like that). 15 sec is coming from Russian sources [http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/buk/buk.shtml Зенитная ракета 9М38 выполнена с применением двухрежимного твердотопливного двигателя (общее время работы - около 15 секунд)]. Older versions also had shorter listed range. 22-25-35-42 km range, going through modifications. (Would be happier without 15 sec engine limit actually-easier to know trajectory) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::Actually what goes off is [https://digitalempire.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/9m38m1.jpg 9M38M1], the one supposed to have [http://pvo.guns.ru/buk/buk_02.htm 15 sec engine run], but the video lasts for 40 sec. This appears to be edited video, around 2:30 we got two tracks, than one slides right unreasonably for a natural recording. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 02:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::Since this is a point we haven't already covered around that I know of, I'll pop in for it. 42 seconds I gather is the time for the fuel to burn out and the thing to fall, like a grad rocket or the like can only do. But this is a missile with guidance, set to intercept a moving airliner. Therefore, app. 40-45 seconds is the longest, not the shortest, it can fly (or am I just confused?) But 15 seconds is plausible, depending. Still might be untrue, not trusting people saying stuff. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::::After the engine is off it is high up and and at high speed, still can fly until gravity acceleration brings it down, and is on guided flight -unlike Grad-because fins can move causing it to turn. Issues here are visuals (contrail all the way or only about 15 km in flight), and trajectory. With engine on for 40 +secs it will go straight to collision point doing proportional navigation all the way (exploding earlier if it needs to be). If it is only 15 sec, trajectory is less clear, it may for example use engine to climb high up, than do guided fall and proportional navigation to the target from a spot where engine delivered it (for low and close-by target, that may potentially end up with a hit from another side--some drawings from unclear sources were showing opposite side hits at under 1 km and direct hits at 10-15 km). Or it may use engine to end up on a ballistic trajectory hitting target (no side changing than). This is solid fuel engine so there is not much control on how quickly it burns off, that time is a set design feature. What we see on launch video is 40+ seconds of engine work-- will go direct to collision point in that case. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 12:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::::That's another clue that plume of smoke photo is not a Buk launch, that would give at least some 10-15 km worth of contrail, not a plume; with 40+seconds engine, contrail all the way to impact...(or else, launched from far away, over 40 km distance) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 12:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==About accents==<br />
<br />
[http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29109398 This report,] released one day before the preliminary official report, recycles visual imagery already discussed on this page, and attempts a new claim that a BUK crew spoke with Russian-'Muscovite' accent. The claim is made by (British-accent) actors representing 'eyewitness(es)', with a visual imagery of a car at unknown night-lighted location in the embedded video, and some text, provided in English. Regarding 'Muscovite' accent, first it is not easy to tell, for example [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBCfmlMkYMg this video] is Mr. Poroshenko speaking in Russian to a resident of Crimea, replying in Russian, and commented by a presenter, who is speaking 'Muscovite'. Although Mr. Poroshenko has a slight southern accent, there is little difference between the three speakers in practice. Moreover, actors and presenters can easily switch from Southern to Muscovite as required. <br />
<br />
Secondly, if somebody speaks 'Muscovite', this does not mean this person works for Russia or the rebels,--- he can work for any side (PS. No change of condition to the blue dumpster on Zuhres video was reported in this latest update). --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Thanks for bringing this. What a stupid report. "Three eyewitnesses, all civilians, separately told Panorama that they saw a missile-launcher in rebel-held territory a few hours before the Boeing jet was hit." Yeah, video shows the same. It was there. It probably shot down the plane. Accents, as you note, aren't the best indicator of anything, and even the reason sounds vague: the G thing, which even I know about (back to Olga/Olha). The "Russians" might even be Russian dissident mercenaries right from Moscow, for all we know. Who paid them? Their going up to the media and saying "you didn't see us" was not a good plan to stay secret. The witnesses: chosen at random? Directed to them? <br />
::''If correct, the Kremlin has to explain to the relatives of the 298 passengers and crew who died - including ten Britons - why Russian military personnel were allegedly seen in the area escorting a BUK shortly before MH17 was shot down.''<br />
:I think Russia could come up with a reason or two such allegations are made. Those ten Britons' tax dollars fund it. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: Hmm, this foreigner is confused by dat BBC talk: "If correct" ... doesn't that mean it ''wouldn't be'' merely "allegedly" but, well, correct? ;oP --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 23:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::It means "If {made up vague allegation) is correct....then "SHOCK HORROR CONCLUSION IS TRUE". this lets them be as wild or wide off the mark as they like and the magic "if correct" turns it true. Without any effort to check if it IS true in our understanding of that word.[[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 03:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::Another BBC weapon in its arsenal of innuendo and dissimulation is the quotation mark. Whenever they are dealing with something of dodgy provenance, or something of good provenance they want to weaken they put it in quotation marks. e.g. - ISIS beheaded 20 Syrians. becomes ISIS 'beheaded 20 Syrians' or 'ISIS' beheaded 20 Syrians or ISIS 'beheaded' 20 'Syrians' or ISIS beheaded '20' Syrians. No need for corrections later. Any version can be retrospectively justified or otherwise. --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 03:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== If Buk 3x2 Was in Russia ==<br />
Previously, it seemed quite likely the Buk launcher associated with the shoot-down was one of those owned and operated by the Kiev regime, simply snuck into separatist territory, maybe with some cover to make them even invite it in like a Trojan Horse. Then, I saw the November Bellingcat research on "Buk 3x2." As covered [[#Bellingcat and 3x2|above,]] this claims to match that unit with a distinct one seen three weeks earlier, driving in a military convoy well inside Russian territory. This is widely taken as clear proof the Russian military supplied the weapons, and it is strongly indicative of that. However, the general possibilities are worth laying out at this point.--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
All options below share these presumptions: <br />
* MH17 was brought down by the missing SA-11 missile AND/OR (in some cases) at least the launcher's appearance was coordinated to give that impression and is a clue to the plot <br />
* The videos and photos in question are genuine and not manipulated (my usual presumption, same here)<br />
* The Russia geolocations (many of them, making sense in context) are correct - Buk 3x2 as seen was seen in Russia, between Kurk, Stary Oskol, and a bit south of there (not verified but most likely correct) <br />
<br />
Presuming all that:<br />
* Buk 3x2 (seen in Russia) and the mystery one are not the same - this require paint job match and matching damage to the lip above the track to make a Kiev-owned unit look like that one. It's possible, but not the most compelling.<br />
* The two units are the same - it was in the convoy in Russia and also towed around Donetsk oblast July 17. <br />
<br />
If the unit is the same, there are a few possibilities for the nature of that connection, some of them silly or just there for logical fullness:<br />
* It was Kiev's unit and they snuck it over and into this convoy, and...<br />
** ... got it back later<br />
** ... the Russians kept it and used it for their own operation<br />
* It was Kiev's but some other way lost to the Russians <br />
* It was Russia's but Kiev managed to sneak over and steal it out of the convoy and then use it for the false-flag event<br />
* Same, but Donbass rebels then stole it from Kiev <br />
* It was Russian, and someone on the Russian side drove it over and then it was stolen by Kiev forces <br />
* Someone on the Russian side drove it over and it stayed in their control or handed over to their chosen parties, or transferred at the border - that is, no Kiev interference.<br />
<br />
So far, I'm inclined to call Bellingcat's reading (the last option, the widely accepted one) the single most reasonable one, though maybe outweighed by the ''combined'' alternatives. It's not fun to feel almost swayed to a view so close to Kiev's problematic narrative, but this is what I see, pretty basic. Some combined maybes go against the straightforward reading. As for other thoughts I might be missing, well, that's partly why it's here. Let me know, I'm all ears. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Starting from that reasonable if unproven last option, not one but three final types of possibility remain. If it was freely moving in convoy inside Russia, it probably belongs to Russia at the time. Presumed. However, it could be that...<br />
* '''A rogue officer''' at Kursk - maybe a closet Nazi who sympathizes with Kiev, hates Putin, or just took a bribe - provided this unit to Kiev. He would set up this convoy to anchor the thing in Russia, then send the shady unit on, with his own guys or to hand off to Kiev's, who took it from there as I've speculated. The strangely obvious manner it was displayed - on both sides of the border, with its number slowly fading away - is consistent with this motive + intelligence. <br />
* '''It happened as reported''' (one way or another) Putin's military signed off on the loan, apparently with a sent crew or maybe given to local handlers, who for their own purposes did fire that shot. The strangely obvious manner it was displayed is consistent with this + stupidity/sloppiness, providing proof that probably wasn't even needed, just helpful, to start the punishment. At that point, it would be a real problem about as trumpeted, and still I would suggest we consider what the real crime is under the circumstances, if the solutions pursued are fair, or if this is all just geo-politics and warfare by other means cloaked in a cynical disguise of concern for justice. ^ <br />
* '''Koo-koo (?):''' "as reported plus" - a mega conspiracy theory: it goes all the way to the top, and Putin is that rogue general selling the nation out, to demonize himself and Russia and be sure to get caught, in an elaborate staged play - Putin (or whoever's running things presumed to be run by HIM) is somehow controlled, his opposition scripted and ultimately geared towards provoking and achieving an expansion of "The West" into "The North." (I've always considered this possible, and one that's occurred to me more lately, and seems worth listing ... but I don't buy it. I'm going with "rogue officer" with a second bet on one of the other divergence points listed before that - unspecified. Third choice is "as reported.")--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::^ Not to apologize for egregious behavior if it really is that, but let's please compare this to the shoot-down of Iran Air 655 by the USS Vincennes in 1988. A US Naval ship illegally in Iranian waters shot down an Iranian passenger plane with 290 people aboard, despite all the safeguards and sensors working correctly (the consistent clues the ship's computers gave them saying "do not shoot" can only be overridden so totally by choice). But it was deemed by the US to be no crime, just accident and Iran's fault for being provocative, and useful in the effort to compel them to quit the war with Iraq they were just starting to win. In Ukraine, repeated Air Force attacks on rebel-held cities, often hiding their jets behind civilian airliners, might both justify arming the rebels with such defensive weaponry, and invite an honest mistake from a team running this machine in stand-alone mode. The SBU version however overrides this all: it was an accident, but the Russians' intent was never defensive, always planning to kill an airliner, just meaning it to be a different one. That would clearly be criminal in all regards, and it's a sub-set of "as reported" - not a very good one. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Sorry, I can't help you here as I don't share your presumptions. I consider it a waste of time and energy to connect dots that are laid out by "sources" like the SBU and Brown Noses - proven liars and at least in case of the former producers of fraud "evidence" - and therefore I didn't even read your logical chains based on them. Just saying to not make it appear that I agree. ;o) --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 10:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:Poking at specific presumptions could be helpful, but it all could go on and on and remain inconclusive anyway. And I take back what I say about leaning this way or that - I keep leaning different ways and on balance I'm feeling sort of weightless here. I think that comes through in the text... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I don't see the numbers matching, getting close is not good enough, and I quit it there. Yes, it is weird that they are close, and that this murky business is covered by Spiegel, but can't really help with any of that. There is lots of murky weird stuff going on all the time, can't change the whole world to stop it. (Also: the Russian Government would be fully capable of doing a painting job properly if deciding to starting painting at all, their food trucks are all nicely painted, etc; just too sloppy for them to be behind) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:The paint being what it is, between that and the bend and light patch below all lining up, I think we're down to the same unit, or faked to match, and the possibilities branching off those two. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::As discussed earlier, the dot is shifted off the middle, more on Russian video than in PM photo; in Russian video, number 2 has well-curved semi-circle; in PM, it is almost straight segment. Bad photos for comparison but it's off, as far as it's possible to tell. As for the skirt bend, too blurry and distorted on PM to tell; Russian video, I think it is actually dirt, not a bend. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Also, looks like two squares , a bit darker than background, over first digit in PM photo. Unclear is it paint or digital camera effect. Any sane person hiding something will paint over everything, not paint just specifically over the first digit. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::I think I got everything linesd up - it has to be de-skewed the same, and all ines up. You might be scraping bottom on this one. The curve is there, at its elongated part, at an angle. The dent/dirt looks the same, same place, relative to the light patch and all else. It's too much for coincidence by a couple of degrees. BUT I just shifted back to option ... should have numbered them. ... the middle starting option - image authenticity. I hardly ever call digital image fakery, and not calling it here, but... I still haven't checked the new (to us) June videos, so I'll stay presuming it might be okay - video's harder to fake than a photo. But on the other end, it all comes down to the one photo. That I noticed, no other views are close enough to say if these matching clues are present. (the bend, maybe). The squares you noticed, maybe a paint clue or just artifacting. It may too pixelly. I cannot really analyze the technicals properly to say. It looks okay, but possibly fishy too. Maybe the dirty windshield helps hid the painted in pixels to make this thing - just once - or maybe again in other images - look like that Russian 3x2 unit, exaggerated and going into rebel hands... Some kind of coincidences setting that up to work, but it's possible, and an expert should look closer at this picture. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC) <br />
::::I, --at the very start of discussion,-- zoomed picture on screen (by a lot), and measured length ratios (to the dot/ total panel length), parallel to the 2 sides of the panel, using ruler (millimeters one) over screen. I ended up with ratios in horizontal side of panel directions were off, by more than blurring; in vertical, could not tell-within blurring. This is not sensitive to skewing or zooming. So I don't think it's the same. May double-check measurement when have time; or somebody else can. Did not have time to try doing digital version of the same/similar method. Did not look carefully at comparison the 2 after de-skewing , but have an impression this is different; not that much skewing there; it looks essentially straight line on PM, skewing will not make circle into a line. May look at 2's some other time. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::::Finally took a closer look and PM was still off a bit on rotation and vertical-to-horizontal - in line with your observations. Still working out the adjusted graphic. The white is shifted a bit left of lining up perfectly... I think it's still close enough it's the same or is supposed to be, and not far enough off I'd call a bad fake - probably just pixel shift. Will see tonight. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 00:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Okay, I don't have a comprehensible graphic handy yet, but Maybe Resup is seeing what I am now. I was having a hard time aligning it all, so focused just one the one rectangle panel with the number. Still, on the PM photo I trace apparent edges, best line of dark pixels ... it lines up, proportion-wise, with the white spots on or a hair to apparent left. But when the whole image is placed by lining up that center, the rest of it doesn't line up - both sides seem shifted right, or the middle shifted left. (also the track areas appear far to the left, but they stick out a bit, and from the back angle flattened like this, that's why. Each difference in relief from "true flat" plane of the side will cause this... maybe I'm just not correlating it right, and maybe it's a clue the photo is messed with. possible offsets in both white patches as well, but maybe too in the natural fuzz zone. ?? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
If the launcher was driven over the Russian border, fired once then driven back again after it had carried out its mission, the part of the story that doesn't make sense is the sighting on a stolen flatbed truck outside Donetsk. If the Russians were prepared to supply a launcher but not a truck, the stolen truck would have had to be driven to the border to be loaded and there'd be no reason to risk a journey back to Donetsk. The west to east journey is more consistent with CL's original suggestion of a launcher from the Ukrainian base north of Donetsk. If this was a false flag, there would have had to be a paint job to give it Russian markings (maybe to match one in a recent video). Otherwise the videos would point to separatists with a captured Ukrainian BUK, leaving the Ukrainian government liable for failing to close its airspace when it knew that a BUK had gone missing. [[User:Pmr9|Pmr9]] ([[User talk:Pmr9|talk]]) 16:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:Now this sounds engaged, thanks P. Yes, why drive it to Donetsk? (Other than to be seen in the smoking-gun rebel capitol, before getting seen in Lugansk too) And I never thought of that why it had to be Russian. Indeed, for liability reasons, it had to be a snuck-in surprise, not captured (unless they could come up with a reason why they didn't learn about it, and I suppose they could). The suggestion has problems and was slow to gain adherents, but maybe this kind of thought has swayed people to realize Kiev "must be right" about that... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Sunday Times story: original is behind paywall but reprint [http://malaysiandigest.com/news/531506-ukraine-ignored-warning-to-close-malaysia-airlines-flight-mh17-airspace-before-tragedy.html here]. Eurocontrol's experts "spoke privately to their Ukrainian counterparts" about their concerns but Ukraine refused to close its airspace. "Ukraine intelligence sources said they had been made aware that several anti-aircraft systems had crossed from Russia into Ukraine at least a week before the MH17 incident. But they claimed the intelligence was not “100 per cent reliable” and could not have been used as grounds for 'drastic moves' such as shutting airspace". [[User:Pmr9|Pmr9]] ([[User talk:Pmr9|talk]])<br />
:::Okay, well there's a train headed this way then. Several units? The whole June convoy? We do have this alleged maybe-Buk launch just before on July 14, an associated loader seen later, etc. And Ukie intel somehow did point to this number "312" you can't see on the unit they tracked so quickly. Did they already have that obscure Russian video everyone missed until now? And more yet showing the "1" still there? That early on? (that's all very speculative, but interesting). It has to be snuck in, maybe, but then it helps that you can vouch for it - so they fudge and average this aspect. Main point then seems to be, whatever failures they mumble out on their own end, it has to implicate both Russia (provided weapon) and the rebels (held the space needing demonized).--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references /></div>Antidyatelhttps://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17/BUK_Tracking&diff=23636Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/BUK Tracking2015-08-03T05:36:47Z<p>Antidyatel: /* Reported SIghtings */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:MH17]]<br />
==Who Has the BUK Launchers in Ukraine?==<br />
=== Kiev's Holdings ===<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3MomxNHnUA#t=288 Ukrainian Buk in ATO area], 16 July 2014. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 23:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC) <br />
*[http://sputniknews.com/europe/20150607/1023057320.html Twitter users found an announcement on the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense website detailing the transfer of a Buk-M1 system to the Ukrainian military over a month before the MH17 disaster]--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 18:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
*[https://twitter.com/wowihay/status/489814576452878336 wowihay] И они говорят у них нет #БУК'ов ? Еще 08.05.14 в #Краматорск=And they say they have no Buks? Already on 08.05.14 in [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1Oztlf4nYM #Краматорск]<br />
: google gdata no longer seems to work--what happened? but a user posted gdata earlier: Олег Гинзбург 10 months ago Опубликовано=published 2014-05-09T03:02:09.000Z (но деревья голые=but trees have no leafs) Обновлено=reposted 2014-07-19T12:29:10.000Z. Has Ukrainian style markup 121. <br />
и еще= [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGYfFeGRh90 and also]<br />
:Ukrainian-style markup 332, and one more Buk in his company --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:07, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CBQbFC9loc#t=350 Captured map] of 1 battalion of UAF 95 air-mobile brigade, dated beginning of July 2014, show location of 2 positions of Ukrainian Buks. Basurin points them on the map; but video resolution is insufficient to see those. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 05:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
:Maps can be faked, but still I'm curious what it shows. I imagine there might be a flat image of the map somewhere. Resup, could you maybe have a look? It's too slow for me to try an image search with translated words. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
::I have not seen the map in news reports mentioning the finding; and now I see it says explicitly that they are not going to make it public, [http://real-info.info/novorossiya/13429-vlasti-dnr-ne-budut-obnarodovat-karty-vsu-do-okonchaniya-rassledovaniya-krusheniya-mh17 until MH 17 investigation is completed]--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 23:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::Here is a press conference report--with video but not the map --[https://vk.com/strelkov_info?w=wall-57424472_57351 (Basurin press conference)]--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 23:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
It is possible to understand what it means when they say Ukr army controlled territory. But what is rebel controlled territory. Even if we take the maximum estimate for rebel numbers in July 2014 of 10,000 fighters, it gives a fraction of a rebel per square km, if we assume uniform distribution. In reality rebels very concentrated in Lughansk, Donetzk, Saur Mogila, 2 cauldrons. So everything else is free for all territory. When MSM declares rebel controlled territory, they just rely on Kiev's maps. Very reliable source. --[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 13:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)-- Antidyatel June 6<br />
:That's a good point that really came into play with the [[Mariupol market shelling]] incident - turns out all this eastern fire form rebel-held areas is from areas listed by Kiev as places they don't have full control over, that any crazy thing could happen from and it's prob'ly not them. Might even be a section on that here, if not, could be. There is an apparent pass right through a checkpoint, basically where the Pari Match "photo" was taken. That at least is a problem for a simple slip-in op, but it can be done and otherwise the theory could explain a lot (like, everything maybe) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC) <br />
<br />
<br />
==== BUK 312 and comrades ====<br />
[[File:Buk 312 sbu.jpg|thumb|left|BUK 312 on a trailer. Photo shown on SBU website and later removed. – ''[[:File:Buk 312 sbu.jpg|more...]]'']]<br />
Part of the material the Ukrainian SBU released to suggest that "rebels" shot down MH17 with a BUK, was photo material showing a BUK TELAR numbered 312 on a trailer, alleging it has been photographed on its way back to Russia. This was quickly shown to be extremely questionable as evidence surfaced showing number 312 in Ukrainian hands. The SBU then removed the photos from their website while other material like a suggestive photo showing a "plume" remained there. <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Buk 321.png|thumb|TELAR 321 as posted by @MOR2537 to illustrate what he alleges to have witnessed]]<br />
This was outlined (and a screenshot saved) in more detail [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/07/21/the-mh17-investigation-and-buk-312/ over at Human Rights Investigations]. A [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bj-VZB0ZdEA video embedded there] shows BUK 312 in Ukrainian hands back in March. The other two TELAR's seen in the video are numbers 323 and 321. BUK 321 [http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Ukrainian+government+forces+maneuver+antiaircraft+missile+launchers+they+transported+north+west+from+Slavyansk+eastern+Ukraine+Friday+July+2014+Photo+Dmitry+Lovetsky/10004193/story.html has been seen] in Ukrainian hands just two weeks before MH17 crashed, transported close to "liberated" Slavyansk. <br />
<br />
Interestingly enough, one of the tweets [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com/2014/07/reconstruction-of-whereabouts-of-buk.html spoon-fed by Ukrainian loyalists to imaginative Dutch blogger Ukraine@War] to suggest that there have been eyewitnesses for a "rebel" BUK, is then [https://twitter.com/MOR2537/status/489709431467171841 followed-up by the alleged eyewitness] with a picture of BUK 321 to illustrate what he has seen. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::yep, he is a conduit for Kiev but seems to have outside info, too. Like originals of photos he can get geolocations off (he says). But also has good collection of very early photos etc which have since become hard to find.Not sure I trust him though. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 15:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::I hadn't seen that before, thanks. I'll be considering... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 22:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: More photos: [http://www.armyrecognition.com/images/stories/east_europe/russia/missile_vehicle/sa-11_gadfly/pictures/sa-11_gadfly_anti-aircraft_missile_to_armoured_tracked_vehicle_Russian_army_russia_011.jpg 321] - [http://rt.com/files/news/2a/b1/40/00/640x480.jpg 312] - [http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1870560.1405614701!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_970/correction-ukraine.jpg 321] --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:Buk 312 in Lugansk.png|thumb|left|According to alleged former operator "A", this is BUK 312 after relocation sometime in Spring 2014 in Metallist settlement of Lugansk, with Yubileynaya mines in the background]]<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmI2KCOt_sA Anatolii Sharii] version of events, shows that Buk blamed on Russia has number 312 and was earlier photographed as part of Ukrainian convoy. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 20:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Sharii interviewed a Ukrainian soldier who served on Buk 312; this can be found on [http://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/1947657.html Cassad]. The guy does not know about MH17; but recalls SBU claiming it was this Buk 312 responsible. From this interview, meaning of 312: 3 is division number, 1 battery number, 2 unit number in a battery (there are loading and command vehicles, not just launchers). This UAF Buk is initially from Luhansk; than relocated to Kramatorsk; than places in a field. A serviceman took it on a ride with hand break on, leading to a small fire affecting electrics and requiring repairs. So it was traveling on a trailer at some point. It was than moved to Dnepropetrovsk, village of Novogrigorievka (apparently for repairs, and after trailer photo was taken, but exact date was not given). Buks from Luhansk which were not broken were moved by UAF elsewhere (and according to the soldier, were photographed in variaous places including Gorlovka; while 3 broken Buks remained in Luhansk) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: Interesting. I see that the "[http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Ukrainian+government+forces+maneuver+antiaircraft+missile+launchers+they+transported+north+west+from+Slavyansk+eastern+Ukraine+Friday+July+2014+Photo+Dmitry+Lovetsky/10004193/story.html has been seen]" link to the Montreal Gazette is dead by now. If anything I'm surprised that it lasted that long. Minitrue at work. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 04:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: [http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2014/12/17/shooting-down-mh-17-buk-312-story-false- Here] (and mirrored [http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2014/12/17/buk-312-crew-member-says-rebel-shoot-down-of-flight-mh17-story-is-false-transcript/ here]) is an English translation of the interview. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: And [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2rRCSNp33I here] is the video itself with English subtitles. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 20:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:What you said about the accident and the photo showing the damaged BUK on a trailer is about the very photo the SBU showed on their website as "evidence" and later removed. Also adding that he says friends in Lugansk saw "rebels" trying to repair the units they had left behind, but he knows that "whole equipment units" were lacking so the remaining stuff was "unusable". And that he says that he asked his ex-comrades still operating the BUK if they dunnit, and they said they didn't. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Good to see this section expand. Interesting additions from the alleged operator, and reasonable-sounding (the photo might show smoke stains to the back left side). But in the end, this issue might be not so relevant. I doubt it was Kiev's unit 312 that was used, and seeing how Kiev always was eyeing a supposedly Russian unit 3x2, maybe 312 ... In fact, if the middle number connotes unit number, and it's done the same, the launcher is always 1 and it would be 312 (or is that mixed-up?) So maybe all this really shows is how Kiev knew but didn't want to say all along, implausibly picking their own 312 to illustrate that knowledge with an embarrassing but harmless "error", while awaiting ... as it turns out, the independent Bellingcat investigation that finds 3x2 somehow in Russia... That tracked this ludicrous Buk field trip, as presented and followed on this page, which almost seems tailor-made for them, but Kiev wants us to know they they were secretly on the ball too from the start. (all thoughts in progress, a bit distracted too) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::::If SBU wanted to point out they knew the TELAR had number 312, why would they publish the photo in [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmI2KCOt_sA such a low resolution] that the number could not be read? -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 21:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: As Resup summarized, 1 is the battery number. The leading 3 means it's from the Lugansk division. If this is true, the fact that 312, 321 and 323 have been seen together on video in March perfectly fits with what the alleged operator said: That they were removing units in usable state from (all batteries of the division) Lugansk early on, leaving the crap behind. And the view that the SBU just published everything they could find to fit their tale that the "rebels" used a BUK to down the plane, including this photo, cut-together and taken out of context audio tapes and that ridiculous "plume" pic, and the 3x2 bellingcat nonsense from lately is meant to distract from these facts, is much simpler and straight forward than what you tried to come up with here on the fly. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::Ah, I see it now, not when I was typing, sorrys. Middle number could be anything, bust mostly we always see low numbers, so odds are good it was a "1". 3 means from Lugansk if that's true (presuming so) and it's Ukrainian. Diff. number paintjob though, as noted below. But I'm sure the Ukies just faked this exact 312 to a different style of 312 and then painted it out partly, and just let it slip with the one photo of how it looked before...? We'll have a hard time agreeing here, as the stuff you just dismiss as "nonsense" looks kind of like possible evidence with details I'm sort of trying to consider. I don't see how you can just ignore it as if it must be wrong somehow, and all made up to distract from ... this 312 disguised as 3x2 theory? Where it wasn't even at the end of that fake plume anyway and might be totally irrelevant or entirely fake? Or, what am I missing? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::Didn't you say that you haven't even watched the videos and checked the geolocation/origin yourself, if they really are from Russia etc.? Well, I certainly won't. Because I have no reason to believe that the sources are more truthful with the "evidence" than they have been before, and that track record is well established. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::::Yeah, which is why I'm neither in a good position to say they aren't wrong/fake, nor to go against my usual presumption it will be sound (has been so far, on this subject anyway) And by the supposed stills compare to supposed satellite imagery, it looked like a good match (I did skim the site once I could). I don't like the implication either, and I want it to be wrong. And it may well be, but I'll want to see how. And hey, there's a whole other section or two about this below... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
:::: I watched the video [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bj-VZB0ZdEA with the Ukie BUKs in March] again. There are actually more than the three I mentioned earlier. It starts with 323, which is not a TELAR. Followed by the two TELARs 321 and 312. Then comes what is also not a TELAR but what looks differently than 323: Number 301. Followed by two more TELARs, 331 and 332. So they could all be from the Lugansk division, parts of batteries 0 to 3. But one would suspect that the batteries are internal always numbered the same way. "A" says:<br />
::::: ''BUK is a complex of 4 specialized military vehicles: command post, mobile target detection and assignment station, loading and starting station, self-propelled fire installation.''<br />
::::So if 1 and 2 are TELARs, why are there two of them and why is 301 what could be the detection station with a radar? Is 323 a loading station? --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::::Too rusty, but good questions. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::: Ah, I think we can sort this out [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SA-11 thanks to wikipedia]:<br />
:::::''A standard Buk battalion consists of a command vehicle, target acquisition radar (TAR) vehicle, six transporter erector launcher and radar (TELAR) vehicles and three transporter erector launcher (TEL) vehicles. A Buk missile battery consists of two TELAR and one TEL vehicle.''<br />
:::: So our "A" didn't mean that a battery consists of 4 vehicles, but that the whole BUK consists of 4 different kinds of vehicles, some more than once. From this I deduce that "0" is for command and detection units (here our main radar 301) of the Lugansk division 3, and the batteries 1,2 and 3 each consist of two TELARs (numbered 1 and 2, here 312,321,331 and 332) and one TEL (numbered 3, the first vehicle in the video, 323). Makes sense? --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 13:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::Russia said Ukraine had 27 BUK launchers in the crash area, i.e. one brigade, or what ever comes in the hierarchy above battalion. If all units are numbered the same way, from 101 to 333, then one TELAR in 18 should be numbered 312. Maybe [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:9K37_Buk_of_the_Ukrainian_military,_Independence_Day_parade_in_Kiev.JPG not.] Russian numbers seem to reach higher. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 01:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::::Good find. The existence of 114 and 115 makes it more complicated. The [http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buk_M1 German Wikipedia article] says, contradicting the English one, that one battery consists of one command vehicle, one main radar, four TELARs and four TELs. But if that's true, there's no logical place for Radar 301, and why would one TEL be number 3 and the other three TELs numbers 6 to 8? --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 10:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
How to read BUK numbers<br />
This is how you decipher 312:<br />
<br />
3 stands for the third (Lugansk) division,<br />
1 stands for the battery number, ours was no. 1,<br />
2 stands for one of the 2. service units in each battery, ours was no.2<br />
<br />
according to a Ukrainian who explains it was "his" bUK (but not in his hands at the time)that shot down MH17. One of th many reports [http://www.opednews.com/articles/Shooting-Down-MH-17--BUK-by-Michael-Collins-Buk-312_False-Accusations-Of-Terrorism_False-Flag-Attacks_Mh17-Airline-Crash-141217-104.html about this interview] This claim is now superceded by the Capt Voloshin air-to-air claims. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 15:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
That solder knew nothing about who shot the Boeing. He was talking to Sharii, who previously made a video showing that Buk shown on SBU website is actually Ukrainian Buk 312. Later, the soldier emerged, saying that Buk 312 was his. (Claim of this one shooting Boeing is not his, it is SBU early claim) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 16:48, 26 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
While Voloshin story may be a play on destroyed by SBU evidence. There is supposed to be a log of flights, missiles fired, likely those logs no longer exist. Also before they claimed SU 25 were lost on 16 of July, but SBU denial of Voloshin story had SU 25 shot on 17 of July. And that Dnepropetrovsk airport traffic control lady vanished without a trace. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 16:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Supposed 321 belonging to KIEV<br />
::video shows three BUk sets [http://eurazya.today/2015/04/11/about-the-buk-312-who-allegedly-shot-down-mh17/ from 0.31 mark] but I can't really pick the number, they say it is 321. at Gorlovka in March. One on a white lowloader. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 12:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== Russian claims ====<br />
As part of their July 21 presentation of evidence, the Russian Ministry of Defense published satellite images allegedly showing Ukrainian BUK positions around Donetzk ([http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ RT report]). It's no secret the Ukrainian military maintains a base with anti-aircraft units. The facility shown in the Russian presentation (best seen [http://rt.com/files/news/2a/9a/00/00/4.jpg here]) I located - it's south of Avdeyevka, 3 km north of the airport, about 5 km north of Donetsk like they say. Visual match first, then noticed the label could have found it for me ... [http://wikimapia.org/#lat=48.0999781&lon=37.7578908&z=16&l=0&m=b&show=/16956839/ru/Зенитно-ракетный-дивизион-в-ч-А-1428&search=Donetsk on Wikimapia]. Labels, translated: Anti-aircraft missile battalion (in / h A-1428) One of the three anti-aircraft missile battalions ("Buk-M1"), located in Avdeyevka, Mariupol and Lugansk." BUK-type launcher photos included. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The counter-arguments to this at least sometimes fail. [http://www.interpretermag.com/mh17-and-moscows-magical-mystery-jets/ Interpreter rag] decided "the presence of Ukrainian government air defense systems is something of a red herring, not least given the clear evidence that the separatists had deployed at least one Buk system in the area." The side with a ''motive'' and clear, moving and likely operating units of the things on that day (see below) is irrelevant and shouldn't be considered because there's apparently also proof the presumed bad guys also had the units they needed to be so presumed. The very fact that separatists aren't ruled out means the other side should be free of any danger of being ruled in, and the separatists should ruled in just as automatically as they were ''before'' this social-media verification came in. This is clearly an irresponsible suggestion. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC) and --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Kiev's Buks Shuffled?===<br />
<br />
* From Russia's military press conference: [http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ RT, 10 Questions] - [http://www.ruaviation.com/docs/1/2014/7/22/83/ in more detail]<br />
:''3. Why was a large group of air defense systems deployed to the militia-held area if the self-defense forces have no planes?''<br />
:“As far as we know, the Ukrainian military had three or four air defense battalions equipped with Buk-M1 SAM systems deployed in the vicinity of Donetsk on the day of the crash. This system is capable of hitting targets within the range of 35 km at the altitude of up to 22 km.”'' <br />
:''4. Why did Kiev deploy BUK missile systems on the edge of militia-controlled zones directly before the tragedy?''<br />
:''“We have satellite photos of the places where Ukraine had its air defense units deployed in the southeastern parts of the country. The first three photos were made on July 14. The first photo shows Buk launchers 8 km northwest of Lugansk. You can clearly see a TELAR and two TELs. The second photo shows radars 5 km north of Donetsk. You can see two TARs along with other equipment and technical structures. The third photo shows air defense systems north of Donetsk. You can clearly see a TELAR launcher and about 60 military and auxiliary vehicles, tents for vehicles and other structures.''<br />
<br />
:''“Here’s a photo of the same area made on July 17. Please note that the launcher has disappeared. The fifth photo shows a battery of Buk missiles at the village of Zaroshchenskoye 50 km east of Donetsk and 8 km south of Shakhtyorsk on the morning of the same day. The sixth photo shows the same area on July 18. As you can see, the battery has left.”''<br />
<br />
Note: the <s>latter</s> fourth photo of July 17 has substantial cloud cover, but unless they happened to hide the launchers in those areas (or Russia's satellites waited until the area was covered) it appears the noted vehicles have left to go do something - on/by the 17th, where they say launchers appear and then disappear in a town closer to the crash on the 17th. Zaroshchenskoye [http://maps.yandex.com/?text=Ukraine%2C%20Donets'ka%20region%2C%20Shakhtars'kyi%20district%2C%20Zaroshchens'ke%20ville&sll=38.446008%2C47.98844&ll=38.517419%2C48.048098&spn=0.810242%2C0.300187&z=11&l=map on Yandex maps] - 13 miles SSW of the crash sitel, 9 miles W-SW of Torez..--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
On July 30, Vitalyi Naida, head of Ukrainian Security Service SBU’s counter-intelligence, came up with a series of slides ([http://euromaidanpress.com/2014/07/30/russia-fakes-mh17-crash-site-satellite-images-says-sbu/ short article], [http://www.sbu.gov.ua/sbu/control/en/publish/article?art_id=129610&cat_id=35317 announcement on SBU website] with link to [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ut1JExQKV-0 youtube-video showing the slides (presumably Ukrainian language)]) allegedly showing that the Russian material was "faked". He points to a patch of trees, claiming they had been cut down shortly before the 17th, while Russia's images show the trees intact. On August 1, the Russian Ministry of Defense published [http://eng.mil.ru/en/analytics.htm a rebuttal] advising that<br />
:''Instead of presenting hastily doctored evidence to the international community, the SBU could do with better control over all the mercenary units in the areas around Donetsk and Lugansk organized by Kolomoisky, Lyashko, Yarosh and others, who shell Ukrainian territory without any control from those in charge of the anti-terrorist operation.''<br />
<br />
The trees probably are cut down by now, but we'll have to wait for the true details of just when they were and when the image showing that was taken, or if the image shown is even of any one day and not a composite - "doctored" as Russia says. Other clues suggest launchers moving out of this area at that time: The [[#Paris Match Photo]] - ostensibly from the morning of the 17th - shows the infamous launcher-loaded truck seen in Lugansk, or one just like it, being carried on a truck belonging to a company just south of the missile base in northern Donetsk. That was seen carrying the launcher east out of town at 11:15 AM, purportedly on July 17 (and with the location completely fudged to say Snizhne, when it was only headed there).--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Zaro redeploy.png|left|600px]]The Russian military press conference said "The fifth photo shows a battery of Buk missiles at the village of Zaroshchenskoye 50 km east of Donetsk and 8 km south of Shakhtyorsk on the morning of the same day. The sixth photo shows the same area on July 18. As you can see, the battery has left." (#5 inset) The Ukraine@War blog's analysis decided this image as well was fake. That's mentioned [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com/2014/08/ukrainian-sbu-comes-with-conspiracy.html here] if not elsewhere. The reason: "the shadows of these BUKs have a different direction for all three of them. It means these were pasted into the image." I have to admit, it looks a bit like that. The trees have consistent shadows to the west, in a morning image. The furthest vehicle to the left has a visible shadow about like that. The other two don't seem to, and the one furthest right seems to have a shadow on the wrong side (looks like early PM). I wracked my brain just a little thinking of other explanations aside from just low resolution. Nothing much came up. Anyone else? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br /><br /><br />
<br />
<br />
: '''New video proves UKIE BUKS ACTIVE'''<br />
: video has surfaced, posted to Youtube on July 16, taken a few days before, showing a Ukie BUK radar [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3MomxNHnUA being rotated]. The reporter is taken somewhere in a helicopter and proudly shown the BUK. Segment starts around 4.17 in the chopper, BUK shown briefly at 4.45. Label does not say where exactly, just reads "Officers of Ukrainian Armed Forces patrolling in the ATO zone". <br />
: This ties in with claims that they were doing anti-aircraft exercises, probably in response to claims/fears the Antonovs were brought down not by the rebs but by aircraft from Russia. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 10:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::Thanks! We had this July 16 video [[Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17/BUK_Tracking#Kiev.27s_Holdings| elsewhere]], but here is a good place... The other video, from March, was not seen. There were few more early sightings of Ukrainian Buks, uncertain locations, with those 3** numbers; maybe should get a good place to keep them all --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::: Location of sighting is unclear. But according to some reports ([http://lifenews.ru/news/136731 LifeNews]), on July 16 UAF SU 25 was shot down from a height of 6 km by opolchenie MANPADs. That was near Russian border, --reports say the plane actually crossed into Russia, not far from Marinovka. It could be suspected by Ukraine that a Russian plane was involved, so it will be plausible to have Ukrainian coverage of the accident area by BUKS. On July 14, it was reported that [http://m.rosbalt.ru/ukraina/2014/07/16/1292690.html AN 26 was shot down in Luhansk] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
There is strange twist of Logic in Bellingcat's report about satellite photos. The photo with Buks in the field is claimed to be manipulated.They found that July 17 image was manipulated but only in the region of clouds. They don't say that BUK was removed by software (there are 4 more vehicles missing). But on all Google earth photos BUK never moved (and those 4 vehicles). So did it move ever or not? Manipulation of Google earth photos or likely their source is not new.[http://www.imediaethics.org/News/130/Exclusive__google_investigating_photoshopped_gogle_map_image_.php]<br />
<br />
Surprising Google earth have more updated photos on the BUK base location and nearly nothing for the location where Russians seen BUKS. There is something strange about RUSSIAN supposed fakery. Doesn't make sense to me.--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 13:33, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Separatist Holdings===<br />
While much certainty has been shown it was a separatist BUK system responsible, everyone seems to acknowledge that ordinarily, they didn't have any, that were known of. Fresh sighting of them in the field, supposed admissions, and existing presumptions remain the strongest evidence. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;June 29 Seizure?<br />
The Open Newsroom team have latched onto a June 29 message from a Twitter account associated with the Donetsk People’s Republic, @DNRpress claiming separatist forces had conquered a base with anti-air BUK missiles. This is apparently the A-1402 base, as an Itar-Tass report specified. That report noted ... It seems to just cite the tweet which, it was found, used a dated photo online since mid-2013. In essence, there's no good evidence they ever did seize this place. But it was referred to by some as "Deleted DNR tweet confirming Russian rebels indeed have a BUK-M1." The crew at large seems a bit vague on the status of this base:<br />
:'' It appears that the A-1402 military unit was moved into the Donetsk region in 2007 from Odessa, and reports note that the unit was based near Donetsk airport. Local reports from June 29 cited ATO spokesman Alexei Dmitrashkivsky as stating that separatists had attacked the military unit.'' <ref name="Story1" /><br />
As we just found with geo-location, it's 3 km north of Donetsk airport, and it's the same place Russia believes is firmly government-held. It's the place they say at least one BUK-type launcher was removed from on July 17 for some reason, by Kiev's forces who run it. If [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Donetsk_Airport this basic Wikipedia article on the battle for the airport] is correct and/or in line with [[Attack on Donetsk Airport|our page on it]], the airport and anything military-related north of it would probably be government-held continuously to the present time. It's possible some launchers could have been lost during a brief seizure of the base, but this too seems doubtful. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
:Social media published many photos of the "liberated" Buk missiles. I searched for them on Google Image Search; all were old photos from more peaceful times. I have no idea what really happened. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 23:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Thanks. I hadn't looked into it myself, but recycled images made sense given the other clues that they never did take that base, or at least get anything out of it. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 00:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
Something in English [https://www.facebook.com/TruthfromUkraine/photos/pb.1452285018328179.-2207520000.1409095455./1515506872005993/ on Facebook,] with links to Russian souces. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 23:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Your geolocation is wrong. The former [http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-SAM-Site-Configs-A.html SA-2 launch site] to the north of the runway is called A-1428, at least according to the [[:File:Donetsk Airport battles 5 Oct 2014.jpg|map by Komsomolskaya Pravda]]. The site was rebuilt sometime between 2002 and 2009 with new garages covering part of the SAM ring. Tactical maps say today it is still held by Ukraine, but may have been in NAF hands earlier. Base A-1402 is located south of the new terminal building along Stratonavtiv Street.<br />
<br />
When looking at the latest airport battles I noticed that Military Maps already shows structural damaged to the new terminal building. I did not expect Google to provide any relevant satelite data. In Libya we had almost daily satellite images of Tripoli, but in Syria we have seen no new photos of the battle-effected areas.<br />
<br />
I opened Google Earth to see what has changed during the war. It seems that the war has had no effect on either base. There is still a lot of military hardware parked on both bases. Most of the trucks and whatever are parked just w--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 18:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)here they were last year, or on many cases in 2007. I did not see anything that I could identify as a BUK launcher. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 02:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;Held by July 14?<br />
The US embassy in Kiev said in [http://ukraine.usembassy.gov/statements/asmt-07192014.html a press statement of July 19]:<br />
:''Intercepts of separatist communications posted on YouTube by the Ukrainian government indicate the separatists were in possession of a SA-11 system as early as Monday July 14th. In the intercepts, the separatists made repeated references to having and repositioning Buk (SA-11) systems.'' (also quoted [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/20/malaysia-airlines-mh17-videos-missile-launcher-torez-snizhne at the Guardian])<br />
As "Corporal Frisk" [http://corporalfrisk.wordpress.com/2014/07/21/comment-on-the-us-assessment-of-the-downing-of-flight-mh17/ aptly responded:]<br />
:''Having perhaps the world’s best intelligence network, and then using easily faked videos of separatist communications posted on YouTube as evidence sure has a degree of ridicule attached to it, but is also an inidcation that US intelligence believes at least some of these transcripts are real.''<br />
That's totally apt if one suspends the usual definition of "believe" (to include "wants to appear to believe," etc.) In the same piece, the author apparently gives more "credibility to the charges that the Buk-M1 is indeed Russian supplied (and possibly crewed), as opposed to stemming from captured Ukrainian stocks." As covered below, this I can agree with if we suspend the usual definition of "Russian" (to include "allegedly Russian villains," "the Ukrainian version of [http://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2011/07/african-mercenaries.html Libya's African Mercenaries] and [http://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/wiki/The_Shabiha:_Ghost_Stories%3F Syria's Shabiha]," etc.) this would be spot-on. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:54, 10 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
(more allegations to cover?)<br />
<br />
;The One That Matters<br />
Whatever the evidence rebels had Buk systems by the 14th, Kiev also has suggested, and many have accepted, that ''the one that mattered'' at least - the launcher unit that shot down MH17 on the 17th - wasn't theirs at all, but brought in and operated by Russians for the day only. If only for that reason, all the above is likely moot. See next section. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Unknown owner ===<br />
Appears to be [http://vk.com/albums-22680516 A 1402 unit album] ; has Buks but photos are from 2011. [http://vk.com/albums-22680516?z=photo-22680516_205618115%2Fphotos-22680516 Buk number 122] photo. Old photos-unknown what happened thereafter. [http://vk.com/albums-22680516?z=photo-22680516_277084156%2Fphotos-22680516 Another- unknown number]. Also something like Strela 10 shown on [http://vk.com/albums-22680516?z=photo-22680516_351678270%2Fphotos-22680516 photos] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 18:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Only non-working Buks remained there when it was 'partially captured' by opolchenie, according to Ukrainian [http://www.pravda.com.ua/rus/news/2014/06/29/7030482/ reports]. Working ones were moved elsewhere by Ukraine. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 18:39, 21 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Russian Buk Field Trip? ===<br />
The Kiev regime's narrative also suggests separatists had no BUK systems of their own. Rather, someone else brought one in to their area, took it on some kind of tour through several towns thought accessible only to rebels and allies, and got it seen in each place. Then these people '''shot the airliner down themselves on the separatists' behalf.''' That party is the Russians, they say. This is perhaps best encapsulated by "counter-terrorism" chief Vitaly Nayda's early assessment. AP's July 25 report summarized it, saying "the account was based on information from intercepts, spies and resident tips."<br />
:''Nayda laid the blame fully on Russia: He said the missile launcher came from Russia and was operated by Russians. ... According to Nayda, at 1 a.m. on July 17 the launcher rolled into Ukraine across the Russian border aboard a flatbed truck. He cited communications intercepts that he would not share with the AP. By 9 a.m., he said, the launcher had reached Donetsk, the main rebel stronghold 125 miles (200 kilometers) from the border. In Donetsk it is presumed to have been off-loaded from the flatbed and started to move in a convoy on its own.''<br />
:''Nayda said the Buk turned back east toward Snizhne. Townspeople who spoke to the AP said it rolled into Snizhne around lunchtime.''<br />
:''...As for the Buk, Nayda said, intelligence suggests it went back on the move shortly after the attack. That very night, he said, it crossed the border, back into Russia.''<br />
<br />
This is full of details that don't line up with the emerging record, but the gist including a grand-circuit tour including both separatist stronghold/capitols Donestk and Lugansk plus the disaster zone, seems about right. But the evil they allowed came from and returned to Russia.<br />
<br />
This does however jibe with the Kiev allegation (I learned of through [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/07/25/snizhne-mh17-and-rebel-held-territory/ this excellent and relevant HRI article] that '''Russian jets''' violated Ukrainian airspace to '''bomb an apartment building in Snizneh on July 15th, killing 11 civilians.''' This all makes a bit of sense in context; that false flag attack was blamed by locals on Kiev'a noble Air Force - almost understandably! It "created the conditions" by which people ''might'' accept apparent a team of apparent Russians with a Buk launcher in their town two days later. The best guess for any single firing location is a field just southeast of that town (see [[#Possible Launch Sites|below]]). The locals might smile at, and later even cover for, this poisonous gift. But a trojan horse is a trojan horse, of course. They should have looked it in the mouth better, and been more aggressive with their questions. Because Russia has it in for the separatists, Kiev implies, using its skilled and well-documented team to murder 298 people in a horrific way on the separatists' behalf. This is not an accident, Kiev must know, but proof that Russia and its "inhuman" terrorists they must hate (and who do not seem to have any Buk launchers of their own, BTW) are the new global menace du jour. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Markings and the Mystery Launcher ===<br />
[[File:MH17 Buk 321 Parismatch comp.png|right]]A serial number on the launcher's side is apparently standard in Ukraine's arsenal (see [[#BUK 312 and comrades|above]]). Inset, an image comparing the side of the unit seen in [[#Paris Match Photo]], the one blamed for the shoot-down on the 17th, to TELAR unit 321. The side panels are easy enough to correlate and see the unit in the photo lacks a number, but does have a sliver of white paint (or similar) in one corner. Whoever was moving this painted it it out before this, so there is some attempt at concealment. Is this color of paint only available in Russia? The white sliver here could be part of the number, if it were painted higher up/larger than Ukraine usually does. I can't say yet how they do it. I did a Dogpile Photo search, lots of pictures, context unclear, different vehicles from different sides, mainly Vitaly Kuzmin photos so app. Russian military parades and such: --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
* Number shown, diff. vehicle: [http://military-vehicle-photos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/9881.jpg #1(loader?)] - [http://pix.avaxnews.com/avaxnews/8a/6f/00006f8a_medium.jpeg #2 same?] <br />
* Launchers with no visible numbers: [http://77rus.smugmug.com/Military/May-5th-Parade-rehearsal-2014/i-t7RjrzP/0/M/5may14-33-M.jpg #1] - [http://77rus.smugmug.com/Military/12-April-Parade-2013-rehearsal/i-KHVD3Tv/0/M/12aprilrehearsal_33-M.jpg #2] - [http://livedoor.blogimg.jp/gunzichannel/imgs/b/e/be60ae58.jpg #3] - [http://military-vehicle-photos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/9880.jpg #4] - [http://77rus.smugmug.com/Military/13th-April-rehearsal-Alabino/i-fKQdjW4/0/M/13April-Rehersal-Alabino-26-M.jpg #5] <br />
* Same vehicle, Buk TELAR launcher with numbers: not found. <br />
<br />
At the moment, the lack of a number almost makes it look Russian. The next panel over seems to have smaller numbers, or characters anyway. Nothing yet tells me the Russians add a smaller number on the panel behind that, with or without special stencils available only in Russia. Is that even a number, or does it say return to Putin? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== Bellingcat and 3x2 ====<br />
:''moved from [[#Paris Match Photo]]''<br />
<br />
Adam: somebody's favorite Bellingcat is now saying, I understand, that he is capable to read off the number of this Buk from this blurry low resolution Paris Match photo, using unspecified colored magic and some expertly fitted proprietary boxes. Well actually this is so proprietary that he can ONLY read the first number 3, and the last number 2, but is completely unable to read the middle one. Because, he does not want this to be this Ukrainian [http://uainforg.livejournal.com/1811500.html Buk 312] , nah, noway. He rather want it to be the Russian Buk 3 X 2, where X stand for Russian, and for secret, as somebody is said to unearth this dirty monster in Russia, as he says (I guess). This looks too much baloney as far as I am concerned; you can read any number you set in advance from this blurry photo, and fit there any other crap, boxed-shaped or wiggly, all essentially at will. Just recording this latest saga page in case somebody has more enthusiasm to chase it than myself. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 00:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
:No, you didn't quite understand, but thanks for the tip. An interesting twist I wish I'd caught sooner. First, this helps the West at large get in synch finally with Kiev - it was Russia, not the separatists, who owned and perhaps ran that unit. Second, it seems to me the match is at least as good as they say, but there's at least one aspect of it I think is hilarious and I wouldn't be surprised if they managed to miss it. I'll be back - this one deserves a quick blog post. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: I agree with Resup, this stinks of baloney designed to divert attention from the [[#BUK_312_and_comrades]] story. The worst thing about Brown Noses and cohorts is the amount of coordinated promo they get in pre$$titute media. SPIEGEL today [http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/jan-fleischhauer-ueber-wladimir-putin-und-mh17-abschuss-kolumne-a-1004898.html has a op-ed piece by a particularly douchebaggy example] on those independent genius investigators as well. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::I need to brush up on what that 312 story is... because it looks like this used to say 312. Ultimately I suspect its some kind of baloney, but just where it breaks down I don't know. It is amazing how they get such praise for investigating the right things (never did get back to the Houla Massacre) and finding the right truth... Daily Fail says "The authors said that 'our investigation was made possible by the examination of open source material overlooked by other organisations'." Oh goodness, that technique they must have invested ... maybe if we started doing that we'd get praises too! --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/11/08/origin-of-the-separatists-buk-a-bellingcat-investigation/<br />
The report and whole site was not coming up when I tried (might be a problem on my end), so I don't even know what's behind their pay-wall. In the interim I checked around. [http://thetruthserumblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/an-open-and-transparent-investigation.html Here's a critical blog article I like] that mentions another article praising the report. But what was useful was [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2827853/Russian-military-supplied-missiles-ahead-MH17-shooting-says-new-independent-report-evidence-points-Russian-separatists-responsible.html the Daily Mail's Australian promo article] with the cover and a few images from the report as well as a summary. The 3x2 ... This lets me quickly see what 3x2 refers to. And actually, it looks like a good description and even a good match. The number is not from Paris Match photo but from footage I haven't noticed, they say from inside Russia - presumably a Russian unit then - seen conspicuously moving towards Ukraine in late June. (the source of these images and details might be worth checking into) ... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 3x2 Comp.png|right]]Bottom is Paris Match, skewed to match. Top is the new (to me) Bellingcat June 23 image As I just put together [http://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2014/11/how-russians-covered-up-truth-partly.html here,] they seem to be onto something here. It's something silly. But it's something strongly suggested by real paint in recognizable patterns.<br />
<br />
Implied: Russians wanted to hide this thing's identity, maybe because they were about to do something secret with it. So first they painted out the number in the middle - I think it was a one. Except they left one little corner of white visible. Just got tired. It's identifiable (in both images). <br />
<br />
Then before it appeared in Ukraine, it was rendered totally unidentifiable: they boldly blacked out the 3, and perhaps at the same time even, the 2 - except for a larger identifiable sliver. Just got tired. It's next to the other dot. <br />
<br />
Haha, no way to connect these now! Also a light patch next to the small number (and the number, as far as we can see) matches, as does a light patch along the lip below that. My guess: this is the same suspect vehicle seen gettin' hauled all over on the "stolen" truck with the phone number left on. Was it actually in Russian territory as well as near so many rebel checkpoints around dawn? For how long was it there? Bellingcat cannot confirm that Russian unit 3x2 ever returned to its base in Russia ... nor, I guess, that it ever actually left, or was ever Russian, or didn't have its truncated paint job simulated and expanded on another vehicle... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
::He got some photos of an actual [http://www.kavicom.ru/news-view-12861.html convoy], almost certainly in Russia, fairly hi-res photos, no 3*2 there. Than out-of-a-blue-or-elsewhere, he gives photos from convoy made by 'local residents', now with discolored 3*2 photo(s) there; I could not spot details where this photo is now coming from. He claims it "shows on 8 out of 16 videos", but I do not know where is a single one. He also compares tank track and plate above profiles for these 2 photos; details are blurred (and also those profiles change from use), can't say how much they match each other by eye; don't trust his fitted lines, or his conclusion accepting those, but did not try matching myself (no tools to do it quickly; or enough photo resolution to feel strongly motivated). This is doable but doing it tool-free takes time; and not knowing that second photo is definitely in Russia, I am not convinced spending a lot of time is worthwhile. This is clearly a well-supported operation, so the burden of proving their own version is on them; and they did not bother even linking the videos, no clue where are those. His report downloads without problems at this time. <br />
::Also details such as dirty rear skirt and a bend there likely are common; dirt is because exhaust is through the opening above; skirt likely is bent when there is servicing, or example changing tracks or doing something else, like maybe servicing engine. Buk 321 above on this page has dirt and bend, for example. This bend is something which can be easily produced, same goes with the painting job, both things together can be done in well under 1/2 hour. If they had an example of how something in Russia looks like, not difficult to do it for a blurry photo. Clearly, with phone well-displayed, etc, the purpose of all this is a demo job. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Here is a publication [http://censor.net.ua/video_news/274823/ukraina_zaschischaet_donetsk_ot_napadeniya_rossii_zenitnoraketnye_kompleksy_buk_zanimayut_pozitsii_fotovideo Ukraine defends Donesk from Russiam attack, missile complex Buk takes positions], with photo, video of Ukrainian BUks, numbers 323, 321, 312, 301, 331,332. (Some of them have dirty skirts, e.g. 301 looks dirty and bent...). Ukrainian radio is playing on the video. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 21:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Thanks, and I get the lack of motivation, and the ambiguity. That #312 I'll compare later ... looks like a different number style (thinner) with vehicle color less clear ... I guess this could be innocent dirt instead of black paint, but it's some thick dirt, and by the end almost totally covering the numbers on this particular unit ... or two that can seem the same. (?) So it still seems most likely paint, that is deliberate obfuscation - that was also comically slow and incomplete (with clean edges to the white parts and no visible parts of gray half-covered numbers) . It must be a problem with my system (updating soon) but I still can't connect to the site or get the report. I'm not mad motivated myself, but will want to check the alleged video source and geolocation eventually. Before I was seeing this as a Kiev unit simply snuck across the internal line. So the big wrinkle of course is it being in Russia. Options if the geolocation of June 23 is right: <br />
* it wasn't there (faked match-up - As you say, all matching features ''could'' be faked, not just the paint) <br />
* or Ukraine snuck theirs across (with a whole convoy?) just to get it seen there <br />
* or they snuck over and stole this one while it was near the border <br />
* or Russia willingly sent it over, with or without a subsequent theft by people intent on misusing it on the separatists' behalf. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
There is actually a 3*2 Buk in Russia, he put links to videos on his [https://www.mapbox.com/labs/bellingcat/index.html map], I looked at 06/23 Troitskiy (Odnoklassniki) goroskop odnoklassniki ru/video/14723648043?fromTime=25 . But I doubt it can be concluded that Paris Match is a match (number itself can't be read, this is just bogus). For example, that dot in the Russian version appears to be a bit further to the right (60 % of total panel length) , while Paris Match is closer to 50 (I got 52 %). Also, in Russian version, it is almost level with protruding to the right part of number 2; in Donetsk photo, I'd say it's a bit lower (but blurriness creates problems to measure) . Panel to the left of number panel appear to look very different; in Russian case, clear horizontal line above the main bottom line; not so in Donetsk, a messy lower line. As for the skirt, it it dirty but actually does not look broken in the Russian version, just some frames create such impression. In Donetsk, hard to know (to blurry to tell crack from dirt) but there is serious change in angle there somehow; (could be the windshield playing some tricks). (Also, in Donetsk, it is dirty windshield, not actually certain what makes the dot; but it is roughly where expected, so I can go with this being paint assumption). <br />
:No point for the rebels to display it prominently in Donetsk (not far from UAF BUK base), than go towards Snizhne; this just has no point at all. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 00:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
:I'm the one, ironically, claiming to see things in that griny mess. I'd never do it unless I saw t spot well whiter than the others AND seen in another view ... didn't even notice until then. To note, your descriptions are of the first version of the graphic, now updated. Becuase of overall problems, I cut what seemed just the number panel (including shadowed edge) and put it on top of where it should be. Same proportions, within a pixel or two, "find edges" to mark the white patches, and it remains lining up. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 3x2 comp 2.png|right|420px]]At right: it can't be the embarrassingly misrepresented Ukrainian 312 they're hiding, unless that was painted over before this other one .... FWIW, the middle dot would still line up with the serif on that "1." As the updated blog article notes, if "the Russians" were smart, they would have painted this slender 312, or other recognizable number and style, on there. Instead, this nonsense.... <br />
<br />
I suppose that Ukraine ''might'' have known about this 3x2 video and match in advance (and never mentioned it?) and that's why they found a photo of ''a Buk 312''' (not checking what it actually showed, and just claimed they knew was en route to escape into Russia, after parking for yet another photo?) No, that doesn't make much sense. But I sense a link. Maybe that's because I'm seeing 312 when maybe it's 872, for all we really know. Maybe instead of partly painted out it was just left never fully painted in. Too many unknowns and now I'm unenthusiastic about it. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Whatever one thinks of this graphic comparison and interpretation, the strange and suspect thinking it implies is consistent with what else we know about how this "secret" operation was carried out. If true, it would fit this broader pattern (real or reported clues left by whoever, all open to interpretation, and here couched in the terms of allegations by Kiev and supporters):<br />
<br />
* Recalling that this whole weapon itself would have no normal business in the area and would be denied later, it should have been kept secret. Instead, it was driven around in broad daylight on the same day as the crime, just partly covered with a tarp but revealing all clues needed to identify it, its hidden ID number, and its full rack of missiles.<br />
* The truck it was so displayed on was stolen in Donetsk, and kept with the huge sign on its side with the apparent owner's phone number on it. When the media called that number, little surprise, the owner told them pro-Russian "fighters from Slaviansk" who took over his whole trucking company on July 8 (see [[#The Truck Owner's Story|here]]) Put lightly, this is a stupid way to secure a rig one intends to use for a secret operation like this was supposed to be.<br />
* They loaded the truck in Donetsk, likely at the commandeered site in the north of Donetsk, near the Ukrainian base with Buk launchers, in a coincidence. This truck then got seen leaving Donetsk on the 17th, parked pointing east at the east outskirts, then seen driving in convoy (a couple civilian cars with the operational crew moved with the truck) past Zuhres and then through Torez to the east. They were seen arriving in Snizhne around noon, then the Buk unit seen off the truck and driving in stand-alone, and it was then seen again driving south out of Snizneh, towards the apparent launch location.<br />
* The people running the convoy made sure AP journalists saw them in Snizhne just before the shoot-down from a bit south of there. The convoy stopped, and a man in unusual uniform "approached the journalists. The man wanted to make sure they had not recorded any images of the missile launcher. Satisfied that they hadn’t" filmed that secret missile launcher there, but had noticed it, and their intention to remain sooper seekrit "the convoy moved on." All this was made quite clear to the media and apparently published even before the news that MH17 was shot down. ([http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/what-happened-the-day-flight-17-was-downed/2014/07/25/716c36e4-142b-11e4-ac56-773e54a65906_story.html AP Via Washington Post]) <br />
* After the disastrous attempt to secretly provoke a Russian invasion, with utmost discretion the operators put the smoking gun, its rack of one-less missiles left uncovered, back on the same truck and drove it and the phone number back to Russia - by a strange detour on a long route towards the other easily-recognizable smoking gun rebel capitol, Lugansk ... when government ATO forces had just battled their way to the edge of Lugansk ... and got seen there passing at dawn on the main highway south, apparently having come from the center of town, and then presumably drove to Krasnodon (rebel-held) and to Russia....<br />
<br />
The fail delivery here is almost flawless, with no mistake left unmade and hardly any reasonable gaps to call for deduction. Letting multiple camera views on both sides of the porous border capture and track the gradual move to this stealth mode seems pretty consistent to me.--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Note: the implications of this contested finding, and the visual basis for it as well, is continued below under [[#If Buk 3x2 Was in Russia]] --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
I think one point is still not discussed here. Look at this video from 26 June 2014. You might have seen it before. But what is striking, all the Buks shown do not have numbers painted on them. Not only it will allow to paint new numbers or any clumsy painting on the side, using video of a known BUK, it also means that those BUKS were not accounted for when Ukrs presented evidence, if they ever presented, about the location of all the existing and operational BUKS <br />
[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BBEYZHOT0bQ]--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 13:29, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== General Observations === <br />
*It is clear that pro-Kiev side produced early and persistent stream of fakes, misrepresentations, or selective half-truths, all aimed to place the blame on Russia and/or "separatists" as a part of well organised and supported information warfare. This information warfare did not establish an objective to prove the blame of Russia or "separatists", as any of those media creations will not survive a rigorous scrutiny, and there is nothing to bring to court in particular. However it successfully altered Western perceptions in early days past the catastrophe, and helped to impose sanctions and other 'increased costs' on Russia, bringing the world on the brink of another cold war. It brought situation in Ukraine closer to perpetual chaos, and kept closely related people to continue killing each other every day. Although those fakes and misrepresentations were later realized to be such, those costs and calamities were not reversed. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*After moving equipment close to border, why would Russia send just a single TELAR to Ukraine in a highly visible manner as it was alleged? For meaningful operation of Buk, one would send at least 1 TELAR, 1 TEL (to be able to load missiles), and 1 command vehicle (as radar on TELAR gives only poor basic operation)? There are also lots of support vehicles seen, in case of something meaningful all that is needed. So moving single TELAR is all but pointless from military standpoint. Single TELAR is mostly for a show of sort. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Reported SIghtings == <br />
(consider along with the visual sightings below) <br />
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/what-happened-the-day-flight-17-was-downed/2014/07/25/716c36e4-142b-11e4-ac56-773e54a65906_story.html AP via Washington Post] <br />
<br />
The link is not accessible anylonger --[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 05:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
shows the separatists strategy to not be seen as they rolled the murder weapon around:<br />
:''Even before the plane was downed, the AP had reported on the presence of the missile launcher in the town July 17. Here is what that dispatch said:''<br />
:''“An Associated Press reporter on Thursday saw seven rebel-owned tanks parked at a gas station outside the eastern Ukrainian town of Snizhne. In the town, he also observed a Buk missile system, which can fire missiles up to an altitude of 22,000 meters (72,000 feet).''<br />
:''AP journalists saw the Buk moving through town at 1:05 p.m. The vehicle, which carried four 18-foot (5.5-meter) missiles, was in a convoy with two civilian cars.''<br />
:''The convoy stopped. A man in sand-colored camouflage without identifying insignia — different from the green camouflage the rebels normally wear — approached the journalists. The man wanted to make sure they had not recorded any images of the missile launcher. Satisfied that they hadn’t, the convoy moved on.''<br />
<br />
That kind of pro-Russian sooper-seekrisy aimed at the media in front of the media should stop them being seen, right? No, oddly, it didn't. See below. The clumsy bastards could hardly have implicated themselves any more thoroughly than they did that day. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
One interesting post at the Ukraine@War blog mentions two tweets, both from July 17 and before the crash, mentioning this BUK launcher on a trailer at places consistent with the video record. [https://twitter.com/MOR2537/status/489702736766586880 One of them] (translated) sounds perhaps ''too'' informed, and says "Was driven missile system on the tractor cover + two cars after Thorez (Torez) in snowy (Sniznoyeh) in 12-10 (at 12:10? Too early...)." [https://twitter.com/_StradivariuS_/status/489704260045910016 The other one] says "(someone this) morning wrote that (the truck) stood (parked for some time) on b.Shahtostroiteley not intersection with Ilchicha, aside (heading towards) Makeevki. waiting to see (to be seen?) If that's an intersection named, it's a different parking spot identified as being [https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=48.002515,37.854917&spn=0.010222,0.02444&t=h&z=16 here on Google Maps,] one km west of the spot it was parked for the "Paris Match" photo. Otherwise, it refers only to the same place. The contributor noted "Another interesting detail in that tweet is that “it was standing” and “they were waiting”. My understanding of that phrasing is that the #Buk was actually parked there for some time. Meaning there might be witnesses." <ref name="UWD">[http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com/2014/07/reconstruction-of-whereabouts-of-buk.html CONFIRMED the BUK that shot down MH17 has indeed been in Donetsk] P. Martin, Ukraine@War, July 23, 2014</ref> There was a witness with a camera, and a photo sent to the Western media. That almost seems to have been the idea - to get witnessed like that. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== SBU Wiretap Clues ==<br />
I just had a look at the SBU wiretap transcripts, ones released July 19. In it is a segment tying in with the above stop or stops in Donetsk, the exact spot of the [[#Paris Match Photo]], and the general orders to drive east with the launcher. I'm not up on the wiretap stuff - if this is the same material said to be corroborated by the US as the real people talking. But briefly, know that parking spot in just past a roundabout, by a motel and a bus station, well short of a crossing Hornostaivska street halfway to Makiivka. Important clue to why it was here this thing had to get seen and talked about: one source claims this roundabout at the edge of town is "a big separatist checkpoint established on Jun 3 at the road circle." <ref name="UWD" /> This is supposed to all be pretty damning, and I must say it's at least looking like a pretty slick plan may be going on here, with pre-scripted parts that come into play later, etc. From Kiev mouthpiece UaToday, parts of a transcript they ran with the video and other allegations, on the 19th - How credible is this evidence?<br />
:''Khmuryi: Sergei Nikolaevich Petrovskiy, year of birth 1964, officer of Main Intelligence Directorate of Russian Federation, Deputy Chief of Ihor Girkin on Intelligence, at the time of the interception he was in Donetsk.''<br />
:''“Buryat” – militant of terrorist organization “DNR” (to be indentified).''<br />
:''Buryat: – Where should we load this beauty, Nikolaievich?''<br />
:''Khmuryi: Which one? This one?''<br />
:''B: Yes, the one I’ve brought. I’m already in Donetsk.''<br />
:''K: Is it the one I’m thinking about? “B…,”M” one?''<br />
:''B: Yes, yes, yes. “BUK”,”BUK”.''<br />
:''K: Is it on a tractor?''<br />
:''B: Yes, it’s on it. We need to unload it somewhere, '''in order to hide.'''''<br />
:''K: Is it with a crew?''<br />
:''B: Yes, with the crew.''<br />
:''K: '''Don’t hide it anywhere.''' She’ll go there now.''<br />
:...<br />
:''Khmuryi: – Tell me, have you brought me one or two?<br />
:''Buryat: One, one. Because they had a misunderstanding there. They didn’t give us a tug. We loaded it and went at their own pace.''<br />
:''K: Did it go on her own or on a tug?''<br />
:''B: It crossed the line (border).''<br />
:''H: And now have you brought it on a tug? Don’t put in anywhere… I’ll tell now where it should go, it will go together with “Vostok” tanks.''<br />
:...<br />
:''K: Sanych, the point is that my “BUK–M” (modified Russian SAM system) will go with yours, it is on a tug. Where should I drive it to put in a column?''<br />
:''Sanych: There, behind “Motel”, not reaching Hornostaevka.''<br />
:''K: Just after the Motel, right?''<br />
:''Khmuryi: Listen to me carefully, behind the circle near “Motel” there will be you know what. Call to “Bibliotekar” (Librarian).'' <br />
The next part, to me, suggests that as far back as the 19th or earlier, people talking on tape were seeding, or working by, the SBU-proposed Aeroloft plot with the town mix-up. In that light:<br />
:''...Bring inside only those, who just came back, only as much as you need for the convoy. Leave everyone else here. Not far away '''there is Pervomaiskoe, look at the map.'''''<br />
:''DNR militant: I got it.'' (Or did he not quite get it?) <br />
:''Khmuryi: Settle somewhere in that area, bring there those who are left. Your task is reserve, plus protection of this piece (BUK–M), which you will drive now. “Giyrza” will come there too. If anything, I’m on line.'' <ref name="Trans">[http://www.uatoday.info/?p=2579&lang=en SBU releases more conversations implicating Russia in shooting down Malaysia Airlines flight (VIDEO, TRANSCRIPT)] UAToday, July 19, 2014</ref><br />
--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The veracity of that recording needs challenged well now ... the day too early claim [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17#SBU wiretap video|did not pan out,]] so it won't be that easy. Has anyone really done a good analysis tearing it apart some other way? Could it even be half-legit, with some local rebels tricked by some undercover (wire-wearing, not wire-tapping) supposed defector delivering it "with a team" coming "from Russia" (meaning Parubiy et al.)? Who knows? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Imagery Mapping ==<br />
[[File:MH17 Storyful video mapping.png|right|330px]]There have been quite a number now of photos and videos showing BUK launchers ostensibly in separatist strongholds, on July 17. The geo-location of these in such towns by social media networks has been the subject of some recent media commentary. These purported placements are worth collecting and considering here. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
One somewhat comprehensive and updated/evolving page: [http://blog.storyful.com/2014/07/19/how-social-sleuthing-uncovered-evidence-of-anti-aircraft-missile-system-in-eastern-ukraine/#.U9oY_Ua3498 How Social Sleuthing Uncovered Evidence of Surface-to-Air Missile Systems in Eastern Ukraine] Inset is a small preview of the interactive map they made of all placed images (as it stands at the end of July - [https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=200399683004956931329.0004feca5d1fbab0a1d25&msa=0&ie=UTF8&t=h&source=embed&ll=48.206371,38.968506&spn=1.281328,2.334595&z=8 full-size presentation with links, on Google Maps]) <ref name="Story1" /> <s>Note that one of them is way up in Lugansk - which one is a little unclear at the moment - the site may be wrong</s>) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;List of Scenes, placed or not<br />
* Billboard Video: released by Interior Ministry, filmed in Krasnodon before dawn, the Interior Minister says. Russian military analysis places it in Krasnoarmeysk, and the Open Newsroom crew contradicts both and decided "collaborative geo-location was able to place the footage in southwestern Luhansk.'' <ref name="Story1">[http://blog.storyful.com/2014/07/19/how-social-sleuthing-uncovered-evidence-of-anti-aircraft-missile-system-in-eastern-ukraine/#.U9oY_Ua3498 How Social Sleuthing Uncovered Evidence of Surface-to-Air Missile Systems in Eastern Ukraine] Storyful blog, July 19, 2014 and onward (updated)</ref> <br />
* Surveillance Video: located to Snizhne by Eliot Higgins, date unclear. <ref name="Story1" /><br />
* Zuhres video: Pre-geo-located by the uploader [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=48%C2%B0+1'1.38%22N++38%C2%B018'6.04%22E&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=48.034019,38.391724&spn=0.629958,1.564178&gbv=2&hnear=H21,+Zuhres,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&gl=us&t=h&z=10 here in Zuhres.] Higgins confirms, 100% sure, and others concur. Driving east. <ref name="Story1" /><br />
* Torez square photo - located by an associate of Higgins - filmed app. 11:40 AM in central Torez. See below. <br />
* Another photo placed: Snizneh, nearest the shoot-down area (f/c)<br />
* [http://www.parismatch.com/Actu/International/EXCLU-MATCH-Un-camion-vole-pour-transporter-le-systeme-lance-missiles-577289 Paris Match photo] - allegedly Snizhne, reportedly placed '''in northern Donetsk city.''' See below. <br />
<br />
===Billboard Video===<br />
(to be condensed) <br />
A video released by the Ukrainian Interior Ministry is highly dubious and worth some analysis. It shows what seems to be a BUK launcher loaded on a truck driving some direction in some town at what seems to be early twilight (or pre-dawn, depending). The [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4HJmev5xg0 original posting] (with almost 2 million views already) gives no details: "Militants take out missile system "Buk" to the border with Russiam" the title translates. "No description available," it says below, and no comments allowed.<br />
From what I've seen no one knows where this is filmed. Daily Mail says it's a "separatist stronghold," unnamed, and headed south, back towards Russia. "Ukrainian spies reportedly filmed the launcher used in the attack being smuggled to Russia - with two missiles missing." Eliot Higgins was cited by [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/20/malaysia-airlines-mh17-videos-missile-launcher-torez-snizhne the Guardian] with his new team of fundraistigators as geolocating some video and photo but not, apparently, this one. As explained at [https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1278239551/bellingcat/posts/919158 the kickstarter link] they give, Higgins writes:<br />
:''In the above video, posted by the Ukranian Ministry for Interior claiming to show the Buk missile launcher being driven towards Russia it was possible to match the transporter in the video to the transporter in Torez, details of which... (you have to subsidize their operation to see)'' --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== Avakov's Placement: Krasnodon or Lugansk ====<br />
Interior Minister Arsen Avakov said in [https://www.facebook.com/arsen.avakov.1/posts/670837696339673 a Facebook post of July 18] Google-translated: <br />
:''Covert surveillance units of MIA of Ukraine today July 18 at 4.50 am was recorded caterpillar tractor loaded with missile complex, moving in the direction through Krasnodon, toward the border with the Russian Federation. The video can be seen uncovered missiles. Two missiles in place - the average is not visible. ''<br />
:''There is an analysis of this and other information gathered. Presumably this is the missile system "Buk" that made a last shot at a civilian plane from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur .. ''<br />
:''Criminals try to hide the traces of this heinous crime. Not succeed. Security Service and Interior Ministry of Ukraine has collected and collects more irrefutable facts and evidence, the author points out the tragedy of the terrorist organization DNI / LC and its Russian backers Putin.'' <br />
:''The investigation of events MIA issue a comprehensive report on the information. This fragment consider it necessary to publish immediately.''<br />
<br />
By the 22nd, "online sleuths" had placed it in Lugansk (see below). Avakov then confirmed this - he was wrong the first time. One article makes it sound like he wasn't just echoing the sleuths:<br />
:''On July 22, Ukraine's Minister of Internal Affairs, Arsen Avakov, gave the exact coordinates of the video’s location: separatist-held Luhansk, about a 45-minute drive from Krasnodon. Locals quickly verified this claim by photographing the scene, which perfectly matches the landmarks seen in the video.'' ([http://globalvoicesonline.org/2014/07/29/russia-ukraine-mh17-conspiracy-buk/# article by one of the sleuths])<br />
<br />
====Krasnoarmeysk====<br />
One source venturing a guess is [http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ the Russian government and RT witrh their 10 intriguing questions:]<br />
:''“For example, media circulated a video supposedly showing a Buk system being moved from Ukraine to Russia. This is clearly a fabrication. This video was made in the town of Krasnoarmeisk, as evidenced by the billboard you see in the background, advertising a car dealership at 34 Dnepropetrovsk Street. Krasnoarmeysk has been controlled by the Ukrainian military since May 11.”''<br />
[[File:MH17 Billboard Vid Russian Analysis.png|right|250px]]There is a sign, but I cannot make it out just yet, if ever. Can they really? Even if that's so, surrounding towns might be good places for a dealership in Krasnoarmeysk to advertise. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
At right now is a still from a video claiming to show this, I still don't see it. They seem to think the gray span says that, perhaps from seeing a clearer view of this ubiquitous sign elsewhere. Opps. There's no reason to say a dealership in one town can only have billboards in that town. This alone fails. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 14:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Krasnoarmiis'k,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&hl=en&ll=48.323387,37.919312&spn=1.252829,3.128357&sll=48.226502,37.386475&sspn=0.627601,1.564178&oq=Krasnoarm&t=h&doflg=ptk&hnear=Krasnoarmiis'k,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&z=9 on Google Maps as Krasnoarmiis'k] - ''not'' to be confused with the Krasnoarmeisk not far away in Russia. Distance: about 100 km almost due west of the crash site. Panorama, possiblt location, directions/implications forthcoming. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Dnepropetrovsk Street is the main street of Krasnoarmeisk, leading northwest to Dnepropetrovsk. It tried matching this to the street corner where the car dealership is located. Yandex Maps did not provide a street view. It could be there, but too few details to make a positive match. Whatever this is, it is not evidence for anything. The least the SBU could have done is provide the location and some corroborating photographs.<br />
:The same applies to all so called "evidence" provided by Ukraine and the US State Department. As far as I can tell it is only cut-and-paste of unrelated footage to ''illustrate'' the claims made. A perfect example of this illusion is the "satellite photos" of Russian artillery shelling Ukraine released on Sunday morning. A photo of Russian GRADs on some unidentifiable field was placed next to a satellite image with an arrow pointing "Here Be Monsters!" Purely illustrative and no proof. There is a difference between legerdemain Hocus Pocus and outright forgery. The Russian video presentation displayed screen capture recording from the ATC radar, usually stored for two weeks. For this to be a hoax, Russia would need to create a forged tape of the radar data. Highly unlikely, as the the claim of authenticity had support of the full authority and prestige of the Russian Armed Forces. If the US presentation turns out to be hoax, State Department will claim the photos were never meant to be evidence. Some internee was told to prepare a presentation using stock images for some facts they ''knew'' to be true – trust us! -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 14:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: You must have missed [https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BtZSVQrIMAARzKr.jpg:large this], Petri! ;oP --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 18:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
::: That is an awesomely perfect picture for this sorry episode so far. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 14:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
::It would be neat though if we could show where this is and thus which way its's headed. The Kiev authorities, I think, know what happened. They say it was this exact launcher missing two missiles. It could be. Where is it at filming time and where headed? If it's true this same one was in Torez (dubious but possible) we'd have a direction traveled until that point also, and a rough time, 8:30 or so. [http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jul/27/mh17-storyful-social-media-twitter-youtube The Guardian again] citing Storyful's open-source investigation: <br />
::::''“There are now four pieces of content – three pieces of video and one image – which, in the case of three, conclusively show a Buk [surface-to-air] missile within rebel-held territory and in the case of the fourth, almost definitely in their territory,” says Storyful executive editor David Clinch. “Of those four pieces, individual groups or companies probably verified in or around the same time one or another of them.”''<br />
:''Open Newsroom verified three pieces of content and is investigating the fourth, thanks to its 900-strong network of journalists and experts. ''''<br />
:The fourth is this video. Wouldn't it be a coup if we were the first to place it? Force that intern excuse and then laugh at it. That said, it's not the most likely to place but you, Petri, especially, might be able to. I think I might. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 22:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* [https://plus.google.com/118234537318646233652/posts/LZV1XZD854E James Miller Google + July 21] "Was a Buk sighted in Krasnoarmeysk or Krasnodon (continued analysis)? We've taken a new look at this video which has been debated since it was posted days ago. We're fairly confident, though not 100% confident, in this geoanalysis, but we're making significant progress. Any more information would be extremely helpful. " Cited: [http://www.interpretermag.com/russia-this-week-lurid-anti-ukraine-propaganda-broadcast-on-state-tv/#1753 Russia This Week: Defense Ministry Claim on Buk in Billboard Video Doesn’t Add Up]<br />
:''...As we reported on our Ukraine Liveblog, the Buk was spotted before the shoot-down of the Malaysian airplane and ultimately geolocated to the town of Torez, near the location of the crash in Grabovo. Then the video, taken early the next morning on 18 July, showed a scene in Krasnodon,... <br />
--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Google Earth has one photo [http://www.panoramio.com/photo/55329278 from ул. Днепропетровская.] The street has about the same width. The streetlights are not quite the same. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 14:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
::That image doesn't help a match, especially since by now it looks like Lugansk. For the record, there was a go by pro-rebel social media people at identifying a spot in town to explain the video scene, but it didn't do that either. [http://wikimapia.org/#lat=48.276196&lon=37.176087&z=18&l=0&m=b this spot on Wikimapia] is what they pointed to - filmed from the marked building, they say, looking southwest to the mall. No matching anything. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 02:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== Placed in Lugansk! ====<br />
[[File:MH17 Billboard Vid-Lugansk Match.png|right|800px]]Storyful's rundown states of this video:<br />
:''The footage is not the original, however we believe that the first instance of this footage was removed by the uploader and the version below is the earliest we can find. Ukrainian Interior Minister, Arsen Avakov, made early claims that the video was filmed in the Ukrainian town of Krasnodon near the Russian border, however collaborative geo-location was able to place the footage in southwestern Luhansk.'' <ref name="Story1" /> <br />
It links to "Bellingcat," which you have to pay to see much of. [https://plus.google.com/118234537318646233652/posts/bMdeBzY8yty James Miller] passes on that it's "Mystery SOLVED: Video released by Ukraine's Interior Ministry does in fact show a Buk, possibly missing several missiles, in Lugansk headed east from the MH17 crash site and in the direction of Russia." The spot they think matches the video (better panorama coming) is [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=48%C2%B032'44.7%22N+39%C2%B015'52.6%22E&ie=UTF8&ll=48.545926,39.265147&spn=0.002436,0.00611&t=h&cid=0&z=18 here on Google Maps]. Was that a highway? Where's the cross-street? I see elsewhere they have a high view showing the same basic billboard there, but that's going to be true of several spots in this area. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
My impression of the scene - based on the panoramic view below - is far from matching with this. That does not look like a highway, and it just seems like a small town. However, I finally saw some of the supporting images (see [http://news.bigmir.net/ukraine/827864-V-Lygansk-vehala-kolonna-voennoi-tehniki--SMI here] and [https://twitter.com/djp3tros/status/491651820188860416/photo/1 here] - source of the inset image.) It seems a likely match after all. I won't say I confirm it with any certainty, but I don't think I'll be challenging it like I was preparing to do. Note the different billboard in the right spot, and the matching one over there. There are other images, apparently more current, showing that that they moved the one sign over to the right spot They don't point to the pinkish roofed building beyond the red-roofed one, but that adds to the match (compare to below). Whenever this video was made and whatever it really means, it seems quite likely it was at this spot in Lugansk shortly before dawn. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
There is another video from June 2014 showing the same billboard with the same car ad:<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ez8cZ3nqjCs Луганск 02 07 14]<br />
The video shows a column of BMPs with one 9K35 Strela-10 short-range surface to air missile system passing the intersection in Lugansk. I suspect they came from Russia, as [https://www.facebook.com/groups/IOUCO/permalink/584402078339517/ I specifically asked] for Putin to send in the Russian tanks that morning. They passed exactly when I expected them to, at 6 minutes past 4 am. (I estimated it would take 2 hours 6 minutes from the border.) -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 17:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== ACLOS Review ====<br />
As noted above, my review agrees with the placement agreed by the others. For what it's worth, the huge panorama I made (the middle is full-resolution) and starting notes from before I realized no work was needed. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 03:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
[[File:MH17 Billboard Video Pan.png|center|880px]]<br />
It seems to be filmed near the edge of town, or edge of a hill anyway, with a clear view ahead, two vague homes/buildings seen down the slope. Otherwise, very non-descript. The angle of intersection will be one of the better clues - it looks to me not 90 degrees ( |- ), but with the road the truck is on either slanting or curving somewhat towards the camera ( /- ). One important observation: '''there's no logical reason he should have been just happening to film this area''' unless he knew something interesting would drive by at just this odd time. That's clarified by how he zooms in just before it enters frame - he was waiting for that truck. How did he know about it? Informants on the other side of town phoning ahead makes enough sense, I suppose. <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 launcher truck composite.png|left|480px]]Another issue: If this is dusk (sunset 8:20 PM local), isn't this facing roughly northwest? If so, this vehicle is driving roughly north, not south. And we might start looking on the west edge of town. There's a highway out to the northwest, back towards Kiev. This street is too narrow and unmarked to be the highway, obviously, but it might be driving that way, for example. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
:Or, alternately, he's facing towards the sun about to rise, early on the 18th, as alleged by the Interior Ministry) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
::That he happened to be filming just before dawn is even less likely than dusk. He clearly knew this was coming, whatever that means. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 03:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Above is the composite scene without truck. At left is the truck without background. Besides lightening the scene, it seemed worth getting the clearest details from different frames into a composite view of the truck and its load. This helps compare to the launchers seen in other areas and different times. So far, they all seem to look the same and perhaps be the same. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 03:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br /><br />
<br />
==== HRI ====<br />
Pretty good points [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/08/05/mh17-the-lugansk-buk-video/ from Human Rights Investigations]:<br />
:''To sum up, the statement of Avakov, the film and its location suggest the Ukrainian authorities had advance knowledge of this BUK and trailer’s movements or control over it. It is also extremely strange that this BUK, allegedly after shooting down MH17, is supposedly filmed by a Ukrainian surveillance team in ostensibly rebel territory, with its covering missing, as if to show the world a missile is missing.''<br />
--[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Paris Match Photo ===<br />
[[File:MH17 Paris Match.png|770px]]<br /><br />
* [http://www.parismatch.com/Actu/International/EXCLU-MATCH-Un-camion-vole-pour-transporter-le-systeme-lance-missiles-577289 Originally published by Paris Match] on July 25, with the claim the picture was taken by their own reporting team near Snizhne at mid-day on the 17th. Note the prominent, apparent, telephone number prominently centered in the picture - (050) 471-41-80. The truck and launcher, as far as can be seen, are quite similar to or the same as the one seen in the billboard video anyways. How many of its missiles the unit has at this moment is unclear. <br />
<br />
* [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/07/28/why-is-paris-match-on-the-location-of-a-buk/ Human Rights Investigations:] "it turns out to have been taken in Donetsk, 75km away" (citing someone else's geo-location - [https://www.google.com/maps/@48.004592,37.87265,3a,75y,63.38h,82.21t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sRGnHwZ5YZnuGO-n_VvruWg!2e0 site link given.] <br />
:''We know this because the phone number on the truck panel (050 471 4180) leads straight to this hire place (photo):<br />
:''According to Paris-Match, the proprietor of this establishment claimed “rebels” had stolen a number of his vehicles earlier in the month. If we go from here to towards Snizhne we find the location of the Paris-Match photo, near a car dealership on Makiivske Highway on the outskirts of Donetsk:''<br />
:''After informing Paris-Match of the mistake regarding the video location, the author of the article Alfred De Montesquiou has now got back and explained:''<br />
:''Hello, indeed, it appears there was a mixup in caption : the picture was taken leaving Donetsk on road to Snijne, not in actual Snijne'' <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Donestk Buk Map.png|thumb|right|480px|Map: this truck location, the company's apparent headquarters ([https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Molodykh+Shakhtariv+St,+19,+Donetsk,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&ll=48.044923,37.783184&spn=0.079187,0.195522&hnear=Molodykh+Shakhtariv+St,+19,+Donetsk,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&t=h&z=13 GM link]), and the A-1402 missile base relative to each other.]]<br />
<br />
'''Questions:''' Was it a caption mix-up, or did their team really not know where it was taken, and just believed the real source when he said Snizneh? Who is the true photographer who knew to catch this picture near the company's base, apparently at the outset of a rather epic journey? Why did the rebel thieves leave the prominent phone number on the stolen truck used for such an important task? It wound up leading to man who pointed right to the rebel thieves, and prove yet again separatists, not Kiev allies, were the ones driving BUKs around. Was that so hard to foresee? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''To Do:''' Verify the geo-location - set a time, presuming July 17, by sunlight and that location - establish which way it's traveling relative to the government-run anti-aircraft base just a few km north of here and relative to the other places and times this truck and others were spotted rolling around prominently and getting filmed a lot by the right kind of people, in areas presumed to be impenetrable to any such frame-up operation - look into this company, etc. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''Location:''' I can't confirm it with certainty, but it's extremely consistent. Two standard but distinct pole types that close together on the right with a pull-over lane ending at the blue one, and consistent-scale foliage behind. Proceding on the location as likely enough to warrant the work. The stretch of highway identified runs northeast, heading 33 degrees. The truck is most likely not driving at the moment, as it's in the pull-over lane. But it's pointed as if ready to leave Donetsk as soon as they finish doing something in theis spot. All we can see they're doing is getting filmed, and maybe that's just what they're waiting for. Ahead would be the an industrial area, the eastern suburb of Makiivka, then Khartsyzk, etc. and further east Torez and Snizhne (driving times unsure, date also unsure. Russia claims the one launcher left the northern base sometime between in August 14 and 17 images. <ref name="RT10">[http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ 10 more questions Russian military pose to Ukraine, US over MH17 crash] RT. July 21, 2014</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
There is more to consider about this truck, its company, its owner, and his story. But other than this photo's extra-clear view of the phone number and apparent proximity to headquarters, those are better covered in the section below [[#The Truck Owner's Story]].<br />
<br />
==== Time? ====<br />
[[File:MH17 Paris Match elev.png|right|220px]]'''Time:''' I'm not sure how exactly to set this up, but the shadows appear to stretch almost right across the highway, with only a slight northern shift. The azimuth thus appears to be fairly close to to 140˚ (reached at 11:09 AM). As for solar altitude, trying to line up the launcher's corner with its shadow gives a reading of app. 56˚ (= 10:50 AM, with azimuth 133˚) or perhaps 59˚ (= 11:18, az 143.5). The graphic shows both readings. Which is better? I used [http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/solcalc/ NOAA solar calculator], with coordinates: lat 48.017102 long:37.9037626 time=GMT+2, DST +1 --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Bellingcat was originally claiming that photo was taken at 9 am. [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/09/08/images-show-the-buk-that-downed-flight-mh17-inside-russia-controlled-by-russian-troops/] <br />
<br />
Then they were claiming 11 am as an obvious time without retracting previous 9am claim. [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/11/08/origin-of-the-separatists-buk-a-bellingcat-investigation/] <br />
<br />
Seems like 9am was more comfortable for them to match to photos from Zuhres and Torez. <br />
<br />
Sorry, using smartphone. Not very easy to comment --[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 01:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:<small>Looks like you put the same link twice, -it says 11 a.m.--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)</small><br />
::Antidyatel, welcome! Resup, thanks! I'd like to see any 9 am citation. But otherwise they agree on it being around 11? Good. The significance below is if the Zuhres square photo was taken at 11:40 AM as they say, it's basically impossible these images are from the same day as alleged - 69 km, 1 hour 14 mins drive between the spots, when there's only 20-40 minutes between the images. However, fudging it - let's say this is 10:50 and the other is 12:00 as I read it - that's 1:10 between, almost a perfect match. So maybe this isn't a great lead (I was never convinced it was). But 9:00 is way off and suggests they were fudging it to fit at that point. Would be good to document. BTW, on talk pages you can sign with <nowiki>--~~~~</nowiki> or the sign/scribble button. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: [https://web.archive.org/web/20141109132514/https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/11/08/origin-of-the-separatists-buk-a-bellingcat-investigation/ First archive.org snapshot] from the day after publishing (edit: a good three months after you called it :o)) says 11 am already. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 10:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: Okay, the links were fixed once or twice and [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/11/08/origin-of-the-separatists-buk-a-bellingcat-investigation/ the November report] says 11 am, not citing an azimuth or anything, just Paris Match saying it was "about 11 am," which doesn't count much for verification. The [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/09/08/images-show-the-buk-that-downed-flight-mh17-inside-russia-controlled-by-russian-troops/ earlier report from Sptember] might be based on something else when it mentions "a well known image from Paris Match, which shows a Buk in Donetsk at 9am on July the 17th." Neither one sounds like a firm final version. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== Screenshot from dashcam video? ====<br />
[[File:Paris Match on dashcam 1.jpg|right|400px]]<br />
[[File:Paris Match on dashcam 2.jpg|right|400px]]<br />
It it possible to identify if the photo was made by dashboard camera, smartphone, or other type of camera. Paris Match claimed that they made the photo. There are no date markings on the photo, which is strange. Position of the camera is such that it was either dashboard camera or the driver was making a photo (front and left side of the car). Paris Match was also implying in their report that it was a group of people in the car. "A sytem BUK missile launcher is photopgraphie by the team of Paris-Match in the suburbs of Donetsk, on the road to Snizhne the morning of July 17, hours before the flight Malaysia Airlines MH17 crash."[http://m.parismatch.com/Actu/International/EXCLU-MATCH-Un-camion-vole-pour-transporter-le-systeme-lance-missiles-577289]<br />
<br />
Why would they ask driver to make a photo? Dangerous or uncomfortable - illogical. If it was a dashboard camera, why not to release a video? And most importantly it would have a time stamp. <br />
<br />
Also in this report [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/01/17/new-images-of-the-mh17-buk-missile-launcher-in-ukraine-and-russia/] gives a new, a bit extended photo. Surprisingly the back of the BUK is nicely in focus, same as the truck cabin. While middle of the BUK is defocused. No wonder Paris Match cropped it. Bellingcat, that likes being so strict about photos, totally ignores this part. <br />
-- [[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 23:55,, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Yes, I agree. The two photos are crops from screenshots from a dashcam video. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 00:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
::Those must be two different shots at close-by time --look at position of street lamppost with respect to the truck cabin, one has it over black pipe, and the other more to the right from there. Can't think of a natural way for camera to focus on two different distances (maybe dirty and curvy windshield can be blamed but on tricky side here)-- FWIW. Usually dashboards have short focal length so that anything appear to be in focus; don't know why not the case here --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
RESUP, you are right. Those are two different shots. There is cable reflection from the windshield. Probably the cable is another indication of the dashboard camera.--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 13:35, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::I heard somewhere that it was a dashcam still, and I thought probably so. We all agree on that. As for the two images, I didn't know, will compare. Might compare. Why no video is a good question with at least o-ne true answer. Keep an eye out for possible ones. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:53, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Look at the link name for the Paris-Match photo https://wp4553-flywheel.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/PM2-BUK-Snijne17072014.jpeg<br />
Why would they name this photo from Donetsk using the name Snijne? What is PM2? Was it some folder that only consistent the storyline with focus on Snijne? Did Bellingcat have other options to fall back after they can’t defend it anylonger<br />
<br />
Funny thing about Bellingcat’s questionable standards of research. So much effort of looking for manipulation in Russian MOD photos. Let’s do the same trick with Paris-Match photo. Here http://fotoforensics.com/analysis.php?id=17a82272d17dbbb2abb0b784f10b3c64d5870562.186081<br />
BUK is very distinct from other objects in the ELA picture. Does it prove that photo is fake or photoshoped. Don’t know and don’t care. Just enjoy exposing Bellingcat hypocrisy. Why weren’t they interested to do the same if they are so confident in that tool and that picture is so critical for their story<br />
--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 10:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
:Those b-cats used their monies to produce another [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/06/12/july-17-imagery-mod-comparison/ opus]. Not sure I have spare time or enthusiasm to look much into this; after a brief look, clearly different viewpoints, different squeeze distortion on some photos at least, and different image quality -for example, black field with small variations in MoD may be not inconsistent with roads in that field seen in higher quality color photo; etc. Not sure how accurate is timing on either of the versions; do they really have photos of every place at every hour/ half hour/etc at DG? If Buk was moved, it was moved at certain time, and shortly before that time it can be photographed staying put there--need to have enough accurately timed photos for a conclusion. Now with MoD doing press conference, they would not through their best photos as they are at the journos; need to look at what they released officially to the investigation for saying anything meaningful. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Torez Square Photo ===<br />
[[File:MH17 Torez Buk Analysis.png|left]]This is another image geo-located by the Brown Moses network (ally Aric Toller) to central Torez, [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Donetsk&hl=en&ll=48.023472,38.614014&spn=0.004923,0.01222&hnear=Donetsk,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&t=h&z=17 here on Google Maps.] Like others, it was initially stated as in another locale - Snizhne - and that had to be corrected. I can agree the location pointed to is either the photo's site or one strangely like it. [http://mashable.com/2014/07/23/citizen-journalists-mh17-spies/ Mashable noted] "Toler and Higgins were able to establish that the photograph was shot around 11:40 a.m. local time." I tried a quick azimuth measure, eyeballed relative only to the blue car, and got 165 degrees (yellow line, read backwards). This equates to a time of almost exactly 12:00 noon (about 30 minutes before solar noon, and 20 minutes later than their estimate). Seeing they're close to right, I'll presume they're closer than me and defer to 11:40. <br />
<br />
If this photo is taken at 11:40 AM, and it's the same truck seen leaving Donetsk around 11-11:20 AM, it's impossible these images are from the same day as alleged (Gmaps says it's 68.8 km, 1 hour 14 mins drive, when there's only 20-40 minutes between the images). That would mean multiple mobile launchers with multiple "Titan" trucks, or just one but with some date fudging. The company says a number of its trucks were stolen, so matching multiples are entirely likely. But so is date fudging, multiples or not. If that's so, I suspect the Donetsk photo was from July 15 or 16, and this one more likely from the day of the crime. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 04:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br /><br /><br /><br />
=== Zuhres Video ===<br />
[[File:Buk Zuhres Vid.png|right|480px]]Again, a truck of that same type loaded with the same apparent weapon is briefly seen driving east (detail at right). This one was never reported wrong and was in fact pre-geo-located by the uploader [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=48%C2%B0+1'1.38%22N++38%C2%B018'6.04%22E&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=48.034019,38.391724&spn=0.629958,1.564178&gbv=2&hnear=H21,+Zuhres,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&gl=us&t=h&z=10 here in Zuhres.] Higgins confirms, 100% sure, and others concur. <ref name="Story1" /> Zuhres location: on highway H21 halfway between Donetsk and the general disaster zone - 36 km east by road from the position of the truck in the Paris Match photo. I agree with the location, refined below as I lined up in the still used here - the blue line runs between the blue thing and the building corner (footprint, not roofline) to the front of the truck as it passes. <br />
<br />
The sky is fairly overcast, so solar angles can't be measured precisely; the differences in facet lighting are clear but not massive. A broad and inclusive azimuth range of 167˚ to 214˚ (rounded) is shown by the yellow arrows below. This yields a range (to the nearest minute) of 12:09 PM and 1:45 PM. The best middle is a bit early - 185 degrees. That would be 12:44 PM. Altitude, at solar noon, helps little. 12:09, 12:44, and all times between round off to 63˚. if that simply looks too high, we're forced to the later end of the time frame. - 57˚ at 1:45. My super broad-estimate: 12:45 +/- 50 minutes. Weather at this time on whatever day - as noted, it partly overcast, and it's windy. The clouds are moving fast, with slight lighting changes visible in just these few seconds. Winds by the swaying trees are from the southeast, perhaps, blowing northwest - at least at the building with a face running that way.<br />
[[File:Buk Zuhres analysis.png|center|680px]]<br />
<br />
==The Truck Owner's Story==<br />
The apparent owner of the white truck so important to the MH17 operation was of course tracked down via the giant phone number for his compant on its side. Interviewed at least twice now, first by Paris Match, then by Lithuanian agency Alfa, this businessman has been anonymized as Vassili (then Vasilijus). Thorough summary of the related, alleged facts, from each (translated) report:<br />
* [http://www.parismatch.com/Actu/International/EXCLU-MATCH-Un-camion-vole-pour-transporter-le-systeme-lance-missiles-577289 Paris Match, July 25:]<br />
:''Photographs of Paris Match showed that the rebels had failed to remove the billboard on the truck they had stolen. Thus we joined the owner of the vehicle. Vassili said the rebels occupied warehouses on the outskirts of Donetsk since July 8. "They are fighters Slaviansk. They landed and told me they loved my premises and we had to escape. They shipped me a dozen large vehicles, including the white truck. I do not know what happened to them, "admitted Vassili, distraught.'' (that was actually just what they published, aside from context material) <br />
<br />
* [http://www.alfa.lt/straipsnis/472203/alfa-lt-isskirtinis-interviu-su-raketas-buk-kuriomis-buvo-numustas-malaizijos-avialiniju-lektuvas-gabenusio-vilkiko-savininku?p=1#.U-GIxeOSyuZ Alfa.lt, July 29:]<br />
:''This person's testimony is crucial. After it becomes indisputably known that anti-missile system, which shot down a passenger plane was precisely the Kremlin-sponsored terrorist hands. ''<br />
Here, separatists are throughout called "terrorists" (Bezler is "the "People's Republic of Donetsk" terrorist gangs ringleader"). Vassili says these took over and occupied his company premises on July 8, taking the white truck - they said because it was needed He says they stayed in control of his facility for 8 days, apparently departing on the 9th day - July 17. Becuase of this, he and his staff - especially his drivers - were unable to do anything that whole time. He's entirely certain it's his truck in the videos (the phone number says so) as it's the only one of its type in that part of Donetsk (Žinoma, ji – vienintelė tokia Donecko srityje, tokios kitos nėra. Tokios „Volvo“ su tokia kabina). He says he still hasn't seen it since.<br />
:''...more and more irrefutable evidence that Russia supported the terrorists shot down over the temporary control of the territory in the east of Ukraine aboard passenger "Malaysia Airlines plane, and later sought to hide evidence.''<br />
But as Paris Match noted, they couldn't be bothered to detach the phone number to the guy with the whole dang story. <br />
:''Alfa.lt knowledge of the personal data, company name, knows his responsibilities and phone numbers (one is (050) 471-41-80), but because of '''the danger to his life''' that can not be published. "Stop saying my name, and I already have enough problems," said new horrific crime witness Vasilijus.'' <br />
This is valid; of course his best defense would have been to simply ''not'' implicate the separatists mostly running Donetsk, but it's too late now. DPR authorities might want him for questioning. And especially now that he's been publicized as a "crucial witness," others will want him to '''appear to have been brutally murdered by them''' (he will have served his main purpose by now, perhaps). I hope someone's able to arrange protective custody quickly enough, or that he can arrange his own vacation, or convince his friends (he'll know the ones) of his continuing usefulness to them alive. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Titan Gate blurry.png|left|380px]]Further bits on the business: Wikimapia has labels. One for the front building is generic. In English writing: [http://wikimapia.org/#lat=48.0399571&lon=37.794637&z=16&l=0&m=b&show=/24479492/Ochakivska-vulytsia-19 Ochakivska vulytsia, 19]. Beneath: Category: safety, '''private security company.''' Around this, a bigger labeled area including the back building and surrounding lot. Label: Территория службы охраны "Титан" Translated, it says "Territory protection service "Titan" (Donetsk)." Beneath it: "Category: '''Do not display name''', fenced area." (не отображать название, огороженная территория) Below, their gate area as it appears in Human Rights Investigation's still, and three versions I've seen randomly changing over the last day or so with different parts that could be the name blurred out (most recently back to not blurred). Is that unusual? I predict further twists in this, with the truck found somewhere bolstering the Kiev story, and with the company's "outing" being manipulated somehow. Feels a little spooky. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
;Assessing "Vassili's" Story<br />
<br />
There are a number of problems with and interesting questions about this witness' story and how it meshes with other allegation (details forthcoming).<br />
<br />
In Vassili's defense, I'll say the world needs to hear more. What happened in these eight days? Were Russian officers coming and going? Poring over air charts in the side room, before closing the door with an annoyed look? A lot could have happened - this could be a gold mine of direct evidence for war crimes trials of these terrorist gang's leaders (as understood). --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
[[File:MH17 Vassili's Truck August 1c.png|right|400px]]<br />
An apparent support: as HRI found, [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/08/07/new-sighting-of-volvo-linked-to-buk/ New sighting of Volvo linked to BUK?] August 7 - One of those provocatively deleted tweets, quite recent with a supposedly same-day (dawn or sunset) photo from somewhere in Donetsk - outskirtsy, like where <s>rebel</s> I mean Kiev junta forces proudly claim to almost be. this photo (saved by HRI) shows "a truck" carrying a tank, driving behind another tank. The posted thought it was for a new roadblack/barricade (concrete slabs were also being hauled). It appears to be the same truck Vassili says he lost, or one just like it. And this does look like the type of thing seaparatists would do if they had seized it, and still didn't realize how famous it had become. This thing likes to drive at dawn, doesn't it? How are checkpoints then, a little sleepy maybe? Hmmm... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::(added later: inset image - from the photo, color-corrected and cropped on just the truck - for full view see the article or below) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: FTR I took up HRI's challenge to identify the truck on that picture and did so with almost 100% certainty. It's a Volvo FH second generation (2001-2013) with low cabin. Like [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Volvo_LKW_Fahrerhaus.JPG this one] which has a higher cabin but other than that is quite a match. Also FTR, I noticed that the twitter account has "Donbass Bandera" as location, which can but must not mean anything. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: Bandera might mean something, in context, but no time to puzzle too much. Good ID work there. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Vassili's Truck August 1 Loc.png|left|380px]]The article passes on a geo-location I can confirm: [https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Makiivka,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine/@48.04073,37.967479,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m5!1e2!3m3!1s78165143!2e1!3e10!4m2!3m1!1s0x40e08e984a0db9a9:0xe4e52efde2e0641c Here on Google Maps,] photo taken, as described, from "opposite the Vostochno-evroppeyskiy restaurant & lounge “Atrium” in Makiivka on the H-21." A site photo of the "Atrium" is included. The graphic I made at left shows the approximate view, including the stairwell (to a subway station?), though the billboard is less clear. The view is roughly towards the rising sun northeast - a rough azimuth measure suggests the sun is shining from about <s>66</s> 71 degrees from north, for a time of around <s>5:24</s> 5:52 AM (elevation: <s>1.8</s> 6 degrees). --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC) and corrections --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
FWIW, I went over to militaryphotos.net and scanned [http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?236005-Situation-in-the-Ukraine-Crimea-*Photos-Videos*-ONLY/page200 the thread about Ukraine starting on page 200] in very early July, up until page 225 when all the known truck/BUK info and disinfo was posted. Watched countless military convoys, including a whole bunch from Donetsk in the time between. Not a sign of the truck in question. If it was in "rebel" hands since July 8 like the alleged owner claims, they used it only for "special ops", alone in the early morning or so, not in their larger relocation operations. Two things remotely interesting: in an operation [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0JdcC324Ek reactivating a WWII tank from a war museum in Donetsk], a similar trailer is used, but the truck is a different one. And in [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2eGNPJlkMo this video from July 5] but without given location, the Ukie army does some operations and two BUK TELARs are seen. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Possible Launch Sites ==<br />
*Launch site discussion here is based on a photo of disputed provenance, said to be made '''near [[Category_talk:Ukraine#Torez|Torez]]''', showing a plume of smoke (see on the right and below). Exact date is disputed, but it was posted shortly after the accident. A late update or second version of the photo emerged in December 2014; this is further discussed in the [[File_talk:MH17_Launch_Plume.png|talk page for the photo]]. A different launch location in '''Artemovsk''', based on Bezler account, is discussed elsewhere [[Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17#Bezler_Account|(link).]] . <br />
<br />
===What do we know? ===<br />
Questions about the photo, --if it is genuine-- include:<br />
<br />
*What is shown on the photo? (Likely a missile launch, but can be MANPAD, or some other launch; raising fire smoke not excluded though less likely) <br />
*When was the photo made? (Claimed to be couple of minutes after the MH 17 shootdown launch; but could be made on earlier days)<br />
*Where was the photographer, and where is than the 'launch site" Photograph claimed to be made in Torez (4 microdistrict?) . Claimed launch sites locations are [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/launch-location-detected-of-missile.html SE] or [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2107 NE] from the photographer. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
A site, or maybe a couple of locations, have now been forwarded, based on compelling evidence, as likely SAM launch sites of July 17 or thereabouts. This is worth careful consideration here. To start:<br />
<br />
* [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10984530/MH17-the-clues-which-may-lead-to-missile-launch-site.html UK Telegraph, July 22] This report with some detail and a photo visits a few areas where signs of possible BUK launcher movement and firing occurred recently. Caterpillar tracks, mostly light, signs of burning, various debris left behind, all or mostly "in the area of the town of Snizhnoye." These details might suggest whoever did this had multiple launchers set up in different areas that left as soon as the operation/accident was done. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
::So far, signs are saying it was just the one. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Below: The site shown on video, stitched panoramic view (with confusing curve). This helps get the fullest set of geo-location clues. I may even check if this is the same spot identified by Ukraine@War, below. It should be, or we might have two firing locations pretty near each other, which would be odd. The firing direction from here would be northwest, almost directly along MH17's flight path. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
[[File:MH17 Telegraph site.png|center|940px]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Launch Plume.png|right|340px]]Ukraine@War: [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/launch-location-detected-of-missile.html Launch location detected of missile that brought down MH17] The photo at right, cited by Kiev as proof of a BUK launch in the right area, July 17. The anlysis here looks good on first blush and lines the filming to northern Torez, plume on a line including a supposed patch of cat tracks just revelaed by fresh Google/GeoEye images of some fields [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Donetsk&hl=en&ll=47.989347,38.773155&spn=0.078813,0.195522&t=h&hnear=Donetsk,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&z=13 here] by Snizhne. As traced, the tracks look realistic to me. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: There is (a disappeared) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUvK5m2vxro BBC video ] suggesting that smoke is from a direction of Saur-Mogila (= constant fighting) and a coal mine. <br />
::Thus smoke may be unrelated to the launch. Also timing of photo is unclear. <br />
:: Buk trail from unrelated launch videos appears considerably [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDXScnEKaP0 more impressive than on the photo] , and traces well visible trajectory, likely attracting attention of many people . But there appears to be no witness reports. <br />
::Buk appears to use [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_navigation proportional navigation method], and if so, its navigation control will try to guide it on a straight path to impact.<br />
::Unless it was doing something else (but can it??? the answer requires expert knowledge), it was most likely on a straight line trajectory which can be deduced from the impact direction.<br />
--[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 00:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Yes, an odd video. I'm not certain they even picked the right view, but it looks about right - I think she and Oliphant (Telegraph) point to the same monument as a landmark - a place of fighting. Seems like they got close, but didn't have a specific spot like U@W picked, and didn't find anything. As for angle, I think it can maneuver around, but would prefer to fly straight (not an expert, don't know what "prefer" means here). And if it was hit head-on like the impact marks suggest, then it probably did fly just about straight into the jet. Obviously if it came over the wing, and was fired from here, it would have to curl around, but I don't think that's the case. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
<br />
The satellite images cited at Ukraine@War are available if you have Google Earth. As explained [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/satellite-images-reveal-how-buk-has.html here,] there's a .kmz package you can download [https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxEeOqcjSE5uQXlkWkxKeVhDaEk/edit here] that loads on Google Earth new, murky images from July 20 (but the display still says August, 2013). The tracks he highlights are visible, faintly. There are a couple sets perhaps connecting - some could be local paths - there's no recent enough images to say there weren't there July 16. One important missing thing is a patch of burnt grass it seems should show up up differently - it's not identified there, and not evident right around these tracks. From this, it's not a great fit, except that line of sight pointing here. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Plastic Debris 1.png|left|280px]]So is the Telegraph site and the Ukraine@War site the same thing? Well, the Telegraph article says they went to the spot identified on a blog, but found, as the image suggests: Two possible launch sites – a rundown collective farm and a nearby wheat field – showed some track marks but no sign of any rocket launch whatsoever." It was a farmer plowing his fields there who pointed them to ''a field nearby'' that burned the other day, and that 's the unclear site they show. "The location of the fire lies on the supposed flight path of the rocket, and track marks – though indistinct – are present. Some unidentifiable bits of green plastic littered the site of the fire." There were also discarded bottles (type unclear) and apparently this oddity, shown in a photo but not mentioned - soft bakelite-type plastic ... thing, with years in the 1980s and 1990s stamped in it. It's all near enough to the rebel town, the Russian border, and concealed rebel positions that they think only rebels could operate there. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
First, let's note that author "P. Martin" connects these possibly relevant tracks with the surveillance video showing the Buk launcher driving south The Telegraph spot, from the burnt grass, must the spot the exhaust pushed off from, and the burn line should probably be to the northwest. There's no sign of that alongside these track marks found on that visual line. That's a problem, as the exhaust never said a luncher was driving around thataway, but rather launching from thataway. <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Telegraph Spot Mapped.png|right|380px]][[File:MH17 Telegraph Spot Cleared.png|right|320px]]Rather, it's the nearby "Telegraph spot" - not quite on his line but close - that [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com/2014/07/exact-location-pinpointed-of-mh17.html Martin thinks is the EXACT location] That, he thinks, is in the next field south. It should be visible in the updated imagery, but it turns out this is just off the edge of the area they provided, so it can't be verified or ruled out based on that. The inset graphic shows this cut-off line, his previous possible firing locations (track-based, seemingly un-burnt, in yellow) The spot yields a best placement with coordinates already noted by Petri in a section [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Map#Buk locations and flight paths|here.]] (I picked out the spot myself, best guess, and got the same but 3 seconds east) It can't be checked like that for the telltale stripe to the northwest, but it looks pretty likely to me. The main view down the tracks (left half of the panorama above) would be looking south, and the near line of trees on the right running west. The pretty obvious tracks he identifies as likely launcher tracks, and they do seem to curve in where it stopped. Otherwise, to me, this has more the look of a pre-travelles semi-road on the line between fields. Either way, it probably drove that way, and fired from here, and not from the un-burnt spots north. All the tracks he notes, none certain in themselves, are supported in their possible relevance by this being what's at the end of the trail. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC) and [[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Added in November, the image below that. I noticed Google Maps had new post-crash imagery up, and re-checked the spot for burn marks, since it was just off the grid before. This replacement - overlayed with translucence - seems too late. The strip most likely to show the signs has apparently been harvested/cleared before this image Some will say that constitutes a coverup. And it might, but probably just out of stupid reflexive nervousness. I just wanted to measure its angle and stuff. There is a nice track right up to the spot, likely pre-existing and just unclear before, and what they used to get there. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Location Challenged ===<br />
<br />
The above stuff, as of now and as I've been running it mainly, seems to bear out the vaunted "social media sleuths" placing the launcher and probably the launch in "separatist-held territory." I agree with all locations provided, and times too. Everyone acknowledges date is less sure. There are compelling clues pointing to concrete firing spot, that seems to be lined up the hit the jet head-on, as it's starting to seem the airliner was hit. In this narrative, the questions people should be asking is who was really running that. But readings differ, and some differing views can be considered here. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* [https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByibNV3SiUoobnpCVDduaHVORHM/edit?usp=sharing MH17 Analysis] – CDN <br />
<br />
Petri posted this to the front page, a 25-page report with many graphics and explained reasoning. One of its conclusions, based on range to impact, mainly, meant that "the missile that downed MH17 was not fired from Snizhne." At the moment, I disagree. Petri, who is CDN, and are they soliciting feedback? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::The anonymous PDF was published via Saker's blog: [http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/08/detailed-expert-analysis-of-mh17-downing.html Detailed expert analysis of the MH17 downing] "CDN" has [http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/08/detailed-expert-analysis-of-mh17-downing.html?showComment=1407347983141#c8862773971299986141 responded] [http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/08/detailed-expert-analysis-of-mh17-downing.html?showComment=1407350196815#c7564049628743605813 twice] in the comments. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 00:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
I think these might be part of what threw the author(s) off:<br />
# the heading seems to be off, too southerly to trace back like that. At the end, maybe close enough<br />
# possibly too-wide debris field starting too early - final breakup likely E-NE of their spot (ie closer to in range)<br />
# Wrong presumed angle of impact <br />
# Lack of knowledge, specified on page 23, of this contrail image or, obviously, the supporting clues pointing to what might be "the Telegraph site" excluded here. "Why are there no images of the rebel missile and its impressive launch contrail?" Oops, there is and it point there. <br />
--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: I just skimmed it before coming here. It was posted [http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.de/2014/08/detailed-expert-analysis-of-mh17-downing.html over here] where you can join the discussion (which I haven't read yet just saw that Petri is there chiming in in comment 2 of currently 93). I think it's first valuable in presenting the known capabilities of the Buk etc. If your stuff above is true and it is one single truck with one single TELAR that was seen in the different locations, then it shows quite conclusively that the Telegraph position can not be the launching point, because even if the Ukie claim of disappearance from Radar 50km from the Russian border is not true, due to the position of the debris it could only be further away, not closer, which adds to the argument. My 2 cents for the moment. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
: Oh, not directly related to the critique, but driving around with a huge phone number that leads to a Titan security of all places is more than a bit suspicious, I'd say. ;o) --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: "the Telegraph position can not be the launching point" if my "stuff above is true and it is one single truck with one single TELAR that was seen in the different locations" - how? "because even if the Ukie claim of disappearance from Radar 50km from the Russian border is not true, due to the position of the debris it could only be further away, not closer, which adds to the argument." Huh? I think the field is placed really vaguely in that report, and that's what sets the impact point - it looks maybe kilometers off, to the west. Placed right, the implied impact point is further east, ie closer to the launcher. It is a valuable report, but that point should be re-checked more carefully before I could be convinced to write off all the other evidence pointing there. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::: Take a careful look at pages 9 and 10 of the PDF. Place the spot to where you think it's "right". Think how that would change the picture. The argument is based on the empirical location of the debris and unless I've missed some serious flaw in the numbers and basic calculations made on the pages leading to that, I think it's by rule of thumb a very sound argument. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 13:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::: I'll do my own soon - I can say it would end further east, relative to the border there, and probably start further east too, but maybe I'm unaware of some outlying debris - but first a though on the debris field I just had, even more relevant than size and placement - what does it actually say re: the plane? He presumes it would follow the trajectory east. Not much, really. With only so much momentum and breaking up, with five miles to fall, the main factor will be wind. Even a breeze has five miles to act on it. That was so with PA 103 - the wind was about perpendicular to the path, and that determined just where stuff scattered on a line across the borders area right to the north sea - only the cockpit and a few things were off much from that line. Here, if it blewa along the flight path, the reasoning would work fine. If it blew back, to the west, the plane was probably shot further east than the field suggests. Ie, closer yet to in range. The Zuhres video above shows wind apparently to the northwest, and pretty strong. Worth a review and re-think in that light. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 14:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::: With an initial speed of 907 km/h I see no reason to take wind into serious account. I see no reason at all for going into more detail in this rule of thumb argument, not on the debris, not on the alleged launching point. But I'm as always looking forward to what you can come up with. ;o) --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::: btw there's no exact calculation of the traveled distance of the falling pieces, it's just found plausible resulting from other data. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::::: There's good reason. [http://martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/PA103_debris.gif past precedent.] I did read it wrong - the blue oval is about right, I thought the scale by it, which is way off. That's the 20 km drift - if the wind was blowing due east at the right speed... to the near edge of the oval and 30 km to the far edge... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 15:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 four last points.png|center]]<br />
<br />
Debris fields as shown in MH17 WSJ data combined.jpg. The two tracks, 118 per Flightradar24 and other sources, and 111 from a Russian graphic (see label C), just in case. They cross at point E just to look cool - superimpose wherever to visualize a track-back on these or any line between. <br />
<br />
The four red "last points", eyeballed onto the map as shown in the various graphics used here (all pretty approximate): <br />
<br />
A: last return, flightradar 24 (erred, I think, way too far along - I suspect some inherent offset...)<br />
<br />
B: Russian ATC last return, '50 km' from the border (vague description, likely close to accurate)<br />
<br />
C: end of 111 track shown in MH17 radar 1.png (maybe arbitrary, lower resolution)<br />
<br />
D: report, deduced point of impact (presuming 20-30 km flight due east after impact, wind app. not considered at all)<br />
<br />
E: My guess for breakup point, where the damaged front came apart (should maybe be further east, right over the south part of the first orange blob). Actual impact point, an unclear distance back. probably not very far - downward flight could start anytime after that, decreasing the lateral distance traveled) . <br />
<br />
The cockpit, aerodynamic, shows the most like forward trajectory of this, relatively minimal wind complication. The heavy forward parts had more drag, wound up NW of there. A bit further NW, the light, high-drag, punctured upper fuselage. That these parts aren't spread further out suggests the jet managed to descend some ways before the front totally fell apart, and/or that the wind was fairly light. From there, most of the plane remained together, kept more momentum and little wind effect, and crashed kilometers east. The last part of this plummet, about one minute seen on video, it was nose-free and essentially nose-diving. A slight north trend, perhaps curtailed eastward progress, largely just down, leaves it all hitting together by Hrabove, scattering woth the fireball trajectory and wind deciding where these bits landed. That it only got so far from the forward parts again suggests this breakup was fairly low in the fall - maybe just before the start of the one video. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I'd say forget point D, it is way too far west, this plane was not going to fly 25km once hit. On debris, I'd put breakup where the "f" is in your word "forward" and impact not very far NW of that, lifting the whole 118 line a little northwards. You can't bring breakup below impact and count on wind pushing wreckage "uphill" because that first group of wreckage included 37 bodies, which would not "sail". The impact would be enough to knock the course slightly south, to drop the cockpit at Rozspyne, where it turned NE to end up at Grabovo. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 03:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Thanks. D is the presumed point used to rule out this launch location, the original point of this sub-section. That dot fails by a good margin. My E and your guess are both north of the flight path, along which all the red dots are (this graphic is confusing, needs updating, if I didn't flatten it). I was thinking a NNW wind did the north and west spreading, but the records say the wind was flat "east" (to the west). I'm left suspecting now the plane banked hard left just before it started breaking up. Actual impact, just before that. The "C" label is pretty arbitrary, but it keeps seeming about right. On the imagined red line 1t 117-118, I dunno, maybe 20-30 pixels back. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::Winds are described as 'from' not 'to. So a wind blowing to the NNW is reported as a SSE wind.<br />
::::A slip - I'm trying to say it that way now. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::Getting on to the wind. The actual breeze direction is usually a function of altitude - veering or backing from ground level observation. It can easily be 90 degrees out from ground level. You need to look at the vertical profile used in aeronautical soundings to see where debris will in the main blow to. --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 11:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::Sounds like a real headache to map. There's also changes over time, where east at 5:00 may change briefly ten minutes later, or 10,000 feet up. All that seems can be counted on is easterly winds in general - no exception to that. And generally, even if they measure it at the airport, it must extend up to the clouds, which can be seen swirling east over the area. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::No it doesn't extend to the clouds except by accident. Major direction change can happen in hundreds of metres altitude especially at night. Examples of wind shift between ground level and 700 millibars (9800 ft) in day time can show a direction change of 90 degrees - e.g. North to West. This is significant with MH17 where the breakups occurred between 33,000 feet and probably a few thousand feet for the final disintegrations. --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 11:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::FYI Here is all about [http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/48/ Veering and Backing] --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 11:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::As for the spread issue, I'm re-thinking it. As for the bodies, it depends on a few things but I take your point - bodies are dense. And I didn't know that detail - worth considering. Also a sad side-note: most bodies would be alive and aware, from what I learned looking at Lockerbie. Lack of O2 would black them all out at first, but gravity makes it so there's enough in that final stretch those not dead already (the lucky few) would probably "wake up" in time to both feel their injuries and their fall, and to see the "separatist-held" fields rushing up to kill them. :( ---[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::: My indications are they were all dead when they hit the ground. That's not to say some didn't suffer from the first blast up there. Using my (very long ago) rescue triage training, I examined all the body photos for type of injury. The main findings were (a) almost no blood (as the separatist intercepted call rightly claimed) (b)a lot of legs at angles suggesting hip/pelvic fracture (a very common injury in air crashes to people wearing seat belts) and (c) all the bodies appear swollen (in first-day photos). We are thinking of what happened as a decompression, a low-pressure event. But that was preceded by the blast detonation of the missile just outside... a high-pressure event. The very high pressure shock wave compresses the blood vessels and severely damages the lungs. Blood pressure and heart rate go sky high trying to compensate. In 1/2 a second the blast wave is gone and they are in decompression.The heart can't adjust fast enough. The lack of blood flow makes the brain and liver swell up, too, so normal blood circulation cannot be re-established even if the heart recovers. The Lockerbie bomb, and various exploding fuel tank cases, were lower pressure explosions; sadly many would have survived those until ground/water impact.[[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 20:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::So there is evidence of blast wave, not _just_ decompression alone? But no shrapnel wounds? --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 21:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::(cut my comment - I had misread - taken to [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Debunked topics#Bloodless bodies – fake Facebook profiles?|bloodless bodies spot]] FWIW - but I disagree with both the lack of blood and the validity of many "separatist" communications, but if we're not arguing a planeload of corpses being shot down, I won't argue it much.) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
More to the point, leaving the above graphic aside, would be this newer one I should finally add. Basic straight path, 118 and placed as agreed by most sources. Alleged launch location, measures app. My best guess is a 2 km range from 22.75 to 24.75, weighted to the center. Or most likely about 23.75 km out (irrespective of actual projectile flight path, that's where it made contact, but this helps visualize how the alleged launch site might line up with [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Forensics#Direction of projectiles?|the directional forensics]]). --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
[[File:MH17 missile intercept distances.png]]<br />
::Straight line from launch is okay. But impact has to be further north, ie before the most westerly debris. You've used the map which assumes that debris to be blown back by wind. That can't be right, as it included bodies (too dense to blow back) and witnesses saw them and plane sections falling straight down. This only makes about 1 mile difference to the missile range, so does nothing to exclude that launch location. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 01:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::The map of spread is only app., some orange area I made. The pink dot and lines are from a map, Russian analysis, as you say apparently presuming a SSE wind. Debris including people ''would'' be blown back to some degree, all of it, varyingly; trajectory can only do so much when you have five miles of falling, with the breezes acting the whole time, and the lightest parts will be back a bit, whatever direction and as mentioned above, a SSE winds at some time or altitude still isn't ruled out at all). Do we know just where in that area those passengers landed, and what types of things are its far end? ? <br />
(<br />
:::I mean, you could be right and it's a bit further back, maybe with a continuation due east from there and no real wind effect except slightly back. It was only 9-12 mph, and maybe it fell halfway before starting to fall apart, which means less spread. I'm thinking about a possible left turn to explain the north aspect, or it could be wind, or being further back (more north, as well as west), or a combination. The turn has to be a certain size, the wind direction is not certain aside from east prevailin, ... whatever point best explains whatever happened ... we're down to a shrinking agreed range, and as you say, it's all within range of the one spot, so it's not ruled out after all. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 04:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
At this stay of play, I feel it will be helpful to have displayed prominently an overall map reflecting best guess on impact location as well as already flagged suspected launch sites, that is the two launch sites we have been discussing (near Snezhny ; near Chernukhino) , PLUS launch locations flagged and TIMED by released satellite data (currently only Russian data is available). I would be generous with the range here, we can find range suggested by public sources but presumably actual range depends on a number of things (height, radar range, trajectory, wind), and may exceed the "official" range. Another useful graphics piece info would be indicating the front lines, if there is a way to have those known. '''I would be extremely cautious with displaying graphics reflecting just one way of thinking (whether "worst", "best", or "middle of the way"), for the reason that any graphics is easy for human brain to absorb, more than words spread out on all our numerous pages, and ''no graphics at all'' is better than displayed ''skewed'' graphics.''' One-sided graphics may be '''inviting''' even more noise releases "supporting" some already skewed scenarios, and I feel that was already happening way too often. I feel that most helpful stance at this point would be as neutral as it gets. (Regarding trajectories, a default guess is a straight line, anything else requires an explanation. Straight line is implied so no strong need to actually display it, especially if it ends up curling in suggestive funny ways on graphics). --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 09:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::I've been doing a lot of graphics, so not all fired up for more. But if you are, I wouldn't mind making another if it helps. Maybe this is best taken to [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Map#Interception Location]] (a lot of this is redundant, and I might move it, but at least I can say let's stop piling intercept stuff here as well as there). Up to picking a certain spot around Chernukino? Some outskirts area, on a major road, it'll be a guess. A couple guesses could be mapped. Also, if it seems worth it, I can do updates and upload the new version as needed. Any timed satellite launches, let me know. Front lines, not known and IMO misleading in this case. Those who would know would try - and maybe manage - to sneak this thing behind them... the caution about leading labels, I can leave to you - you could just tell me what to put. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
:::::Would take me forever, may try later on, but not immediately; some cleanup/re-arrangement seems the easiest option. (If there are tools for collaborative mapping, may be good to start using those; but not aware of any) --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 11:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The preliminary [[Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Dutch preliminary report|Dutch report]] says the flight recorders were suddenly lost at 13:20:04 UTC at a point that almost exactly matches the 22.6 km mark. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 22:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Plume Location Re-challenged ===<br />
There is another video, essentially giving a bellingcat in voice-altered Russian. We discussed all that essentially; but he seems at least to end up with a claim for geolocation for the plume photo. Seems to be a new one (or I forgot the old one already by now). The claim is based on [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2055 unrelated panoramic photo] somebody took nearby, and [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2025 claimed to be geolocated by presenter]. Here it is on <br />
[http://maps.yandex.ru/-/CVG0nLo~ yandex map] ; it is taken from a terricon located at Lutuginskii bugor(=hill). There is a cableway from there to TsOF (remember, Khuevyi Torez tells about cableway from Lutugino to TsOF, so here they are); [http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=48.012722&lon=38.665695&z=14&m=b&show=/10590043/ru/ЦОФ-им-Киселёва TsOF is central enrichment plant]; photos from TSOF do show a similar [http://photos.wikimapia.org/p/00/00/62/81/85_big.jpg cableway] . So based on that and an audio of locals of unknown provenance and authenticity, discussing a missile-looking trail in the direction of [http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=48.041767&lon=38.741055&z=14&m=b&show=/18687650/ru/Химмаш Khimmash], our presenter [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2107 ends up] with this [http://maps.yandex.ru/-/CVG0rMnO claimed plume location] , somewhere near this Mochalino village. And apart from this, his contribution to the topic is the claim of a white spot on the other side of 3'2 Buk which he claims to match on the way out. I do not believe all those Buk sightings were taken on the same day, and so do not believe in the overall glue-up of the story, but geolocating the plume, no matter what the plume is, remains legitimate. This author gives his answer to that question. Is this geolocation correct? I do not know, it is not tight, there are lots of cableways out there I presume, and some posts nearby are not too unusual. I do not see a tight fit between Lutuginski bugor photo and the plume photo--some elements do match, but those are obviously not identical places. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 02:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Excellent. Let's keep the title. But I guess you just forgot the previous location. This is the same view. The plume could be added, but I doubt it, and it's to that view at a consistent time on a consistent day. I'm not convinced ''all'' Buk sightings are same day, but most of them being so is a good fit with this plume that way, and a plane down with damage that seems consistent to me. (I hate this case) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::Are you sure it's the same? This new one is NNE from Torez, I thought it was placed SE from Torez by [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/launch-location-detected-of-missile.html U@W ]--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::Going back to check, this is a different filming location proposed. Line of sight isn't included, but it seems to be the same line over the same area to the same place. Even before he could see the distinctive mound, Petros (U@W) had [http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-cfSqhRb2dKo/U80x2OxK1XI/AAAAAAAATNk/r42WpH-Bf-Q/s1600/missile+trail+9.jpg this lineup], which includes this spot. Right where Petros pic says "trees" is what this guy decided were the foreground trees where it was filmed. I wondered when checking but decided on the further version. And seems to be the same result either way. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::I don't think this is accurate, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2107 video at this timestamp] gives 'место пуска ракеты' (launch location) near [http://maps.yandex.ru/-/CVGgVPJN Molchalino]. I have not seen this elsewhere, I only seen the one claimed to be SE of Torez. He does not discuss filming location, but shows it on video and assumes it is in Torez near the terricon, which is close to what other sources assume. He does show the line of site on the video; it is nearly perpendicular to U@W. Lots of terricons, coalmines (so likely cableways), and power lines leading there in this area, so location now seems uncertain. As I understand, no solid evidence for either of these two being the correct geolocation (those cableways seems to be quite common) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::::I am/was confused then. I thought it showed a SW view, just from closer to the mound. Now I see at 33:45 a view from right by it, looking NE? Can't explain the other one you see in the distance in the fuller view (right ?) That's kind of towards Molchalino, but that won't explain anything I suspect. (and what a bad fake or odd coincidence to have a plume up there and a the Buk tracking imagery lead to south of Snizhne, oops!) We'll see south and west faces of buildings if looking NE, so sun will be shining from well east of south, but also quite high, like mid-day in the early AM - or maybe just earlier mid-day, like 11 am. That would be another sloppy mistake. I doubt the details will line up. BUT a couple minor things didn't quite seem to the other way, so maybe worth a try (later). --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I will send this comment also to<br />
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/01/27/is-this-the-launch-site-of-the-missile-that-shot-down-flight-mh17<br />
The US map launch location can best best and almost exactly located from the last magnified picture:<br />
https://wp4553-flywheel.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/32.jpg<br />
That location is here:<br />
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.9571993,38.7466343,488m/data=!3m1!1e3<br />
The triangulation result in the last 3 pictures of the article introduces unnecessary error and clearly does not match the magnified picture.<br />
There is a structure that looks similar to an airfield and it is just south of Chervony Zhovten (=Oktyabr), matching with a witness observation in that place ("it was flying as if from Saurivka", though not matching 2 other witnesses in the zello audio, indicating it came from government held positions further south, [2:00] "Well, it appears everybody saw where the missile has flown from." [2:04] "Well, where you are, everybody saw it, but the Ukrainian media, as usual, will say, will say that that were us.")<br />
It would be outside the range of the plume picture geolocation bounds, which may be either an error given the long distance, or, the plume picture was taken the day before from the reported grad missile launch (as well as the burned field). (The photographer gave his camera to the SBU after twittering the first picture, so later pictures and dates can not be taken for sure).<br />
http://7mei.nl/not-buk-m1-new-video-proof/--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 19:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:(1) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkCcCmYlMZc That audio], as it turns out, was posted by Torezinfo on 24 July, and updated on 1 February. Torezinfo is a favorite posting place of Khuevyi Torez(=KT), who posted a very [https://twitter.com/WowihaY/status/489914266439671808 similar location map on 17 July already]. KT mentions zello recordings on 25 July in the follow-up, so shortly after it gets on torezinfo. With all that stuff linked to this KT poster, I would not put much trust that any of that is genuine. (Or that this KT poster is not acting as a medium for SBU). (2)[http://fr1.sidcdn.net/maps/nsdc/2014/07/large/map-nsdc-2014-07-17-uk-w3000.jpg Ukrainian map] does give us some Ukrainian held area somewhere to the South, but from that map it is hard to tell where exactly opolchenie ends and UAF begins--(I would not know) (3) Actually, going from there, not likely to hit on the left side--so having it from Artemovsk (as Bezler told, indeed) seems most probable --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 21:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:: Here is another map http://liveuamap.com/e/2014/16-of-july-saurivka-is-bombarded-over-and-over-by-rus-grad?ll=47.907137219641115;38.75392913818363&zoom=8<br />
::And here is an article which says that both Marinovka and Tarany were held by National guard. http://www.interpretermag.com/ukraine-liveblog-day-149-russian-tanks-and-artillery-reach-donetsk/#3353<br />
::I just opened bellingcat https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/01/27/is-this-the-launch-site-of-the-missile-that-shot-down-flight-mh17 and see that large parts of the article disappeared, I think they are working on it. That location given by the US photo does not really match well with the plume direction anymore, lets see what they come up with--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 21:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::I believe Marinovka was [http://lifenews.ru/news/136715 taken by opolchenie on 16 July] (lifenews report). Tarany--do not know, perhaps still Ukraine, but not totally sure. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 21:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::: other sources say attack was repelled and forced them to retreat to Stepanivka http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_in_Shakhtarsk_Raion http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/213817.html--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 22:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::: That US photo launch location differs by an angle of about 11 (?) degrees from the brown line in the bellingcat plot (measured from the photographer's location). https://wp4553-flywheel.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/101.jpg (launch location is just visible below the letter 'p' of 'the word 'suspected'). I think this a lot and puts the 'plume' into question. But then there is only the US photo, which itself could be a production based on social media (or worse).--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 22:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Well some believed this is for real, then they got a case to answer [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/22/mh17-us-intelligence-russia-separatists-report Guardian: Photograph: US intelligence community] [https://twitter.com/barbarastarrcnn/status/491559153559932928/photo/1 @barbarastarrcnn] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
In the following, I assume that most of the social media pieces and leaked audio tapes are correct and connect the dots in a different way:<br />
<br />
1. On July 14, an Ukrainian Antonow 26 airplane was shot down by a missile near the Russian border town of Donetsk.<br />
http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/what-weapon-was-used-to-shot-down-ukraine-air-force-antonov-26-at-july-14/<br />
The video in above link showed the missile flying for 39 seconds until it hit. Only a BUK can fly that long, a manpad or Pantsir, also claimed to have been used, not (see first comment in link).<br />
<br />
2. According to a recorded audio tape published by the Ukrainian Secret Service SBU, rebels possessed a BUK ('BUK3x2') in the Donetsk area at least since July 14 ('we already have BUK'). At that date it may have been either on Russian or already rebel held territory.<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVAOTWPmMM4<br />
<br />
3. A social media search discovered only one other system in the area, capable of shooting down AN26 - a Pantsir. However, a Pantsir can't fly for 39 seconds. Based on a max.speed of 780m/s and max range of 20km, it can only fly for about 25s.<br />
http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.co.nz/2014/11/unnoticed-video-of-26-downing-confirms.html<br />
Therefore and because of the crew's intent to engage in the civil war, it is likely that AN26 was shot down by BUK3x2. Afterwards BUK3x2 had only 3 missiles left.<br />
<br />
4. On July 16, Ukrainian and rebel statements both confirmed the shoot down of a SU-25 plane near the "Marinivka border crossing", which is only a few kilometers south-south east of Pervomaiske, the destination of BUK3x2. Ukraine's defence ministry said: "It is likely that [the hit] was carried out by air-to-air rockets from the Russian air force which were patrolling the border in a pair." <br />
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-28345039<br />
This may have been another reason to install a BUK system in this area on the next day, leaving room for an accidental Ukrainian shoot down, apart from an accidental rebel shoot down and a willful Ukrainian false flag shoot down.<br />
<br />
5. On July 16, rebels fired grad missiles from a location near Pervomaiske. The plume may have been photographed as well by an SBU informant in Torez and twittered on the next day, claiming to show the launch of the missile hitting MH17.<br />
http://7mei.nl/not-buk-m1-new-video-proof/<br />
<br />
6. On July 17, BUK3x2 was seen in rebel territory on its way to Pervomaiske, south of Torez. Ukrainian SBU knew about the arrival latest since July 14 and about its destination latest July 17 morning, allowing a false flag operation from positions held nearby.<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVAOTWPmMM4<br />
<br />
7. There was an ongoing battle in the region with "fluent" contact lines. Marinivka and Tarany, about 8 kilometers south-east and south of Pervomaiske, were controlled by Ukrainian National Guard as well as all of the border region. Marinivka would match well with the direction of the Torez plume photo.<br />
http://liveuamap.com/e/2014/16-of-july-saurivka-is-bombarded-over-and-over-by-rus-grad?ll=47.907137219641115;38.75392913818363&zoom=8<br />
http://www.interpretermag.com/ukraine-liveblog-day-149-russian-tanks-and-artillery-reach-donetsk/#3353<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_in_Shakhtarsk_Raion<br />
<br />
8. The Russian Defense ministry claimed in a news conference, that on July 17, Ukraine installed several BUK system near rebel held areas.<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bNPInuSqfs#t=1567<br />
<br />
9. In a popular 'zello' audio recording, witnesses in the area were talking about the launch of the missile hitting MH17. A witness from "Oktyabr" (Chervony Zhovten) claimed "it was flying as if from Saurivka". <br />
Two other witnesses said:<br />
[2:00] "Well, it appears everybody saw where the missile has flown from."<br />
[2:04] "Well, where you are, everybody saw it, but the Ukrainian media, as usual, will say, will say that that were us."<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkCcCmYlMZc<br />
<br />
10. A Reuter's witness also claimed that the missile was fired from Kiev held territory. Reuters, however, said, "off camera, he said that it was launched from a nearby rebel site. Asked why originally he said the opposite he said it was because he was afraid of the rebels."<br />
In a new interview this witness claims that "off camera comments were just made up by the [Reuters] journalist".<br />
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=497_1427729491<br />
<br />
11. BUK3x2 was again photographed in Lugansk with its 3 missiles, no missile fired since July 14.<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4HJmev5xg0<br />
<br />
12. The US presented a very low resolution satellite photo with the track of a missile added. The launch location does not match well with the direction geolocated with the Torez plume photo, it deviates by about 11 degrees in angle, hence either or both appear to be incorrect.<br />
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/01/27/is-this-the-launch-site-of-the-missile-that-shot-down-flight-mh17/#comment-12493<br />
<br />
13. Award winning investigative journalist Robert Parry reported about leaked US intelligence "that U.S. intelligence agencies do have detailed satellite images of the likely missile battery that launched the fateful missile, but the battery appears to have been under the control of Ukrainian government troops dressed in what look like Ukrainian uniforms."<br />
https://consortiumnews.com/2014/07/20/what-did-us-spy-satellites-see-in-ukraine/<br />
And later Parry wrote: "But I’m now told that U.S. intelligence analysts ... are concentrating on the scenario of a willful Ukrainian shoot-down of the plane, albeit possibly not knowing its actual identity."<br />
https://consortiumnews.com/2014/08/03/flight-17-shoot-down-scenario-shifts/<br />
<br />
14. During the coming months BUK shrapnel may have been collected from the AN26 wreckage and planted in the MH17 wreckage.--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 00:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Photographer Statement===<br />
[http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com.au/2014/12/interview-with-eyewitness-who-made.html Reported to say] : "That day did not foretell anything special would happen. In the morning I woke up and went to my work. At four ó clock in the afternoon I arrived home. And at 16:20 we heard an explosion. The first explosion was not very heavy. 15 seconds later, something like that, there was a second explosion, which was louder and it made the windows shake."<br />
: Did not foretell --an ass, --is this lawyer-written? 'We heard". --Took till December to polish up ? --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 16:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:: Agreed. 'I did not know in advance this would happen.' Uh, who said you might? And 15 seconds must be rocket travel. Did he hear the firing from there? Could be, not that far. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Time delay consideration ===<br />
Photographer reported two sound booms td=15 seconds apart; an interpretation may be launch and impact sounds arriving to him in Torez. If P=(0,0,0) is photographer cordinates, I=(d,0, h) is impact, with d ground distance between Torez and Rozypnoe, h is the height of flight at 10 km , and L =(x,y,0) is launch location, dist(A,B) is Euclidean distance between A and B, c is peed of sound, and n (about 2.5) is missile speed in Machs, then<br />
<br />
(1). dist (P,L) = dist(L,I)/n + dist (I,P) - td*c <br />
<br />
(2). dist (P,L) >= h/n + dist (I,P) - td*c <br />
<br />
(1) is a biquadratic equation for y given x (square enough times for square root to disappear); plotting that gives a closed 'ellipse-like' curve on (x,y) plane; once on that curve, time delay is exactly td seconds (doing this involves solving quadratic equations and removing spurious solutions not satisfying (1) ) . That curve is at distance about 13 km in NW direction from photographer in Torez, and about 22 km in SE direction from him on the Southern ( Saur Mogila side). <br />
<br />
(2) gives a simple estimate that distance between photographer and launcher is greater than the known right hand side; that distance is more than something like 13 km<br />
<br />
(3) Requiring launch withing the range, --launch is not more than 20 km horizontally from the impact-- selects a NW arc of the curve described in (1) ; that arc is to the NW from Torez, and goes slightly NW from the impact point (meaning its ground projection). <br />
<br />
Conclusion, based on the above, is that launch is too far from the photographer, to match the photo. <br />
<br />
(Knowing exact time delay can tighten the argument. With what's actually known, and objection can be raised that whatever actual time delay was, it appeared to be 15 seconds to the photographer. Graphics of the curve may be supplied if needed). --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Ooh. That kind of math could really come in handy with recorded audio cues, for example. But based on '15 seconds, something like that,' from memory months later, I wouldn't put any weight on it. If that turns out correct and pretty exact, there's a good point. Otherwise, the photo and other stuff is more solid, and says it's just about where it should be, as far as I've seen anyway. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Contrail ==<br />
This is what an "impressive launch contrail" of a big missile might look like.<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3lLwP1y0w8 АТО. Запуск двух ТРК Точка-У. Артемовск.] (ATO. The launch of two TRK Tochka-U. Artemivs'k.) – August 28, 2014<br />
-- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 22:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Something happens in the sky. This is the people's reaction:<br />
* ''20/09/2014 Over many parts of the DPR and LPR were seen circles in the sky.'' [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7310 1,] [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7311 2,] [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7312 3,] [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7313 4,] [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7314 5]<br />
-- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 03:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
Tochka U missile is single stage solid fuel, which is a mixture of ammonium perchlorate with rubber and aluminum powder (Russian [http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/tochka/9ch151.shtml "ДАП–15В" fuel] ).<br />
I could not find information on Buk with a comparable level of detail. Buk missile is single stage, solid fuel of some type, "dual-mode solid propellant (total work time - about 15 seconds)" [http://www.webcitation.org/67kZeZxeh] , [http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-9K37-Buk.html]<br />
Earlier "Куб" ("Cube") missile used [http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/kub/kub.shtml 'ballist' fuel,] [https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%85#.D0.91.D0.B0.D0.BB.D0.BB.D0.B8.D1.81.D1.82.D0.B8.D1.82.D0.BD.D1.8B.D0.B5 gunpowder] + plasticiser type (Russian "ВИК-2") at the start, followed by some sort of ramjet ("direct flow rocket engine") at final stage. It is not clear, but possible, that fuels and contrails of Tochka U and Buk are different. Here are some videos with Buk launch: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDXScnEKaP0] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EAtNpsXrgWs], and [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSXMhaFntrU a longer with stupid music version]. Those videos appear to be shot from a closer distance than Tochka U video; and a contrail on them does look quite impressive. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 10:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:The amount of smoke is highly dependant om Alumin(i)um loading. In general more aluminum is more 'oomph' and also more smoke.<br />
:On the other hand, it's common to alter the loading for other reasons. I refer to the Syrian Volcano (122mm variety) that started out as high Al-load and quite smokey but recent versions have low Al load but perhaps similar characteristics? --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 10:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Here is something that might be a BUK: Ukrainian AN-26 shot down from Russian border area on July 14th. Ukraine@war claims it as a BUK. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 10:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
* [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.fi/2014/11/unnoticed-video-of-26-downing-confirms.html Unnoticed video of AN-26 downing confirms shot down from Russian territory] – Ukraine@war, November 27, 2014<br />
** Video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoS4kgHxPnE Ukrainian Military Aircraft Su-25 Downed After Russian Attack Near Izvarino, July 16]<br />
:::Does not look like Buk, short contrail, --not all the way to the ground like on Buk video launches. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::It was a BUK. It flew 39 seconds in the video, a Pantsyr can't do this, see also first comment in this link http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/what-weapon-was-used-to-shot-down-ukraine-air-force-antonov-26-at-july-14/. Easy maths - at Mach 3 (1020m/s) it can fly for about 42 seconds (range 42 km, bit more because initially it is slower). According to the audio tape, BUK 3x2 was in the area on that day! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVAOTWPmMM4 Ukraine@war needed 5 months to find something else in the area, but the Pantsyr can't fly that long. This is how BUK 3x2 likely lost a missile.--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 21:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::::Well, yes, it does takes 42 seconds to fly 42 km at 1000 m/s , but that does not mean what we see '''must be''' a Buk. They start discussing that plane caught fire at 0:03 on the video already. We do not see what on hell is going on until some 30 s later. This plane likely was brought down by Igla or similar modern MANPAD. Possibly two hits, at 0:03 and another at around 0:30. Or it got on fire at the start of the video and than eventually went down (It is unlikely to have SU 25 pilot bailing out after Buk strike; or particularly likely catching fire as it's not aiming at the engine; contrail is weak for a Buk, too). Pantsir claims are much later from what I have seen,--- and no need for Pantsir to shoot SU 25. ---If something is there on SBU audio and some murky photo, does not mean it's all for real, and that what we do actually see all have to be linked to all that murky SBU stuff. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 22:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::::There may be some confusion here, just a recapture<br />
::::::First video https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xTT6BDRA8_k<br />
::::::0:03-0:11 buring object <br />
::::::0:17-0:33 contrail making a half looping<br />
::::::Second video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoS4kgHxPnE<br />
::::::0:29-0:39 contrail making a half looping + detonation.<br />
::::::ukraine@war http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/11/unnoticed-video-of-26-downing-confirms.html<br />
::::::says both videos show AN26 shoot down on July 14 (second video with wrong label SU-25)<br />
::::::says 2nd video impact at 0:39, claims missile has been burning for at least 39 seconds--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 06:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::::::After reconsideration, I would say ukraine@war is right, both videos show AN26 shoot down, but wrong, people were initially watching AN26 with engine burning and a second missile was fired. That missile was seen burning about 16 seconds in first video, and time has to be added to reach that altitude/location, so likely over 20 seconds. That would exclude man-pad, Pantsir (?), likely BUK, R73 air-to-air, ...--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 06:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Actually, it is interesting to know how contrail of Buk on a long haul launch looks like. It is said that it fires engine for some 15 seconds only (and unknown will it do less, if it can do away with less). That 15 seconds need to put it at a spot where it can reach the target with little, if any, engine work and doing turns only. It is not very clear how much targeting happens in the first 15 seconds, likely it does some; and it is self-guided and doing proportional navigation later on. Knowing details here allows to find exact trajectory, short of that thinking it goes straight to the collision point is a sensible idea. In any case, heavy contrail '''raising from the ground''', perhaps higher than the target is. Contrail is white, and stays put for a while. Seriously heavier than the stuff we see on social media. There are youtube videos of Buk launches giving an idea --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:These 15 seconds are wrong. Here is a video (start at 2:00) showing a SA-11 burn fuel for 35 seconds until its too far to distinguish. It is detonating at 42 seconds. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBlU2hHYJMg (I just copied the comment from here http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/what-weapon-was-used-to-shot-down-ukraine-air-force-antonov-26-at-july-14/ )--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 23:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::That video probably shows a modern version ('over horizon' capability was mentioned somewhere regarding modern developments; this one seems to be showing us something like that). 15 sec is coming from Russian sources [http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/buk/buk.shtml Зенитная ракета 9М38 выполнена с применением двухрежимного твердотопливного двигателя (общее время работы - около 15 секунд)]. Older versions also had shorter listed range. 22-25-35-42 km range, going through modifications. (Would be happier without 15 sec engine limit actually-easier to know trajectory) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::Actually what goes off is [https://digitalempire.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/9m38m1.jpg 9M38M1], the one supposed to have [http://pvo.guns.ru/buk/buk_02.htm 15 sec engine run], but the video lasts for 40 sec. This appears to be edited video, around 2:30 we got two tracks, than one slides right unreasonably for a natural recording. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 02:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::Since this is a point we haven't already covered around that I know of, I'll pop in for it. 42 seconds I gather is the time for the fuel to burn out and the thing to fall, like a grad rocket or the like can only do. But this is a missile with guidance, set to intercept a moving airliner. Therefore, app. 40-45 seconds is the longest, not the shortest, it can fly (or am I just confused?) But 15 seconds is plausible, depending. Still might be untrue, not trusting people saying stuff. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::::After the engine is off it is high up and and at high speed, still can fly until gravity acceleration brings it down, and is on guided flight -unlike Grad-because fins can move causing it to turn. Issues here are visuals (contrail all the way or only about 15 km in flight), and trajectory. With engine on for 40 +secs it will go straight to collision point doing proportional navigation all the way (exploding earlier if it needs to be). If it is only 15 sec, trajectory is less clear, it may for example use engine to climb high up, than do guided fall and proportional navigation to the target from a spot where engine delivered it (for low and close-by target, that may potentially end up with a hit from another side--some drawings from unclear sources were showing opposite side hits at under 1 km and direct hits at 10-15 km). Or it may use engine to end up on a ballistic trajectory hitting target (no side changing than). This is solid fuel engine so there is not much control on how quickly it burns off, that time is a set design feature. What we see on launch video is 40+ seconds of engine work-- will go direct to collision point in that case. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 12:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::::That's another clue that plume of smoke photo is not a Buk launch, that would give at least some 10-15 km worth of contrail, not a plume; with 40+seconds engine, contrail all the way to impact...(or else, launched from far away, over 40 km distance) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 12:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==About accents==<br />
<br />
[http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29109398 This report,] released one day before the preliminary official report, recycles visual imagery already discussed on this page, and attempts a new claim that a BUK crew spoke with Russian-'Muscovite' accent. The claim is made by (British-accent) actors representing 'eyewitness(es)', with a visual imagery of a car at unknown night-lighted location in the embedded video, and some text, provided in English. Regarding 'Muscovite' accent, first it is not easy to tell, for example [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBCfmlMkYMg this video] is Mr. Poroshenko speaking in Russian to a resident of Crimea, replying in Russian, and commented by a presenter, who is speaking 'Muscovite'. Although Mr. Poroshenko has a slight southern accent, there is little difference between the three speakers in practice. Moreover, actors and presenters can easily switch from Southern to Muscovite as required. <br />
<br />
Secondly, if somebody speaks 'Muscovite', this does not mean this person works for Russia or the rebels,--- he can work for any side (PS. No change of condition to the blue dumpster on Zuhres video was reported in this latest update). --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Thanks for bringing this. What a stupid report. "Three eyewitnesses, all civilians, separately told Panorama that they saw a missile-launcher in rebel-held territory a few hours before the Boeing jet was hit." Yeah, video shows the same. It was there. It probably shot down the plane. Accents, as you note, aren't the best indicator of anything, and even the reason sounds vague: the G thing, which even I know about (back to Olga/Olha). The "Russians" might even be Russian dissident mercenaries right from Moscow, for all we know. Who paid them? Their going up to the media and saying "you didn't see us" was not a good plan to stay secret. The witnesses: chosen at random? Directed to them? <br />
::''If correct, the Kremlin has to explain to the relatives of the 298 passengers and crew who died - including ten Britons - why Russian military personnel were allegedly seen in the area escorting a BUK shortly before MH17 was shot down.''<br />
:I think Russia could come up with a reason or two such allegations are made. Those ten Britons' tax dollars fund it. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: Hmm, this foreigner is confused by dat BBC talk: "If correct" ... doesn't that mean it ''wouldn't be'' merely "allegedly" but, well, correct? ;oP --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 23:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::It means "If {made up vague allegation) is correct....then "SHOCK HORROR CONCLUSION IS TRUE". this lets them be as wild or wide off the mark as they like and the magic "if correct" turns it true. Without any effort to check if it IS true in our understanding of that word.[[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 03:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::Another BBC weapon in its arsenal of innuendo and dissimulation is the quotation mark. Whenever they are dealing with something of dodgy provenance, or something of good provenance they want to weaken they put it in quotation marks. e.g. - ISIS beheaded 20 Syrians. becomes ISIS 'beheaded 20 Syrians' or 'ISIS' beheaded 20 Syrians or ISIS 'beheaded' 20 'Syrians' or ISIS beheaded '20' Syrians. No need for corrections later. Any version can be retrospectively justified or otherwise. --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 03:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== If Buk 3x2 Was in Russia ==<br />
Previously, it seemed quite likely the Buk launcher associated with the shoot-down was one of those owned and operated by the Kiev regime, simply snuck into separatist territory, maybe with some cover to make them even invite it in like a Trojan Horse. Then, I saw the November Bellingcat research on "Buk 3x2." As covered [[#Bellingcat and 3x2|above,]] this claims to match that unit with a distinct one seen three weeks earlier, driving in a military convoy well inside Russian territory. This is widely taken as clear proof the Russian military supplied the weapons, and it is strongly indicative of that. However, the general possibilities are worth laying out at this point.--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
All options below share these presumptions: <br />
* MH17 was brought down by the missing SA-11 missile AND/OR (in some cases) at least the launcher's appearance was coordinated to give that impression and is a clue to the plot <br />
* The videos and photos in question are genuine and not manipulated (my usual presumption, same here)<br />
* The Russia geolocations (many of them, making sense in context) are correct - Buk 3x2 as seen was seen in Russia, between Kurk, Stary Oskol, and a bit south of there (not verified but most likely correct) <br />
<br />
Presuming all that:<br />
* Buk 3x2 (seen in Russia) and the mystery one are not the same - this require paint job match and matching damage to the lip above the track to make a Kiev-owned unit look like that one. It's possible, but not the most compelling.<br />
* The two units are the same - it was in the convoy in Russia and also towed around Donetsk oblast July 17. <br />
<br />
If the unit is the same, there are a few possibilities for the nature of that connection, some of them silly or just there for logical fullness:<br />
* It was Kiev's unit and they snuck it over and into this convoy, and...<br />
** ... got it back later<br />
** ... the Russians kept it and used it for their own operation<br />
* It was Kiev's but some other way lost to the Russians <br />
* It was Russia's but Kiev managed to sneak over and steal it out of the convoy and then use it for the false-flag event<br />
* Same, but Donbass rebels then stole it from Kiev <br />
* It was Russian, and someone on the Russian side drove it over and then it was stolen by Kiev forces <br />
* Someone on the Russian side drove it over and it stayed in their control or handed over to their chosen parties, or transferred at the border - that is, no Kiev interference.<br />
<br />
So far, I'm inclined to call Bellingcat's reading (the last option, the widely accepted one) the single most reasonable one, though maybe outweighed by the ''combined'' alternatives. It's not fun to feel almost swayed to a view so close to Kiev's problematic narrative, but this is what I see, pretty basic. Some combined maybes go against the straightforward reading. As for other thoughts I might be missing, well, that's partly why it's here. Let me know, I'm all ears. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Starting from that reasonable if unproven last option, not one but three final types of possibility remain. If it was freely moving in convoy inside Russia, it probably belongs to Russia at the time. Presumed. However, it could be that...<br />
* '''A rogue officer''' at Kursk - maybe a closet Nazi who sympathizes with Kiev, hates Putin, or just took a bribe - provided this unit to Kiev. He would set up this convoy to anchor the thing in Russia, then send the shady unit on, with his own guys or to hand off to Kiev's, who took it from there as I've speculated. The strangely obvious manner it was displayed - on both sides of the border, with its number slowly fading away - is consistent with this motive + intelligence. <br />
* '''It happened as reported''' (one way or another) Putin's military signed off on the loan, apparently with a sent crew or maybe given to local handlers, who for their own purposes did fire that shot. The strangely obvious manner it was displayed is consistent with this + stupidity/sloppiness, providing proof that probably wasn't even needed, just helpful, to start the punishment. At that point, it would be a real problem about as trumpeted, and still I would suggest we consider what the real crime is under the circumstances, if the solutions pursued are fair, or if this is all just geo-politics and warfare by other means cloaked in a cynical disguise of concern for justice. ^ <br />
* '''Koo-koo (?):''' "as reported plus" - a mega conspiracy theory: it goes all the way to the top, and Putin is that rogue general selling the nation out, to demonize himself and Russia and be sure to get caught, in an elaborate staged play - Putin (or whoever's running things presumed to be run by HIM) is somehow controlled, his opposition scripted and ultimately geared towards provoking and achieving an expansion of "The West" into "The North." (I've always considered this possible, and one that's occurred to me more lately, and seems worth listing ... but I don't buy it. I'm going with "rogue officer" with a second bet on one of the other divergence points listed before that - unspecified. Third choice is "as reported.")--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::^ Not to apologize for egregious behavior if it really is that, but let's please compare this to the shoot-down of Iran Air 655 by the USS Vincennes in 1988. A US Naval ship illegally in Iranian waters shot down an Iranian passenger plane with 290 people aboard, despite all the safeguards and sensors working correctly (the consistent clues the ship's computers gave them saying "do not shoot" can only be overridden so totally by choice). But it was deemed by the US to be no crime, just accident and Iran's fault for being provocative, and useful in the effort to compel them to quit the war with Iraq they were just starting to win. In Ukraine, repeated Air Force attacks on rebel-held cities, often hiding their jets behind civilian airliners, might both justify arming the rebels with such defensive weaponry, and invite an honest mistake from a team running this machine in stand-alone mode. The SBU version however overrides this all: it was an accident, but the Russians' intent was never defensive, always planning to kill an airliner, just meaning it to be a different one. That would clearly be criminal in all regards, and it's a sub-set of "as reported" - not a very good one. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Sorry, I can't help you here as I don't share your presumptions. I consider it a waste of time and energy to connect dots that are laid out by "sources" like the SBU and Brown Noses - proven liars and at least in case of the former producers of fraud "evidence" - and therefore I didn't even read your logical chains based on them. Just saying to not make it appear that I agree. ;o) --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 10:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:Poking at specific presumptions could be helpful, but it all could go on and on and remain inconclusive anyway. And I take back what I say about leaning this way or that - I keep leaning different ways and on balance I'm feeling sort of weightless here. I think that comes through in the text... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I don't see the numbers matching, getting close is not good enough, and I quit it there. Yes, it is weird that they are close, and that this murky business is covered by Spiegel, but can't really help with any of that. There is lots of murky weird stuff going on all the time, can't change the whole world to stop it. (Also: the Russian Government would be fully capable of doing a painting job properly if deciding to starting painting at all, their food trucks are all nicely painted, etc; just too sloppy for them to be behind) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:The paint being what it is, between that and the bend and light patch below all lining up, I think we're down to the same unit, or faked to match, and the possibilities branching off those two. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::As discussed earlier, the dot is shifted off the middle, more on Russian video than in PM photo; in Russian video, number 2 has well-curved semi-circle; in PM, it is almost straight segment. Bad photos for comparison but it's off, as far as it's possible to tell. As for the skirt bend, too blurry and distorted on PM to tell; Russian video, I think it is actually dirt, not a bend. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Also, looks like two squares , a bit darker than background, over first digit in PM photo. Unclear is it paint or digital camera effect. Any sane person hiding something will paint over everything, not paint just specifically over the first digit. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::I think I got everything linesd up - it has to be de-skewed the same, and all ines up. You might be scraping bottom on this one. The curve is there, at its elongated part, at an angle. The dent/dirt looks the same, same place, relative to the light patch and all else. It's too much for coincidence by a couple of degrees. BUT I just shifted back to option ... should have numbered them. ... the middle starting option - image authenticity. I hardly ever call digital image fakery, and not calling it here, but... I still haven't checked the new (to us) June videos, so I'll stay presuming it might be okay - video's harder to fake than a photo. But on the other end, it all comes down to the one photo. That I noticed, no other views are close enough to say if these matching clues are present. (the bend, maybe). The squares you noticed, maybe a paint clue or just artifacting. It may too pixelly. I cannot really analyze the technicals properly to say. It looks okay, but possibly fishy too. Maybe the dirty windshield helps hid the painted in pixels to make this thing - just once - or maybe again in other images - look like that Russian 3x2 unit, exaggerated and going into rebel hands... Some kind of coincidences setting that up to work, but it's possible, and an expert should look closer at this picture. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC) <br />
::::I, --at the very start of discussion,-- zoomed picture on screen (by a lot), and measured length ratios (to the dot/ total panel length), parallel to the 2 sides of the panel, using ruler (millimeters one) over screen. I ended up with ratios in horizontal side of panel directions were off, by more than blurring; in vertical, could not tell-within blurring. This is not sensitive to skewing or zooming. So I don't think it's the same. May double-check measurement when have time; or somebody else can. Did not have time to try doing digital version of the same/similar method. Did not look carefully at comparison the 2 after de-skewing , but have an impression this is different; not that much skewing there; it looks essentially straight line on PM, skewing will not make circle into a line. May look at 2's some other time. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::::Finally took a closer look and PM was still off a bit on rotation and vertical-to-horizontal - in line with your observations. Still working out the adjusted graphic. The white is shifted a bit left of lining up perfectly... I think it's still close enough it's the same or is supposed to be, and not far enough off I'd call a bad fake - probably just pixel shift. Will see tonight. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 00:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Okay, I don't have a comprehensible graphic handy yet, but Maybe Resup is seeing what I am now. I was having a hard time aligning it all, so focused just one the one rectangle panel with the number. Still, on the PM photo I trace apparent edges, best line of dark pixels ... it lines up, proportion-wise, with the white spots on or a hair to apparent left. But when the whole image is placed by lining up that center, the rest of it doesn't line up - both sides seem shifted right, or the middle shifted left. (also the track areas appear far to the left, but they stick out a bit, and from the back angle flattened like this, that's why. Each difference in relief from "true flat" plane of the side will cause this... maybe I'm just not correlating it right, and maybe it's a clue the photo is messed with. possible offsets in both white patches as well, but maybe too in the natural fuzz zone. ?? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
If the launcher was driven over the Russian border, fired once then driven back again after it had carried out its mission, the part of the story that doesn't make sense is the sighting on a stolen flatbed truck outside Donetsk. If the Russians were prepared to supply a launcher but not a truck, the stolen truck would have had to be driven to the border to be loaded and there'd be no reason to risk a journey back to Donetsk. The west to east journey is more consistent with CL's original suggestion of a launcher from the Ukrainian base north of Donetsk. If this was a false flag, there would have had to be a paint job to give it Russian markings (maybe to match one in a recent video). Otherwise the videos would point to separatists with a captured Ukrainian BUK, leaving the Ukrainian government liable for failing to close its airspace when it knew that a BUK had gone missing. [[User:Pmr9|Pmr9]] ([[User talk:Pmr9|talk]]) 16:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:Now this sounds engaged, thanks P. Yes, why drive it to Donetsk? (Other than to be seen in the smoking-gun rebel capitol, before getting seen in Lugansk too) And I never thought of that why it had to be Russian. Indeed, for liability reasons, it had to be a snuck-in surprise, not captured (unless they could come up with a reason why they didn't learn about it, and I suppose they could). The suggestion has problems and was slow to gain adherents, but maybe this kind of thought has swayed people to realize Kiev "must be right" about that... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Sunday Times story: original is behind paywall but reprint [http://malaysiandigest.com/news/531506-ukraine-ignored-warning-to-close-malaysia-airlines-flight-mh17-airspace-before-tragedy.html here]. Eurocontrol's experts "spoke privately to their Ukrainian counterparts" about their concerns but Ukraine refused to close its airspace. "Ukraine intelligence sources said they had been made aware that several anti-aircraft systems had crossed from Russia into Ukraine at least a week before the MH17 incident. But they claimed the intelligence was not “100 per cent reliable” and could not have been used as grounds for 'drastic moves' such as shutting airspace". [[User:Pmr9|Pmr9]] ([[User talk:Pmr9|talk]])<br />
:::Okay, well there's a train headed this way then. Several units? The whole June convoy? We do have this alleged maybe-Buk launch just before on July 14, an associated loader seen later, etc. And Ukie intel somehow did point to this number "312" you can't see on the unit they tracked so quickly. Did they already have that obscure Russian video everyone missed until now? And more yet showing the "1" still there? That early on? (that's all very speculative, but interesting). It has to be snuck in, maybe, but then it helps that you can vouch for it - so they fudge and average this aspect. Main point then seems to be, whatever failures they mumble out on their own end, it has to implicate both Russia (provided weapon) and the rebels (held the space needing demonized).--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references /></div>Antidyatelhttps://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17/Fighter_jets&diff=23632Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Fighter jets2015-08-03T01:41:18Z<p>Antidyatel: /* Why everyone is throwing around "Su-25"? */ UPGRADED SU-25 M1 in Ukr airforce can reach 10km</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:MH17]]<br />
[[Category:Weapons]]<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17_New_Straits_Times.jpg|thumb]]<br />
==Crash videos==<br />
On March 28, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkygYsvITSY Ukraine news report] tells about "100 fighter jets (some SU 27/ Mig 29 shown actually flying), 23 bombers, 36 (or 39 as presented) 'strurmovik' attack aircraft, 60 anti-aircraft missile systems (according to the presentation). <br />
<br />
Early minutes [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVkmqJ551KA#t=78 after crash video]. (Plane said to come crashing from the East, from the direction Sokolikha mountain, by one witness). <br />
<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-W70uLCYoY Another crash video], two clips. <br />
:What is that we see [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-W70uLCYoY#t=78 at 1.18-1.20 of this video?]. Thought it might be planes, appears quick and straight, but after looking at more frames, those are birds most likely (wings up and down movement seen) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
This point is disputed, and thus not proven to everyone's satisfaction. But it's clearly a big question: was there,.<br />
<br />
(Russia's details for - forthcoming)<br />
<br />
'''counter-arguments:''' [http://www.interpretermag.com/mh17-and-moscows-magical-mystery-jets/ Interpreter Mag] offers what it claims are serious questions about Russia's fighter jet claims. They don't start out dismissing that there was a radar return the Russians followed, but question - reasonably - if it was really a jet. They latch onto the translation "hover" describing what the "jet" did for four minutes after, and note "to “hover” requires a helicopter," and "the fastest helicopter in the Ukrainian arsenal" is too slow to trail MH17, so ... in case he meant circle (obviously) the article suggests that it's all but impossible for a fighter to circle and loiter in that small area, so probably that also is a clumsy lie, which by the end they're forced to call "Moscow's Magical Mystery Jets." --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:34, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
:Oh, and [https://plus.google.com/118234537318646233652/posts/gVowkkyhbHv James Miller added] "A MAJOR problem with Russia's latest claim, that a Ukrainian Su-25 was tailing MH17. According to the plane's own manufacturer, who has incentive to inflate the SU-25's performance numbers, that aircraft can't even fly high enough to be 3 kilometers away as Russia claims." My response to that is ... sorry what? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
::On that point, I understand the SU-25 is a ground attack craft, that normally operates under 25,000 feet, while MH17 was at 33,000. Still, it might be able to go higher, and could still be 305 km away plus or including 8,000 feet or whatever. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: ''They latch onto the translation "hover"'' — gosh, you have no idea how much I hate retarded Russian translators (see [[#Why everyone is throwing around "Su-25"?]] for a sample of difference between ''their'' translation and what has ''actually'' being said). <br />
: Here's the [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSpeo5RcQQo&t=19m47s relevant quote from the video]:<br />
<br />
: '''Russian:''' ''Ранее обнаружение данного воздушного объекта не представлялось возможным, так как контроль воздушной обстановки осуществляется радиолокационными средствами дежурного режима с возможностями по обнаружению на данной дальности на высоте полета более 5000 метров. Обнаружение стало возможным при наборе высоты.''<BR><br />
: '''Retarded translator:''' ''The early detection of this aircraft appeared to be quite impossible because the air situation control is usually performed by radars working in a standby mode which detection possibilities at the given distance are over 5000 m altitude.''<BR><br />
: '''Proper translation''': ''The detection of the said aircraft any sooner was not quite possible, due to the fact that the monitoring of the airspace is performed by the means of stand-by mode radars, detection capabilities of which are limited, at this range, to [targets flying at] altitude above 5000 meters. The detection had become possible upon the increase of the [target's] altitude.''<BR><br />
: '''Russian:''' ''Дальнейшее изменение параметров полета объекта по курсу свидетельствует о том, что он '''барражирует''' в районе разрушения Боинга 777 и осуществляет контроль за развитием ситуации.''<BR><br />
: '''Retarded translator:''' ''The further aircraft flight properties changes on its route testified the fact that it is now '''flying''' in the area of Boeing crash and is monitoring the situation.''<BR><br />
: '''Proper translation''': ''The consecutive changes in the object's flight variables, direction wise, demonstrate that it is '''loitering''' in the area of Boeing 777 breakdown and monitoring the development of the situation.''<BR><br />
<br />
: Honestly, those translators must be punished by 2-year solitary confinement with nothing but books in English, so they will have ample opportunity to fill their vocabularies. -- [[User:Ed3218|Ed3218]] ([[User talk:Ed3218|talk]]) 01:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Witnesses==<br />
We discussed witnesses [[Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17/Witnesses| elsewhere]]. Now [http://lenta.ru/news/2014/12/25/boeing/ Zakharchenko] can be added to the witness list. He says he saw it himself. "There were 2 (military) planes and there was the Boeing. Than the planes flew away. And the Boeing fell down". "DPR did not shot it down, it could not even occur to us to do such a thing, we are people, not animals. And we do not have technical means to do it." I saw in Ukrainian media detail that Zakharchenko was in Shaktersk at the time (not mentioned in this article). He also says he has 'dozens' of other witnesses who saw it.--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 17:09, 25 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: strange...normally nobody notices planes going over...but I guess they were watching for them all the time there. I hope they have taped witness accounts from the first few days, as any who come forward now, especially with matching stories, will be accused of being fake. I also hope the tapes have been passed on to the right people.[[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 14:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Air-to-air missile? ==<br />
<br />
* [http://guruinterneta.livejournal.com/32590.html Вот и первые признаки БЧ. Сбивал не Бук-М1] (Here are the first signs of warheads. Not hit by Buk-M1)<br />
<br />
This is disproved. It's confirmed a Grad Missile was used. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiAO3D_j8qk GRAD Missile downed aircraft] :-)<br />
--[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 10:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Pilot confesses? -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 00:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
* [http://wahrheitfuerdeutschland.de/?p=3622 Ukrainischer Pilot gibt Abschuss von MH17 zu]<br />
::I started out skeptical, checked, and didn't see where they explain just what he said, to whom, etc. Our readers will need more alleged details. I'm still skeptical, obviously. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::: It's satire. Says so trilangually in bold red right there at the top. Original is [http://amr.amronline.de/2014/07/25/ukrainische-pilot-gibt-abschuss-von-mh17-zu-meinungsfreiheit/ here] on a quite funny satire site. It's full of valid information but the premise of the piece is to show how propaganda would react and integrate such a confession into their narrative. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* [http://www.unn.com.ua/uk/news/1364795-piloti-zbitogo-litaka-an-26-scho-viyshli-na-zvyazok-kazhut-scho-yikh-pidbili-raketoyu-z-vinischuvacha Пілоти збитого "Ан-26" кажуть, що їх підбили ракетою з винищувача] An Ukrainian Antonov An-26, a military transport aircraft shot down above Lugansk near the village of Izvaryne on July 14 (just 3 days prior to Malaysian Airlines flight MH17) was, according to its bailed-out pilots, struck by an air-to-air missile (ракетою класу "повітря-повітря"). The Antonov was flying at an altitude of 6500 m at the time it was hit, far beyond the reach of most man-portable air-defence systems (MANPADS). Even before the MH17 disaster this event lead to speculation in the Western press of the east-Ukrainian rebels possessing more sophisticated anti-air weapons. [http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20140714-0 accident description at ASN] --[[User:Pasparal|Pasparal]] ([[User talk:Pasparal|talk]]) 10:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
::At the time it was "known" the rebels had a BUK since late June, 25 or 26th. Air to air would have implied Russian planes; as they didn't say they saw them, to identify, this claim was never made again. This was I think the one the videos were of, circulating in the first days as being MH17. As it happened in Lugansk, I'd say it was the BUK,as it was them that had it. MH17 went down in Donetsk territory and they've been truthfully saying they never had such a weapon. True that Lugansk prime minister Borodai said so too, but a PM doesn't necessarily know what the men liberated last week.<br />
:: But as I say in the TEST section below, they'd need a backup plan, as they can't afford to leave the plane able to call for help or maybe land. In that case it would not be a Russian pane of course. The An-26 pilots' belief may have given them the idea though. This may ALSO explain why witnesses say they saw another plane and why they said they HEARD TWO EXPLOSIONS ... a BUK that did almost no damage and a ''coup de grace'' from a fighter????[[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 11:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I was not following claims on An 26, but "Igla" ([https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%98%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B0_(%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B7%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81) 9К338 «Игла-С»]) has a listed altitude of 6000, so shoulder-fired system hit at 6000 is not out of question. There are also old surface-to air anti-aircraft systems less powerful than Buk: Osa ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SA-8_Gecko SA-8 Gecko], altitude 12000), Strela [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K35_Strela-10 9K35 Strela-10] , listed altitude 3500). --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 12:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=="Carlos"==<br />
Okay, what the heck? This has been called a hoax (as noted even at the first link) but I'm not so sure. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
* http://www.globalresearch.ca/spanish-air-controller-kiev-borispol-airport-ukraine-military-shot-down-boeing-mh17/5391888 <br />
<br />
* 10:21 – 17 de jul. de 2014 Autoridades de kiev, intentan hacer que pueda parecer un ataque de los pro-rusos<br />
*:“Kiev Authorities, trying to make it look like an attack by pro-Russians”<br />
*10:24 – 17 de jul. de 2014 Ojo! Que puede ser un derribo B777 Malaysia Airlines en ukraine, 280 pasajeros<br />
*:“warning! It can be a downing, Malaysia Airlines B777 in ukraine, 280 passengers”<br />
*10:25 – 17 de jul. de 2014 Cuidado! Kiev tiene lo que buscaba<br />
*:“Warning! Kiev have what they wanted”<br />
*10:25 – 17 de jul. de 2014 Vuelven a tomar la torre de control en Kiev<br />
*:“[Miitary] has taken control of ATC in Kiev”<br />
*10:27 – 17 de jul. de 2014 El avión B777 de Malaysia Airlines desapareció del radar, no hubo comunicación de ninguna anomalia, confirmado<br />
*:“The Malaysia Airlines B777 plane disappeared from the radar, there was no communication of any anomaly, confirmed”<br />
<br />
* [http://news.yahoo.com/really-happened-mh17-russias-media-answer-203111162.html What really happened to MH17? Russia's media have the answer] says the Christian Science Monitor,laughingly, on July 22. On "Carlos," they say:<br />
:''2. The mysterious Spanish airport controller source. A mysterious Twitter account, @spainbuca, purporting to be a Spanish air traffic controller at Kiev's international airport named Carlos tweeted out that two Ukrainian fighter jets had shadowed the Malaysian airliner and that Kiev was behind its downing. In May, the Spanish-language channel of Kremlin mouthpiece RT interviewed Carlos and blurred out his face because he claimed he was in danger for criticizing the Ukrainian government.''<br />
:''However, the Spanish Embassy in Kiev has no record of Carlos, reports Fox News Latino. “We have no knowledge of ‘Carlos’ having been in Ukraine. There is no record of his passing through the Consulate, and no one from the (relatively small) Spanish colony knows him,” it said. Carlos’s Twitter account no longer exists.''<br />
<br />
Questions: <br />
# What was he saying in May that was newsworthy? [http://actualidad.rt.com/actualidad/view/127516-amenazar-controlador-espanol-ucrania-crisis May 8, Espanol - says he's in Madrid at the time] Does he seem shady like a possible disinfo agent?<br />
# Was he back in Ukraine still (allegedly) working ATC on July 17, or is his knowledge supposed to be from the community? <br />
# Does he claim direct knowledge the fighters brought down the plane, or just speculate based on their presence? <br />
# Does his account deletion similarity to [http://rt.com/news/175828-phillips-arrest-ukraine-details/ the Graham W. Phillips case] mean anything? Or is this just a fakester who called it quits as soon as questions arose? <br />
# How does the embassy know if they do or don't have a record unless they know just who he is? Isn't he supposed to have been anonymous up 'til now? (deduced from Spanish + ATC? = zero? That could work)<br />
# Has anyone anywhere heard from him since? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I was not following 'Carlos' story and it smelled fishy (why a foreigner working there; how do we know he is not a hired troll --lots of those posting somethings). But recently looking at Russian MOD presentation, it is likely that Ukrainian traffic control is integrated (civilian and military). USSR had a habit to make things double-use, and that may not change since. So, if somebody was there, he could see both civilian and military planes on such integrated system. Russia requested ATC information, that seems to be well-justified request, as there were several witnesses reporting plane sightings shortly prior to the crash. Witness reports were presented in Western press, so reports are not fake. Witness statements appear/sound sincere; no evidence they are not. Witnesses do get honestly confused, but there is no indication they are lying or are tense in making statements --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 17:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Escorts? ==<br />
* http://theaviationist.com/2014/07/21/su-27s-escorted-mh17/<br />
:''Iranian defense expert Babak Taghvaee believes the mistake was caused by the fact the Malaysian Boeing 777 was escorted over eastern Ukraine. Taghvaee is always very well informed and an extremely reliable source. Therefore, after he provided some details about this activity of the Ukrainian Air Force on ACIG forum thread about the war in Ukraine, we contacted him for some more insight. Here’s what he wrote to us.''<br />
:''“When the Crimea crisis began, the Ukrainian Air Force air command center quickly forward deployed six Su-27s to the Kulbakino AB. Since beginning of the crisis and the Russia intervention, the 831st TAB has the important task to provide air defense as well as security of whole country. Six fully armed Flankers have always been in the sky especially when the other Ukrainian Air Force airplanes such as transporters and attackers like Fulcrums and Rooks were in the East of Ukraine,” explains Taghvaee.''<br />
:''“But when the Su-25M1 was shot down by the Russia Air Force 6969th AB’s MiG-29 on Jul. 16, the situation and condition became more critical than previous days and more Su-27 sorties were conducted to confront Russian MiG-29s. I believe those two Su-27s were not in sky just for standard practice in that day [Jul. 17], I believe they were involved in HAVCAP (High Asset Value Combat Air Patrol) mission sortie in that day.”''<br />
Hm - an escort patrol starting just that day? Did Russians even shoot down the jet forcing that decision right then? High value asset it was, once it was shot down and blamed on Russia. This could use some further searching, but one Q is why Carlos (or his sources) would be so alarmed at the fighter jets if they were known "escorts." And also, why would Kiev decide on this and then deny it? That looks bad. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Did the Jet(s) Down MH17?==<br />
I don't think so, but it's possible. I hear now [http://www.globalresearch.ca/evidence-is-now-conclusive-two-ukrainian-government-fighter-jets-shot-down-malaysian-airlines-mh17-it-was-not-a-buk-surface-to-air-missile/5394814 the evidence is conclusive,] it's proven and all debate should cease. An OSCE expert said x was "like" y. OMG x is same thing as y proved! <br />
<br />
Petri, I see in comments [http://thesaker.is/detailed-expert-analysis-of-the-mh17-downing/#comment-37807 here] <!-- comment moved by Saker from http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.de/2014/08/detailed-expert-analysis-of-mh17-downing.html --> your working theory:<br />
:''MH17 was brought down by a frontal attack by a fighter jet. The jet fired a "machine gun" or autocannon through the left side windshield right at the captain. The direction of fire was from slightly to the left and slightly above. The bullets left perfectly round holes of about 20 mm diameter in the upper frame of the windshield. Further down the left side the holes became elongated and irregular, some with the appearance of exit holes. The smaller irregular holes on the side are most likely the result of fragmentation rounds mixed in with armor piercing bullets. Some of these may have bounced off the side and exploaded outside.''<br />
<br />
Not to be too harsh, but I just want to lay out all my questions, in the sort of aggressive way they just tend to run at such times. <br />
# 20 mm rounds - others have specified a SU-25 with 30 mm cannon as most likely. What are you proposing? A different craft, I guess? Fair enough - SU-25 doesn't seem to be proven, just a good guess.<br />
# Is there any radar support for a frontal attack from the E-SE (frontal)? The mentioned jet was trailing 3 or more km behind (W-NW)<br />
# altitude - that was a problem for SU-25, made to work below 25,000 feet while MH17 was at 33, and was hit slightly from above. But you're thinking something else - might well answer that automatically<br />
# why can't warhead shrapnel of about 20 mm explain this? Or do we know the SA-11 can only have a different size? Because round machine-gun-like holes seems to be just what they normally do.<br />
# What is up with the Buk launcher moved in that direction, parked right on the flightpath, and apparently having fired a missile towards the jet that would impact it just about head-on like this theorized jet attack? Did they set that up to create the appearance, while using a fighter instead to mimic it? I'd ask where did the missile go, but I guess you could argue the field was fake burnt, the tracks just made, and the contrail photo is from another day or something, <br />
# Is the jet attack theory really the best explanation for what we see or just the one that's overly tempting because it could smoking-gun pin it on Kiev?<br />
--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* [http://www.sott.net/article/284868-MH-17-Who-Dunnit-Western-Media-Silent-on-the-Evidence MH 17 Who Dunnit? Western Media Silent on the Evidence] – Joe Quinn, Sott.net, 01 Sep 2014<br />
"The available images of the fuselage of MH17 support the conclusions of Mr Bociurkiw," he correctly notes, while mischaracterizing both. The OSCE semi-exprrt said the parts of the plane he meant were hit with a spray of small, high-velocity projectiles that "almost looks like machine gun fire," but not quite, to his untrained eye, having seen nothing like it before to compare to for sure. Why Mr. Quinn and so many others insist on pretending this proves it ''was'' a machiney-type-gun is just a mystery. Buk shrapnel should almost, but not quite, look like machine 30 mm auto-cannon fire<br />
<br />
"Regardless of the precise way in which MH17 was brought down," even if it's by a Buk missile as the best evidence suggests, he should point out how Kiev and its psycho false-flaggers were the ones with a known capability either way and the motive to do this on purpose. Instead, he says "at this point we can draw some reasonable conclusions: a BUK missile was most likely not involved." Oh. Well, to some, it almost looks like we can. Close enough? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 22:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I'll just point out (again), 30mm cannon shells either produce individual 30mm or larger holes on the skin if they pass through undetonated; or produce an even larger hole or crater if they detonate on contact.<br />
<br />
:The panel damage seen is way smaller than 30mm and there are no characteristic surface splash marks indicating surface detonation<br />
<br />
:I'm guessing the persistence of this rumour is a combinaton of aggressive fake propagandising by Russian spinmasters (GB I'm looking at you) together with a characteristically dumb audience who are perhaps misled into confusing 30-cal with 30mm - though they may even be dumber than that and not know what 30-cal is or even what 30mm is.<br />
<br />
:For those still confused. 30mm is around 1 1/4" diameter. 30-cal is around 3/10 of an inch --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 23:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Most of these experts never even looked at the available images. They just parrot theories they've read. At most they'll produce the image which originally accompanied the theory. Readers now just vaguely believe whichever one they first liked. I have not seen any new data or information for 3 weeks at least. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 23:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::The five (maybe even six) [https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BxBNE99IAAEYZAa.jpg:large neatly aligned ovoid impact holes] convinced me rapid cannon shelling was involved (if not 30mm shells, then maybe 23mm or even 20mm). One cannot possibly imagine how those can be produced by a fragmentation blast. At [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/10/11/russian-tv-inadvertently-demonstrates-mh17-wasnt-shot-down-by-aircraft-cannon-fire/ Bellingcat] they obviously didn't agree. But in my opinion their arguments simply do not hold water: [http://www.slinfo.de/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=25145&d=1413192330 Buk 9M38 M1 fragments]. --[[User:Pasparal|Pasparal]] ([[User talk:Pasparal|talk]]) 17:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
There would be no reason for Buk shrapnel to align on straight line, it will be random and, overall, evenly spread. What [https://www.flickr.com/photos/jeroenakkermans/14542021030/in/set-72157645471359080 we see] is overall random, but there is indeed something which appears neatly arranged and evenly spaced on a line, as Pasparal notes. For automatic cannon or machine gun, it can land like that. What is everything else we see, than would not be clear. We have not thought much about multiple events, for example Buk downing the plane, and than an attempt to finish it off from a plane, or other such multiple event scenarios. There needs to be more evidence to say something definite. If Bezler says his reconnaissance team spotted Buk, this is to be taken seriously. (But he did not say they saw it was used, or that they know for sure that nothing else was used). --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 18:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: This [http://www.yaplakal.com/findpost/25052325/forum1/topic863845.html 20 July reference] makes a early claim that Buk missed and planes finished it off, referring to some leak from UAF. I would say, trustworthiness of the source is unknown and presumed to be low. There may be earlier essentially similar claims, I do not know who made it first. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 18:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::The leak is highly suspect. We've been over the holes a bit from different presumptions. I don't feel we have a firm measure on the holes so I can't say whether they are even large enough for one or small enough for the other. I've been leaning to Buk shrapnel, with roundness from their complex 3-D shapes plus edge melting (which you can see happened some on closer shots) But if the holes were consistently too big, all or largely over 30 mm, that would have to change. That photo of shrapnel sizes I've never seen (four types not 3? ... the arc looks interesting. If it's worth covering in details, best place to continue would be [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Forensics]]. A couple different sections might work to keep your work where it's best found. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Radar Details ==<br />
I know we have much of the reportage and alleged details up on the various pages, but still I think a space here is good to outline the best-supported details from Russian or other radar used to support their even being a jet. I may pull that together if no one else does, in a simple bullet list below. Locations first and last seen, direction of travel, speed of travel, any maneuvers, anything about altitude, etc. Next step is to compare what that says with fighter jets, SU-25 or other vs., say, a high-drag fragment of the airliner drifting on winds as it falls, a helicopter, dense cloud formation, etc. Maybe I missed something, but on last review, it seemed the evidence presented is just vague enough either could fit and it seemed there was no clear case in support of this jet actually being present in the air ... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 14:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Russian military showed screen shots from unified traffic control in Rostov, second part of presentation. 3 RLS and some unspecified military data used. Recording we see starts at 13.19 UTC time (17.19 pm Moscow). Crash is 13:20 UTC. We see MH17 slows down from about v=1000 km/h to v=280 km/h (speed in km/h goes after # ), [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsvVXDKGnMQ#t=1253 at about 20:56 by the video time-stamp.] At this time, we see one circle representing MH17 becoming two circles (by whatever method they use to process their raw data). The second circle parameters cannot be acquired, so it is either part of MH17 without transponder, or it is a military plane which does not talk to Russians; they interpret this as a military plane. MH17 stays on screen for a bit, (which may be interpolation of earlier received data or new acquired data--unclear); than it disappears (what we see is another flight 351 only) While new circle, orange in color, moves a bit in the opposite direction (and gets stuck steady for a while in the video we see, for whatever reason. Russian military interpretation of data is that their ATC system was in a regular, sleepy mode, and it only sees what is above 5000 m in that mode. They say, military plane showed up once it acquired altitude, and was not seen before as it was lower. I do not think anybody questions the fact that this is genuine screen shot, but interpretation does not appear too convincing. There is no further information to go by, so if there is more to say, THEY have to make the case, and have experienced and knowledgeable people as judges. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 00:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Rostov radar MK report, 12 Nov. 2014, is based on the same data as the Russian MoD report, and is further discussed [[File_talk:MH17_Rostov_radar_MK.jpg|here]]. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 04:54, 15 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Test Shooting to Demonstrate==<br />
<br />
They did a test, Russian fighter shooting at dead planes on the ground. Some interesting results.<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=gzw363q1N3o<br />
As usual I don't understand the audio, but the images are good. I can't make out what he shoots with, I assume cannon (?) [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 12:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
As he say, SU 25, with 30 mm cannon,was used, should be the standard armament. Looks interesting, indeed. But SU 25 will have trouble staying at such height (may be not able to cruise, can only leap there); and it is slow, like about the same speed as Boeing, so it cannot really catch-up. There were reports to the effect that it is not well-pressurized or have oxygen mask in default configuration. It would need truly extraordinary piloting, and realistically a plane should be a fast high altitude type. But that would show up on radars, including civilian radars... And the closest base for such a plane will be in Kiev, so it will likely show there on AVACS as well. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 12:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: Radar we cannot count on. ATC generally uses secondary, ie only picks up transponder squawks. Military aircraft transmit a "friend" squawk on their own frequency. They are just as invisible to civilian ATC as MH17 was to a BUK TELAR looking for a military "friend" signal. This in itself makes a lie of the "Spanish Carlo" ATC story that there were 2 Ukie planes escorting MH17....he would not have seen them. <br />
: The Russian "radar" claimed to see SU 25's or something? the radar would not say what they are, they could be assuming SU's if they didn't know Ukraine had just (about 3 weeks earlier) got two of its MIG's back into the air. MIG 29's easily handle that altitude. <br />
: Kiev denied having any planes in the air that day, although apparently that morning the had gone on TV to say they were planning 8 sorties that day. AWACS for sure would know, BUT as the story was "Russia dunnit" with separatist BUK, they're not going to say, anyway it would point the wrong way, so..... MIGs have/can use that R60 missile.<br />
: It MUST BE A MISSILE otherwise it can't be blamed on a BUK, okay? the fragments are much the same from various missiles. Some even have interchangeable heads. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 19:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: [http://www.yaplakal.com/forum1/st/0/topic863845.html?hl=#entry25052325 That early leak] I mentioned actually say that Buk "missed" (which I interpret as not done the job, really), and air-to-air missiles from planes were used to finish. As for Russian data, I only looked once, and as far as I could tell, there was no other signal before the presumed impact. Than something showed up very shortly after, and they say, stayed there for a while. Objections were raised that there was nothing to be seen before, and what is seen later could be plane starting to dis-integrate. Other, experienced people raised similar issues, as well as that there was some computer issue, like it get frozen and next update showed plane moving at unreasonable velocity. I was not following this since, as I could not say much and experienced people made their comments. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 20:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::With Korean Boeing shot by USSR, it was hit possibly by 1 or two air-to air missiles, but it kept flying for quite a while after that before it crashed; so I interpret "missed" as not dropping it off air at once --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 20:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::Smaller weaker missiles in those days. Another KAL kept flying and landed on ice or something. Both were hit above the wings, opening the fuselage a bit (and not too good result for some passengers). But the pilots alive and control surfaces and engines functioning, so really no worse off than the Aloha Airlines case in Hawaii where the roof blew off from decompression (metal fatigue). The one that crashed did have control surface damage. MH17 had the pilots killed, and all the avionics (computer control) in the bay below them, went into a flat spin that peeled off the roof, then the cockpit broke off, so.....a fair few military craft have survived missile hits, too. Proximity ones from the side, not heat-seekers which always get the engine.<br />
:::So actually, if it was a terrible mistake,they were very unlucky with where it struck. But if it was deliberate, they WOULD have to have a bird up to make sure, as the investigations would be much more thorough if the pilots could call for help, and maybe sort of land and some people survived. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 10:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::Yes, if it was planned, surface to air the main plan, need some planes, perhaps as a taxi to do the bookkeeping, but (mostly), just in case for plan B, if there is job started but not completed. (As I understand, civilian radar watches above 5000 m, so it is consistent with low-flying 'patrol', doing something else if needed). --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Civilian radar is secondary only -- strictly not even radar, they just query the transponders (that's hows MH370 "disappeared" as soon as the transponder went off). Military uses primary, actual radar that sends signals everywhere to see what bounces back. They can also listen for a "friend" squawk ("foe" they never hear as they can't ask the enemy to signal itself, so response = brother, no response = enemy oh oops civilian is also no response, oh...) Anyway point is ATC was not looking because airspace was closed to civilian traffic below 28,000 feet and they were actually only sending them over at 32,000 or 35,000 (in peace time they'd be looking at all levels because of local traffic). But now, could be a whole squadron in formation there and ATC would not know. <br />
::Russia might know, as they've been looking that way. With the curvature of the earth and radar strength, what they'd see would depend on distance and altitude, so this is an unknown to us. They do claim to think they saw something. The AWACS over Romania and Poland may have similar blind spot problems. They would be looking for the threat (Russia) not the Kiev machines, which would be on bombing missions they approved of (blocks of flats, kindergartens and so on).<br />
:: '''brand new conspiracy theory''' they are practising radar aiming, but ooops, the button is not locked. Fighter with bird's eye view sees rocket coming, thinks he'll be a hero and help out if needed. Ooops. Well it's gonna crash anyway, better make a good job of it, dead men don't talk. But no, if it was BUK+plane, it was no accident. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 20:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Pilot Named - Documentary==<br />
<br />
Documentary maker Andrei Karaulov just releasing "How the Boeing Died" which will be sown first on Russian TV. "In the picture the first time is named the 299th Squadron Air Force of Ukraine, Su-25, hull numbers 06,07,08 and 38, which, contrary to the statement of the General Staff of Ukraine, were indeed in the airspace of the country on 17 July 2014. Malaysian "Boeing", according to our data, was shot by Su-25, hull number 08, which was piloted by Lt. Col. Ukrainian Air Force Dmytro Yakatsuts who from July 18 to this day is in the UAE. Malaysian "Boeing" was led by the Kiev center manager Anna Petrenko, who in the morning on July 18, suddenly went on vacation, from which has not returned. The film includes a miraculously obtained admission from the first mate of the current Minister of Defense of Ukraine that the Ukrainian Air Force shot down "Boeing". So says the [http://moment-istini.com/news/newsrus/2087.html teaser] while the full version of the film will be available after the broadcast of Channel Five program Moment of Truth from 24.11.2014 also [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1QH03NtVQ0 on Youtube] [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 13:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
:(essentially identical translation here) (Rather controversial in the past) journalist Andrei Karaulov is promising to show his new documentary "How Boeing died", in 24.11 broadcast of his regular talk show [http://moment-istini.com/news/newsrus/2087.html Moment of Truth], and later on youtube. Akrady Mamontov independent investigation claims that 299 Air Wing of UAF, hull numbers 06,07,08,09, 38 were in Ukraine airspace on 17 July 2014. Authors claim that their data show that Boeing was shot by "SU-25 piloted by Lieutenant Colonel of UAF Dmytro Yakatsuts that from July 18 to this day is in the UAE. Malaysian "Boeing" was routed by the Kiev ATC manager Anna Petrenko, who in the morning on July 18 unexpectedly went on vacation, out of which did not come back until now." "Numerous other evidence" is presented in the film "including an interview, obtained by a miracle, with first mate of the current Minister of Defense of Ukraine, that "Boeing" was shot down by the Ukrainian Air Force. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Video with all that is private, may become public after the broadcast. Not sure what to make of it; looks like evidence is that those guys disappeared shortly after, and there is something being said in the 'miracle interview'. Apart from vacation details, first mate is [http://www.mil.gov.ua/ministry/kerivnicztvo/kerivnicztvo-ministerstva-oboroni-ukraini/rusnak-ivan-stepanovich.html Rusnak Ivan Stepanovich], and his background is Air Defense. He may, or should, know but what did he actually say? Karaulov appears to be 'investigations' talk show man. Now he has this movie , where actual investigation appears to be done by a journalist (and off-air talk show man himself) Arkadii Mamontov. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:18, 24 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
This is a 'propaganda movie', they put together all those things we heard before, and than some more. Video is [http://dnr-news.com/tv/8582-moment-istiny-kak-pogib-boing.html here] . Regarding first mate, at 39:56 author says: I could not reach Defense Minister, but somehow manage to reach first mate "a Russian guy, Ivan Vladimirovich, did not reveeal his last name" (it's on the web! Perhaps he mixed up middle name, or else it's a different guy. Author: "we will show our movie worldwide," so (in preparation to attempted mng with defence minister himself), "is it possible that there is some other leak that your SU 25 jets, 299 air wing, have been in the air" Answer of unseen man said to be "Ivan Vladimirovich": "I (some noise ? do not ?) exclude such possibility" Author: " So please inform the minister this will be the topic of conversation". Ivan Vladimiroich "OK, I understand." From further discussion I think the answer was assumed to be "I exclude such possibility (so just noise, no 'do not') . This is not much information either way, he just did not say much. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 22:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
14:59 witness Vladimir, Rassypnoe: There was a bang, with plane in the clouds. Than out of clouds, and he saw the plane "without cabin" . Than "wing fell off" , and plane started to spin. Hmm, interesting. But could he actually see all that? --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 22:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
1:30 [http://tass-analytics.com/experts/diskin-iosif-evgenevich Iosif Diskin], member of the Civic Chamber of Russia, tells us that "it was established that one of the engine stopped, and only after 1.5 minutes all the other systems went out" (has anybody heard such a thing? I believe preliminary report shows everything out at once?)--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 23:16, 24 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
On top of saying that journos know about the planes somehow, the author in passing mentions an earlier link "by NATO guys," which since "disappeared from the internet". Indeed there is something on internet <br />
[http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ba3_1416456807 liveleak] with Rammstein music accompaniment. But this seems to be about Yatseniuk visit to this well-trained air wing. It does show some of those numbers on hulls, including number 8. So it is plausible that numbers were gleaned from unrelated report about Yatseniuk visit? Or they got it elsewhere? --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 04:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
: [https://arsenalnsoz.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/3l.jpeg Dmytro Yakatsuts photo], more [http://for-ua.info/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8343&start=140 squadron photos] , and [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XL5jTmm6PU flight training video at Kulbakino Airbase, Nikolaev (2013)]--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 02:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Radio Intercept?===<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_d65Adj4s5k This video] is said to be a record of a fighter plane pilot, 17 July, sometime from 16.16 to 16.22 local, 136.000 (MHz) radio frequency. Hard to understand what he says; what I could get is <br />
сброс (discharge/reset)333 на первом (first) ком... 333 контрольная (control) командир (commander)... (than quickly,indistinctly, something ).... 33 контрольная (control) 3 на боевом (active/armed/ready for action) контрольная (control). <br />
Don't know what to make of it; but looks like pilot discharged something (missile or bomb), than activated something (perhaps the thing he discharged); and also that he is a commandeering pilot. Video is uploaded by Sharii. A commentator interprets a fragment as "633-й на 3-ем ТБ 1500-т, контрольная"<br />
hull 633 third Bombing point Altitude 1500 meters...so this is mostly likely bombing, not missile. Another commentator claims that it was produced on 16 July. OK, unlikely to be of help, looks like it is intercept from bombing raid. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 20:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
==Lev Alexandrovich==<br />
[http://7mei.nl/2015/05/30/lev/ Interviewed at 7mei.nl] . He says he saw 3 'sturmovik' (SU 25) planes on the day, one of those 'forsaging' (using engines thrust to go up) in the direction of the Boeing. Than he heard 'bah-bah' 'bah'--three bangs. Can't say for sure what the 'bahs' were, missile or gun. Did not see or hear a Buk launch. Had pieces of the plane falling nearby. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:03, 3 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
:Describes loud "soulbreaking" engine turbines roar after the plane was hit (consistent with engine sucking up broken blades; --we know that happened- spotted by Kat Kan)--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:40, 4 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
::People say they saw his interview in early days, and some say it was vanished by BBC. I am seeing this guy for the first time here. When he describes sounds, bah-bah bah, roaring engine, this sounds strong and vivid, as something he remembers with great confidence. Also goes with smells, he mentioned what smells as cologne/ deodorant (he said 'like Channel no 5', --does not have to be, he is a miner, not cologne tester ) Other things, e.g. how fast it happened, he could not really tell. With other two planes, it sounded as something a bit more distant or more tentative, not by much -FWIW --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 19:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=="Captain Voloshin"==<br />
{{Main|Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Vladislav Voloshin}}<br />
<br />
A guy came to [http://www.kp.ru/daily/26323.5/3204312/ Komsomol Pravda newspaper office o tell a story.] [http://fortruss.blogspot.com/2014/12/meet-pilot-who-shot-down-malysian.html translated] He says that he was in Ukraine, in an airport in small town [https://www.google.com/maps/place/Aviators'ke,+Dnipropetrovsk+Oblast,+Ukraine/@48.3679521,35.081308,13z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x40dbfbc57817aa53:0xd009882666b30b87 Aviatorskoe], near Dnepropetrovsk. (This is Dnepropetrovsk International Airport site.) <br />
* (from video testimony) Three SU 25 flew on a mission about 1 hour from MH 17 crash. He claims that he witnessed departure himself, and saw air-to air missiles on one of the planes. He was located on-site of the airport at the time. Only one plane, piloted by Voloshin, returned back, with air-to-air missiles now missing. <br />
* He says he know the pilot (a bit), and thought he is a guy who could panic. After return, pilot was talking about "a plane in a wrong place at a wrong time".<br />
*3.6.15: [http://rt.com/news/264545-mh17-investigators-key-witness/ Identified:] Evgeny Agapov, an aviation armaments mechanic in the Ukrainian Air Force. The man is currently under Russian state protection. voluntarily crossed the state border of the Russian Federation and expressed a desire to cooperate with the Russian investigation.” Agapov has testified that on July 17, 2014, a Ukrainian Sukhoi Su-25 jet aircraft piloted by one Captain Voloshin “set out for a military task,” Markin said.--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hnYeD77MZo Video of official questioning released]. Confirms details in KP interview: 3 planes went out on 17 July, only one with Voloshin returned. Later on 17 July, while plane was serviced on the return to the airport, Agapov heard a phrase "not the right plane" said by Voloshin. Later in the day, Agapov learned that Boeing was shot down. Later in the evening, at around 11 pm, Agapov overheard a conversation of Voloshin with a group of other pilots. Diakev (another pilot) asked Voloshin, "what's (happened) with the plane?" Voloshin answer was, the plane was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Voloshin plane was equipped with R60 (heat seeking) air to air missiles. There were two planes equipped with R60 missiles, but Voloshin plane was the only such plane in the air on 17 July (and taking off that airport in Dnepropetrovsk). The other R60 equipped plane on some different occasions was accompanying and protecting other planes on bombing missions. Agapov was an air mechanic called for military duty. He objected punishing operation by Ukraine on moral grounds, and left because of that. He had no ill feelings to accuse the pilots without basis. He has nothing of substance to add. Komsomolskaia pravda now published full transcript with their comments, reporters say this guy at some point got scared, and kind of 'froze', needed questions repeated etc, but they did not feel he was lying --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: The [http://7mei.nl/2015/05/30/lev/ new witness] you linked to elsewhere is totally corroborating the story, with the two shot-down planes being very close to the ones recognized on July 23, in the right spots (near Shakhtersk). It just totally makes no sense (why would one of the three pilots suddenly decide to climb up to hit that plane he barely could have been aware of?) --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 19:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::Don't know why, the issue for now are they telling the truth, -I do not spot obvious lies but I have no experience interrogating any people :) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 19:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
Text in the newspaper closely follows testimony. Witness have some professional knowledge, is not nervous. Can be military, or intelligence guy (better/clearer spoken than a typical mechanic; and slower than a salesperson. Boss of mechanics? Maybe. Says he has friends in Novorossia and is against ATO ). Newspaper says they done some (unspecified) checks and did not detect an obvious fake. Not sure what to make of this; not much verifiable details. Just linking the story. Voice is altered, but what we do hear sounds like lower-frequency "Russian Russian", no accent, nothing Southern-sounding <br />
*[http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/russian-military-plane-shot-down-ukrainian-su-25-aircraft-in-ukraine-356422.html 16 of July Su 25 reported shot], [http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=167954 said to be at 19:00 local, at Russian_Ukrainian border], publication dated July 17, 2014, 12:51 p.m; <br />
*[http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/ukrainian-defense-ministry-confirms-damage-of-su-25-in-countrys-east-356347.html another was reported damaged, Gorlovka, Donetsk region, 16 of July], [http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=167950 said to be at 13:00 local], publication dated July 16, 2014, 11:14 p.m. <br />
:So, it appears that at least one, possibly both of those planes said to be shot on 16 July indeed went down on 16, not 17 of July, as our witness claims. That raises some caution as to whether witness report is accurate. <br />
: If I am to speculate, the investigating commission at this point already should know whether a plane was involved, from shrapnel in pilot bodies. Most likely planes '''were''' involved (Buk is just too big to do alone such fine job we seem to see, making downing by single Buk not too likely). So now the question is, was it intentional or accidental. Our witness is there to tell us it was accidental. And prior to that, he was sitting in bushes in Dnepropetrovsk, right on his Novorossian friendship. Don't we have some horns visible there? <br />
:--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:56, 23 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Definitely relevant accusations and worth considering. And good job with the context fill-in. However, if the story is like you related it, I'm calling probably bullshit. Suspicious omniscience, he saw everything needed to know just what happened - and it's a possibility with clear political implications and not clearly backed up as "what we know happened" - traditionally not an indicator of truthfulness. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbTYW2SNxMM An audio interview given by KP correspondents emerged] (posted by [http://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/1958596.html Cassad]). Audio provides some explanation of why the witness ("Alexander") was silent before, saying that he and his family stayed in Ukraine, and only now were able to all move to safety (in Russia, presumably). KP correspondent also relayed that witness was very nervous and fearful, insisting that his voice is changed, etc. (Well, this does not tell a lot, actually). Also, that he explained why there were some powerful aerial explosions, that's because [http://armyrus.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=672&Itemid=2086 volume blast munitions, "Fuel-Air Explosion Aircraft Bomb"] (designed in Afganistan war times and likely banned thereafter) were used. Reporter also said it was kind of difficult to pull words out of witness mouth; and that his role was 'technical services", no further details provided. It was said that missile launches should be recorded in the paperwork and so a record confirming witness story are supposed to be on the books somewhere. <br />
:Cassad also linked videos of some flights of the only SU 25 Novorossia had. First military sortie was [http://novorussia.today/vid/videos/%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%B9-%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B9-%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B5%D1%82-%D1%81%D1%83-25-%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%B8-%D0%BB%D0%BD%D1%80-03-09-14/ on September 3]; but there was an earlier report that it made it to the air, making one flight over Luhansk [http://rusvesna.su/news/1405241886 on 13 of July] . This plane initially [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWYGvx6iLe4 was crash-landed by an Ukrainian pilot at Luhansk airport]. That came about from a discussion on what other plane Voloshin reportedly talked about (as he said "wrong plane") ; this Novorossian SU 25 suggested as an alternative to (outlandish) Putin's plane suggestions.--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:56, 23 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: According to [http://rt.com/news/217295-mh17-ukraine-military-plane/ this RT article], a Vladimir Markin, spokesman for an "Investigative Committee", says they have interviewed the man, tested him with a polygraph and consider his statements to be truthful. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Yeah, there is something about this guy, his KP interview also sounded super-steady. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Missile?==<br />
According to reporter audio, it is [https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0-60 R60]. But R 60 is listed as rod-type with infrared homing, and a proximity fuse (radar or optical); does not seem to be rods damage, looks more like fragmentation warhead. (Reporter said that there are two types of R60. For now, can see details on only one). Witness did not say R60, just some air-to air missile. He also discussed some air-to air missile which shoots some buckshot-like charge, before the main explosion (he was trying to explain pilot cabin damage). Not sure what missile that would be. R60 has high explosives fragmentation-type charge surrounded by rods; do not see details like there is a smaller charge elsewhere on R60 warhead. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I disagree. I find it likely that MH17 was hit with a R 60 or something similar. There are at least these four things that point to a rod warhead.<br />
:# The left engine was hit, pointing to infrared homing.<br />
:# The damage on the upper surface of the left wing was described as likely caused be a rod warhead. I agree. <br />
:#:can be anything fast-flying, does not seem to be a rod to me --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 17:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:# I would be impossible to see the rod damage in the [[List of MH17 airframe parts|MH17 airframe parts]]. The rods would shred the airframe to pieces. The rod damage would be the separation or two sections. One would need to microscopically study edges of the parts to see if they were torn or spliced.<br />
:#:It may be that we do not see rod damage because it shredded some portion to pieces, but it would most likely cause catastrophic disintegration, it would split it into two parts. But it was kind of still flying for a while with stuff coming off (as I understand)--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 17:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:# The bullet hole type holes in the cockpit do not alone explain what brought down the plane. (Killing the pilots would help in the long run.) Even less do they explain the catastrophic breakup of the fuselage. My hypothesis is that rod damage separated the cockpit from the rest of the fuselage. This separation might explain why there was nothing on the flight data recorders. <br />
:#:should be further towards center, damage on pilot cabin are not rods--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 17:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:-- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 16:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
If we look at the Figure on page 22 of [http://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/uploads/phase-docs/701/b3923acad0ceprem-rapport-mh-17-en-interactief.pdf Dutch preliminary report], hypothetical rods should go into a portion shown in white (and cut in a cross-section though there, fully or almost fully; rods are often tied by the ends, and they fly off radially, away from cylindrical missile axes, all designed to cut through plane bodies). So than they have to go almost in the middle of business class in front (or in the rear, which is unlikely). If it through the middle of business class, I guess it will be known by now, from rods lodged in bodies, and as we will expect to have rather large chunk of forward section landing on the ground in one piece. In fact, stuff may come of just because there were holes opened up, while the plane went into spin (from engine and wing damage); no need for rods to bring plane down. It could have disintegrated because of the spin, eventually. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 19:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Full presentation by Almaz-Antey ( Buk-m2 manufacturer ) about the incident [http://tass.ru/boeing-presentation/vvedenie/2023629#/2023629].<br />
Still only in Russian. Unfortunately even in Russian somebody the diagrams are not self-explanatory. But main arguments are clear. It includes calculations of the attack angle of the rocket in order to cause such damage.<br />
<br />
==Vanished ATC dispatcher ==<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnrCyP_crGw#t=77 Anna (Anechka) Petrenko,] dispatcher from Dnepropetrovsk ATC said to be routing MH17, was said to be questioned for 2 hours by SBU, than took a vacation and did not return . Born 16 December 1987. Gradauted from Kirovograd Aviation Academy. [http://www.bolshoyvopros.ru/questions/1072060-chto-govorit-aviadispetcher-kotoryj-zavel-malazijskij-boing-v-zonu-ato.html#answer3286226 This post] also gives those details, photos, and a link to deleted VK account and some friend account. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 17:16, 26 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Vanished dispatcher seems more serious than a vanished military pilot. Military pilot does not have a high salary, even in Ukraine switching to civilian aviation increases salary 10 fold, working for a foreign civilian or private employer may be even more profitable. So there is finance reason to quit military and go 'on vacation'. But for a civilian dispatcher, no such reason. Nobody will hire her abroad. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 04:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Why everyone is throwing around "Su-25"? ==<br />
<br />
One thing that keeps getting me extremely mad about this is WHY everybody on the internet KEEPS INSISTING that it was Su-25 and not something else??? <br />
<br />
How about we look back at the [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSpeo5RcQQo&t=11m41s the source]? I've got a convenient transcript for you:<br />
<br />
'''Russian General:''' ''Кроме того, российскими средствами контроля воздушной обстановки зафиксирован набор высоты самолетом украинских ВВС, предположительно Су-25, в направлении малазийского Boeing 777.''<BR><br />
'''Translator''' (who's experience, to be honest, seems to be limited to thumbing through English dictionary, rather than actually speaking English on a daily basis)''':''' ''Besides, Russian means of air traffic control fixed Ukrainian aircraft climbing to the direction of Malaysian Boeing-seven-seven. It is supposed that it was Su-25.''<BR><br />
'''Proper translation''': ''Additionally, Russian airspace monitoring system has recorded the climbing of a Ukrainian Air Force airplane, '''supposedly Su-25''', in the direction of Malaysian Boeing-777.''<BR><br />
<br />
Excuse me, what part of "supposedly" you do not understand? Nobody ever ''officially'' claimed it ''was'' Su-25. What they claim is that "the radar signature of that plane looked a lot like Su-25", but that is true of a whole lot of planes! -- [[User:Ed3218|Ed3218]] ([[User talk:Ed3218|talk]]) 19:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: I guess we are here perfectly fine with a different plane, but what is the evidence that there was a plane? Witnesses, yes. This Russian MoD presentation, no. It shows something else which does not move much at all. Could be a blip in data or a plane splitting into two-that would not give active response as well as a military jet. If Russian MoD has more to say on this, they need to make a better case, so far it does not really establish the second plane. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 19:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: My personal opinion of that blip is that it's a big radio-reflective part that fell off Boeing after the hit (whatever the hit was), but that's just that: opinion. What I'm trying to say is that the argument "Su-25 cannot climb that high, therefore there was no plane!!!111" is invalid and should be taken off the board whenever it surfaces. (Whereas "the blip was too slow for a plane" ''is'' a valid claim.) -- [[User:Ed3218|Ed3218]] ([[User talk:Ed3218|talk]]) 20:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: In other words, the claim "Witnesses, through the heavy snowfall, saw a man fleeing the crime scene riding a four-legged animal, which looked like a zebra" cannot be dismissed by saying "zebras cannot tolerate extreme cold, therefore the witnesses are lieing"; they could have mistaken a horse (possibly in disguise) for a zebra. There still may be other reasons to not believe the witnesses, but "zebra argument" is not one of them. -- [[User:Ed3218|Ed3218]] ([[User talk:Ed3218|talk]]) 20:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::: We are not dismissing a plane possibility, including an interceptor plane. But what would be a theory, and what is supporting evidence? --At this point, the official investigation likely knows is it air-to-air or surface to air; so proposing a theory with no/little evidence is not very attractive. Comments focusing on SU 25 are from old times when it was not known Ukraine got interceptor planes actually flying (not just listed), and to discuss theories by others. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 23:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::: I do not have anything to add to the plane theory that hasn't been said yet. I'm just pointing out a logical fallacy in the "plane deniers" arguments to make sure our minds are open to ''all'' theories. As Sherlock Holmes said, ''"...when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"'' The only thing I'm saying here is that the "Su-25 can't fly that high" argument doesn't alone make the plane theory impossible, because a) nobody claimed it was ''specifically'' Su-25 (could be anything else) and b) Su-25, in fact, can fly quite high ([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GY_2NoHdNso&t=5m33s video proof of Su-25 flying at 8700 m just fine]). Once again, some rock solid facts disproving plane theory may eventually surface, but the "zebra claim" is not one of them. -- [[User:Ed3218|Ed3218]] ([[User talk:Ed3218|talk]]) 23:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: Interestingly, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-43NmR9ppBo this video] has witness claiming they saw a plane. --[[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 22:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC) ~~\}\}øþþþ¨22:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)~<br />
<br />
:: Indeed. But while eyewitness accounts are valid evidence, they are always subject to greater scrutiny than material evidence (of which we have very little). Once again, I'm neither saying "it was a plane", nor "it wasn't a plane", I'm honestly saying "I don't know". -- [[User:Ed3218|Ed3218]] ([[User talk:Ed3218|talk]]) 00:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I totally agree that SU-25 is silly to get so official. It was deduced from being the most common Ukie jet, I think. I don't believe it was a jet, despite what the anti-Kiev witnesses trying to blame Kiev said. Could be, but I doubt it. But to be fair to jet theories, somewhere on the page here (or maybe a sub-page?) I skipped SU-25 and called the maybe jet an unknown but capable model. Any radar track with speed, etc. could help narrow it down but that's been really vague. But... it's also not part of the plane. Measured it once, eassily too far away. Unknown blip with no clear sign of real movement. A mystery. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 00:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I agree that Russian MOD didn't make a conclusion that it was SU-25 on the radar. They only gave one of the possible explanations. More to this, in their statement they didn't even say that this plane shot MH17. They don't know and didn't see it. What they say is that plane was there. But I would like to add here something. Claim that SU-25 can't reach 10km is false. In 2012 Ukrs declared themselves that they upgraded their SU-25 TO SU-25 M1. That was the selling point at 8th International Aviation and Space Salon AVIASVIT-XXI, <br />
Ukraine, Kyiv 2012 [http://www.redstar.gr/Foto_red/Eng/Aircraft/Su_25M1.html]<br />
<br />
== Tin Foil (Hat) theory of Military Chaff falling in crash video ==<br />
<br />
Video shows man explaing that long streamers in crash video are actually military chaff from a Ukranian fighter shadowing MH17<br />
<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUltrf8n_vA Military Chaff Theory]<br />
<br />
Simple debunk. The stuff must have been a metre or more wide and hundreds of metres long to be visible at that range. No such military chaff system has that sizing, least of all one that can be carried by a fighter jet.<br />
<br />
The only foil in this video is on the guy's head.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 00:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I don't even know what "military chaff" is, but I saw someone mention the streamers, connected to the plane having a cargo including textiles. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 22:19, 20 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:No, It seems to me the chaff is falling in the foreground while the smoke cloud is kilometers away. A lucky shot just got them both in the same picture. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 22:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
::just to belatedly clarify - chaff would be emitted by the plane before being shot down, in the hope of causing the missile to home onto the chaff ather than the plane itself. This is the purpose of chaff. So the chaff could be many kilometres behind the plane. The images in that video most likely WERE chaff, because that video has since been proven to be NOT MH17 but a Ukrainian military plane that was downed 2 days earlier. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 19:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
In [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-43NmR9ppBot his video] witnesses claim they saw a plane firing flares and chaff falling from the sky. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 20:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:Woman witness in the above video claim that her '''friend''' saw a military plane releasing shining metallic reflectors; but the friend is not on the video; while the woman herself talks about plane on "fire" (and smoke trail) ; but smoke started only when it hit the ground. A different earlier plane was on fire, though. So it seems that she may be confused.--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 21:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qp5w8HKFnfI Vanished BBC video] witnesses appear to be trustworthy and describe the correct event; but they did not identify the other plane --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 21:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)</div>Antidyatelhttps://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17/Zaroshchenskoye&diff=23631Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Zaroshchenskoye2015-08-03T00:23:12Z<p>Antidyatel: Added on missile explosion assumption and video from July 16, 2014 that discusses SU in the sky</p>
<hr />
<div>== Three questions? ==<br />
These three questions need to be answered. (Discuss each issue in a separate section below.)<br />
# Where there BUK launchers in Zaroshchenskoye in mid July 2014? What proof is there of their existence?<br />
# Were there Ukrainian soldiers in Zaroshchenskoye in mid July? Who were they loyal to? Or were they somehow trying to remain neutral?<br />
# When and how did NAF take over Zaroshchenskoye?<br />
-- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 03:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Partial Answers==<br />
I don't think we know for sure (and I do not see Zaroshenskoe as the only possibility, despite Almaz-Antei report; matching fragment damage to missile orientation being the tricky part)<br />
:1. Russian MoD gave us satellite photos. Bellingcat tried to disprove it, with an early attempt debunked. Than they purchased satellite images from a commercial provider and [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/06/12/july-17-imagery-mod-comparison/ claimed] that MoD were faked. <br />
:I do not have a strong view, could be inaccurately presented by MoD, or commercial photos are not accurately timed, or we see those images at different angles and image qualities, which appears as a mismatch. Since 'investigative' methods at bc are propaganda-driven, conclusion cannot be reached just on the basis of their presentation; there is no independent info available to me. <br />
::Zaroshesnkoe photos [http://archive.mid.ru/bdomp/brp_4.nsf/9f9f2a6497b5822f43256a2900463456/f6c3bbd89ac2532d44257d1d00203ccf/body/27.3E9C!OpenElement&FieldElemFormat=jpg Zaroshenskoe 17 July, 11:32] "A= two Buk M1 self-propelled missile launchers, B= one armored vehicle" [http://archive.mid.ru/bdomp/brp_4.nsf/9f9f2a6497b5822f43256a2900463456/f6c3bbd89ac2532d44257d1d00203ccf/body/30.3EC6!OpenElement&FieldElemFormat=jpg Zaroshenskoe 18 July, 11:39] (A, B gone)<br />
::Also [http://archive.mid.ru//brp_4.nsf/newsline/F6C3BBD89AC2532D44257D1D00203CCF Donetsk, Lugansk photos]<br />
:: I understand, Bellingcat disputes those from Donetsk<br />
:2. It was not a base really, some launchers parked there is all, can move easily. Loyalties -we do not know<br />
:3 I do not know (was not following really, as never had strong belief in Zaroshenskoe location. Maps can be found and may give some answers). Almaz-Antey was telling us, Buk was from Zaroshenskoe, and we do not know who was there at the time. Without more research, that would be state of play here. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 03:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
::[https://www.bellingcat.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Zaroshchenske_EN_1.pdf Another bc] on Zaroshenskoe-has a collection of maps at least and usual twisty stuff leading to the predetermined conclusion. I have not gone through all that and unsure whether will have time in the near future. But all this long winding stuff can be probably summarized as we do not really know. And no reason really to focus heavily on Torez and ignore anything else. <br />
<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPop2oSw6Xo MOD presentation]-Zaroshenkoe at about 10:00 mark<br />
<br />
[http://www.novayagazeta.ru/inquests/68728.html Novaia Gazeta], Grabovo, Zaroshenskoe and Snezhnoe interviews. None anywhere mentioned Buk contrail or seeing Buk; conflicting account on planes. About half reluctant to talk on camera or afraid. <br />
:[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRS64s4n-o4 Anatolii, Grabovo]. He says at the moment he looked up (he was swimming) he saw a fireball, which quickly disappeared into clouds. That was followed by the crash. His description does not match Buk contrail, could be a flare<br />
:Zaroshenskoe. Several interviews, mostly audio. Confused account seemingly agreeing that Zaroshenskoe was not controlled by either side; that nobody saw Buk itself or tracks, although some tried to find tracks; one woman said that there was another planes on that day (first interview), the other woman said she did not see herself so cannot tell; than the first one said she did not see it either but her husband saw it and told her<br />
:Pevomaika, Snezhnoe. Woman says there was another SU <br />
::Another interview, woman says it was a drone; and that she saw multiple white trails going up. She was afraid it is phosphor bomb, later thought it could be flares ;- but in another interview similar multiple white trails were attributed to opolchenie trying to shoot a plane--creating cloud of fragments in the sky (unsure here, - have not heard such description before; likely just an anti-aircraft gun? [http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/150418163107-yemen-anti-aircraft-fire-exlarge-169.jpg (like here)] or is this some sort of cluster type munition? ) <br />
:Diadia Serezha (uncle Serezha)-said that military planes were often hiding under civilian ones, and thought it could happen on the day; thought that Boeing could be shot with an anti-aircraft gun <br />
:Nikolai Ivanovich. Have not seen much apart from the crash itself. Confused/afraid account. (There was some sound but he did not see another plane, and did not claim there was one) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 07:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Just realised something that might compromise the primary Bellingcat witness - the one that supplied trail photo. The only photo till now. Here is his statement: "And at 16:20 we heard an explosion. The first explosion was not very heavy. 15 seconds later, something like that, there was a second explosion, which was louder and it made the windows shake.”<br />
Of course 15 seconds is impossible if Snezhnoe is the launch site, particularly location claimed by Bellingcat. Will not go into it right now as it can be argued that his 15 seconds is a perceived number and should not be taken literally (although why so accurate, could be just 20 sec). More importantly is a description of two explosions. First small and second very loud. Now, the first explosion is attributed to rocket launch. Second is rocket explosion. From first glance it is logical that second will be louder. But the second explosion happened 20 km ground distance from his location and 10 km in altitude, according to Bellingcat fairytale. At 10km air pressure is only 100 mbar. 10 times less than on the ground. It is low vacuum and sound will be strongly attenuated. He could probably hear it better if he was just under the hit point. At oblique angles the warmer air in lower parts of the atmosphere will make refractive index to change creating reflection interfaces that will further increase sound dissipation. His description, particularly with claimed time interval is just impossible. So, either it is a total fake or the missile hit the target at much lower altitude and very close to his location. From leaks in the media, his photo and testimony are also going to be center point of Dutch report. If true, shame on them. Let me know if my analysis has a flaw.--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 09:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
:Interesting thought. Two things, whether it helps and physics. I am skeptical on the first (missile launch wooshing sound vs a blast at a distance, both played by an ear and reported with a long delay--not very usable. Other witnesses described it in different ways but some were saying it was a blast or like something dropping of. <br />
Physics-wise, at this distance, it is no longer a shock wave and will propagate as sound. Therefore, pressure and velocity drop as 1/L , and intensity which is sort of P v dies as 1/L^2 . It is doable, though not immediate, to have an estimate of what those will be say with 70 kg TNT going off. This is without attenuation. Actually I do not know quickly how that will attenuate. Engineers will tell that attenuation is frequencey dependent, and this is low frequency which pretty much just 1/L^2 . --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 11:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
First of all he was not talking about whooshing sound but about explosion. But let's skip this point for now as it is relying on his 15 sec claim, which is easily brushed away. In terms of physics. The explosion at 10 km will be happening in low pressure environment. Intensity is defined as I=(ξω)^2cρ, where we have particle displacement, sound frequency, speed of sound and density. For the same blast we can assume displacement and frequency the same. Pressure is 10 times smaller so density is also 10 times smaller. Due to low temperature the speed of sound is also smaller,roughly 20%. So we get more than 10 times smaller initial intensity. Then we have a refraction index difference between upper and lower levels of atmosphere. That gives two effects: 1) sound is reflected from the boundary and thus lost to propagation towards the guy; 2) sound is refracted towards the Earth making the wave, actually reaching him, travel longer distance and thus, be more attenuated. Your formula only takes into account geometrical attenuation of spherical wave. We should also look at attenuation by moisture in the air. It was cloudy, so that part of attenuation will be quite high. Of course the actual value should be calculated but I'm quite confident that this will not get the overwhelming explosion that he describes. And it will definitely not shake the windows. <br />
Not sure about that paper but they claim that 100dB is equivalent to 99.8 kg of TNT detonated at 12.5m distance [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4126588/]. At 20 km it will attenuate to 42 dB just by geometric attenuation (which is a background noise in large conference room [http://www.airportsites.net/lambert-stl/workshop1/nc_b29.aspx]). For 150 dB the result will be 80 dB at 20 km by geometric attenuation - noise of the vacuum cleaner. Still not able to shake the window. If we add other attenuation factors we can practically forget about second explosion. <br />
--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 13:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::Thanks for the paper. Earlier comment I was about to put:<br />
:: what you call (ξω)^2 really should be internal energy per unit mass; there is no frequency here; there is also velocity and pressure, and gas dynamics equations relating all. It is interesting and doable with some effort, and will depend on density although not in such simple way-- but I am skeptical it is helpful to refute MH17 claims. Can't really compare outcome of this computation with a witness statement - other people did hear it and said it was 'loud', he could hear it as well, and his account is imprecise in any case. <br />
::It seems to me official investigation will not use the photo, they will perhaps say about direction--that's what I thought after reading CNN and/or Parry ---somewhere from the front because it hit the cabin--and they did not use Antey stuff so far. In front, there was Russian separatists--bingo, case closed. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
::What's going on in this paper--100 kilograms at 12.5 meters distance???? No way this is 100db. I think they put this is high-bar test reactor and took care to have it as quiet as possible ...<br />
<br />
Got an idea for an estimate. Up to some numerical constants of order 1, shock wave will turn into sound at a radius r0 such that c^2 rho r0^3 = E= released energy. I think this r0 for 70 kg TNT is about 8 meters (which seems low but this is what I am getting). At his point, our intensity I, which we take as energy per volume times c, is I=c^3 rho (this does not depend on E, but size of this ball does). Than at a distance R, our intensity is c^3 rho (r0/R)^2 . With R = | {20 km , 10 km} | , getting 6 watts per square meter--what on hell that would be in loudness? Looking it up, reference intensity is 10^(-12) watt/m^2 --getting 127 decibel which is loud ...--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 17:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
127dB at 20 or even 10 km mark from the explosion of 70kg TNT is unlikely correct. It could have been at 10 meter distance but not at 10 km. Here is the video of BUK LAUNCH. It doesn’t seem that rockets go far but I can hear any of the explosions. [https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QwnUtIn9Rh8]. --[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 00:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Sorry, I know that I'm lazy to do my own calculations but allow me just to reference. You can Google paper titled "Use of Noise Attenuation Modeling in Missile<br />
Motor Detonation Activities". They actually give formula for estimating peak intensity. Didn’t use it but just noticed that "the detonations missile<br />
motors characterized by a propellant charge ranging <br />
from 50,000 to 120,000 lb (TNT equivalent) should not<br />
exceed the UTTR operational noise threshold of 134 dB at a<br />
30-km distance from the detonation site." 50,000 lb is more than 20,000 kg. I really think that the 70kg that we are discussing is not measurable for our purposes. Especially when explosion takes place at 10 km altitude and sound has to propagate the ground distance of 10/20km at shallow angles to cold-hot air interface and through the clouds (excessive moisture) <br />
--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 01:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
127dB at 20 or even 10 km mark from the explosion of 70kg TNT is unlikely correct. It could have been at 10 meter distance but not at 10 km. Here is the video of BUK LAUNCH. It doesn’t seem that rockets go far but I can hear any of the explosions. [https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QwnUtIn9Rh8]. --[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 00:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
:Missile will not use all of that at once --the sound will last longer so what arrives will have less intensity than going of instantly<br />
<br />
At 10 meters there will be still shock wave felt. At threshold of the two, decibel level is about 194 decibel--engineers call this "Loudest sound possible" meaning pressure difference is over 1 atmosphere. An estimate gives 194 decibels at 8 meters or so. 10 meters will be close to 194 level (70 kg is like artillery shell- seems a sensible distance scale) . Other witnesses-talking about planes, tell about one loud, or 2-3 separate bahs; unsure what is that exactly--there is also crashing sounds later, whether their accounts clearly separate explosion and crash? (crash is later of course and not by 15 secs --the freefall without air resistance takes 45 secs) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
:This is short in duration and low frequency (8 meters wavelength is 40 hz); --and both mean that subjectively it will sound as less loud than actual power suggests...Also this is order-of magnitude computation meaning can be less by some 10-20 db . So it appears plausible... basically its high wattage because it is short ...--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 02:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
So if I understand correctly, 127 dB at 20 km mark will happen if we assume that all energy will go into one particular frequency, explosions happens at atmospheric pressure and normal temperature (20C) and sound propagates in air with uniform density and temperature and with normal humidity. <br />
<br />
'': no, it's the same computation above, matching shock wave and sound regimes , there is no frequency involved , but knowing length scale , frequencies scale where signal lives may be roughly estimated (continuous spectrum of course, -but largest at such sort of frequency-low rumbling overall )'' <br />
<br />
I have to disagree with you here. "Ideal" explosion is practically a delta function in time, which would be flat spectrum with unity probability for all frequencies. Then attenuation will filter out many frequencies depending on interaction with media (primarily high frequency waves). But as such the power will be dissipated in the whole spectrum. At least that would be my guess. --[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 07:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
All these assumptions are not valid, obviously. Let's accept your calculation of initial intensity (I'm still lazy to double check :)). But with all the assumptions reiterated, the final intensity will be much lower. And I'm quite confident that it will not be a large explosion shaking windows that guy is describing (we can't here them on the video that I linked above). So either the witness is lying or the target was at much lower altitude and much closer to him. Explosion from the falling plane has a problem due to 15 seconds. You can't misjudge few minutes for 15 seconds. We could think that both explosions were actually at the plane. But the first explosion convinced him to look to the opposite side from where the plane fell. So we will have to come out with some acoustic reflection effect to explain it. While it doesn’t require so many assumptions to just assume that he was lying.<br />
<br />
Here is a good article for sound attenuation in clouds [http://films-lab.univ-lille1.fr/michael/michael/Publications_files/JAS001142.pdf]. For 40 Hz the attention is somewhere around 0.005 dB/m. That will already give you 50 dB for 10 km. And the sound had to travel long at oblique angle in thick clouds on that day from hit location to his house.<br />
--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 04:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Sound Attenuation===<br />
That article does not load without subscription.... But the number is quite high...if it consistently this for a range of low audio frequencies, and stays about the same for lower temperatures and densities, this is dropping 111 db for {10, 15} km in {vertical, horizontal} direction. It starts at at most 194 db as long as it is sound;( maybe some 7 db lower at 10 km up); and geometric attenuation is 57 to 68 db for a reasonable distance where this becomes a sound wave (some 8 meters away and not more that 30 meters away from the blast). All of that together gives whisper levels. Also may be worthwhile to compare with other witnesses close to impact; pain starts at 125 db and none seems to say it was painful ... --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 07:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
The good thing is that we can see most if those explosions claiming posts summarised by Bellingcat.<br />
[https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/07/16/in-their-own-words/]<br />
Few examples: 1) "Vlad, I also didn’t immediately realize. I saw that something was flying. I was out in the country in a tree and picking pears. And then an explosion. There was an extremely strong sound…I would have captured it on my phone (((( but people did capture the end"<br />
<br />
Now we can discredit it as obvious planted message.<br />
<br />
2)"I saw how this rocket flew!!! I even saw where it came from and where it went!!! It was terrible as hell to see it!!!!"<br />
<br />
Even easier to discredit, assuming the clouds in the area.<br />
<br />
3)"I saw how a rocket flew from the direction of Saurovka…and then a minute-long lull and a loud explosion…a trail remained in the sky from the rocket…I didn’t see the explosion myself it was very loud….all of my family ran out into the street…..we were all very scared……….I don’t know who to believe but we didn’t hear the sound of an SU[-25]…..it was quiet just like with a normal passenger plane and then that’s all……"<br />
Now we can discredit this one as well. With all these explosion descriptions.<br />
<br />
So it seems that all the messages are planted in with particular purpose at particular time. In any case somebody was lying, as there were witness accounts that didn't see rockets flying or heard such explosions.<br />
And now we have clear indication who was lying. SBU operative just made a seemingly logical but physically incorrect assumption that rocket explosion will be easily heard by everyone, like fireworks.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 10:20, 31 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Witnesses describing planes also talk about explosions; often unclear how strong it appeared to them. They could be closer by. Need to be careful. Also paper may need close reading, is this modeling or experiment and how much water or ice or whatever else needed for all these to happen <br />
: What do you think of Max van den Werf work [https://twitter.com/maxvanderwerff ], and the witness he interviewed? --He also had a lot to say about photos, went there to check it out. Showed it could not be from the roof --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 11:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
I agree that we should be careful. Plus that witness seem to be changing his story all the time, as noticed by Max van den Werk and www.7mei.nl. Clear indication of lying. Particularly he can't make his mind if he took all the photos from roof or some of them were taken from a balcony. But I still didn't form my opinion on it. The cables in the photo story was attacked quite thoroughly and it seems those criticisms were not replied. <br />
However, for the purpose of our discussion I want to point you, that 70kg is not the TNT equivalent of the BUK missile explosive but the physical eight of the warhead including the fragments. Based on Almaz-Antey presentation they will have a cumulative weight of nearly 30 kG. Plus the weight of the casing. So The actual explosive is much lighter but I can't find the spec. So it get's really hard to believe the second explosion had any relation to the rocket explosion. Alternative explanation can be that the first explosion that he heard was explosion of engine or fuel tank on MH17 mid-air and second explosion was when MH17 crashed on the ground. Both would be on opposite side of the trail, and it is hard to imagine that he will be even trying to go to the window on opposite side of the building and more importantly, after he reaches the roof, he first still photographs the trail direction (in some interviews twice) and only then focuses his attention on the direction of main explosion. At such distances he should not have any confusion about the direction of the sound. Nature was kind to humans and equipped us with quite good capability in determining the direction of the sound. There is no escape for this witness in open court. In fair trial he would be torn apart as a liar and then arrested for providing false testimony. Hopefully he will eventually face trial, together with his mentor Eliot Higgins.--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 09:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
::[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEzTCTEZNMA Lev Bulatov] We have main plane witnesses [[Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17/Witnesses|links]] collected in one place; there were also early videos right after crash, people giving immediate account; I remember one said 'krepko zhahnulo' or something like that; need to double-check<br />
<br />
:::[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6jJYKs6qqQ Early video] at 0:40 'крепко жахнуло! (it was a strong bang!-approximate translation, zhahnut means to strike [https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B6%D0%B0%D1%85%D0%BD%D1%83%D1%82%D1%8C ' zhahnut]--to emit strong low sound like when a shot is fired, [https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BF%D0%BA%D0%BE krepko] means strong. Exact location uncertain--may be closer. (I'd guess conclusion is that paper needs to be looked at in more detail, what are conditions/assumptions to have such attenuation. If this is closer by 10 km say, will give + 50 db to sound according to present attenuation estimate; will look but this may be not quick) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 05:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::There is [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gg_8iTiWpn0 another version] of this early video with different sound; крепко жахнуло is not there... looks like 'крепко жахнуло!' is fake ...--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 06:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Yes, the first video is an obvious manipulation. Although in the second video in the background somebody is using a synonym "bahnulo". But exact content is unclear.<br />
<br />
Lev Bulatov is the main not anonymous and not "social media" witness. He is also ready to testify. JIT would be better to organize his arrival to Netherlands, instead of issuing propaganda video asking for witnesses to come forward. --[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 09:38, 2 August 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Warhead===<br />
There was a recent [[Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17#Russian_report_-air_to_air_missile|Russian study]] where they used a practical formula (M_БЧ =...) relating fragment weight and warhead weight. If accurate, this imply 28.8 fragments weight, 38.8 charge weight and 2.4 presumably detonator and hardware. There is no reference in that study to literature source. Presumably that's what they teach practitioners to use over there. They ended up with lighter warhead as the end result. For discussion above, charge weight by itself will not have big effect as logarithmic scale is used; attenuation details is what will have the most significant effect --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Charge weight might not be important but the fact that charge exploded inside the metal can and was surrounded by thousands of metal objects is important. Most if energy was spent on rupturing the casing and accelerating those objects away. For shortwave and sound generation you will be left with a fraction of the energy. The are no BUK videos were you can hear rocket explosion. --[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 00:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Unauthorized launch story ==<br />
Unauthorized launch story appeared early on, also quoting unnamed sources; we had this somewhere, in fall of 2014. Nothing more definite came out, so this seems to recycle old story, not a new information coming out now. Debunk link--could not see much said in there on the issue. Novaia Gazeta published Almaz Antey and than two competing versions, the last one 'there were no planes at all and our unnamed sources tell that Russians did it' . It ends with Petrovskii delivering Buk audio transcript. But Petrovskii recently denied involvement, on social media forum. And those unnamed sources said it both ways --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 02:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Official Facebook Reaction==<br />
MoD of Ukraine: no UAF flights in ATO area on 17 July, no UAF zenith anti-aircraft missile systems used, it is not true that UAF training accident caused MH17 crash.<br />
<br />
У день катастрофи літака Boing-777 авіація Повітряних Сил Збройних Сил України в районі проведення АТО польоти не виконувала, зенітні ракетні комплекси не застосовувалися<br />
<br />
Інформація про те, що можливою причиною катастрофи літака Boing-777 (рейс MAS-17) авіакомпанії “Малазійські авіалінії” 17 липня 2014 року у небі над Донеччиною може бути нештатна ситуація під час проведення тренування підрозділів ППО Повітряних Сил Збройних Сил України не відповідає дійсності та може бути розцінена як спроба вплинути на результати незалежного розслідування трагічної події. <br />
Про це сьогодні, 25 липня, повідомили у Командуванні Повітряних Сил Збройних Сил України у відповідь на поширену деякими російськими засобами масової інформації заяву з посиланням на так зване “джерело в одному з силових відомств України”.<br />
У день катастрофи літака Boing-777 польоти авіації Повітряних Сил Збройних Сил України в районі проведення АТО не виконувалися. Зенітні ракетні комплекси Збройних Сил України не застосовувалися, жодного пуску зенітних керованих ракет не проводилося.<br />
Довідково. 17 липня цивільний літак Boing-777 (рейс MAS-17) авіакомпанії “Малазійські авіалінії” виконував рейсовий політ за маршрутом Амстердам (Голландія) — Куала Лумпур (Малайзія) на висоті 10100 метрів.<br />
О 16.45 літак впав в 3 кілометрах на північний захід від населеного пункту Грабове, Шахтарського району Донецької області. [https://www.facebook.com/theministryofdefence.ua/photos/a.209841809078332.54058.207023122693534/739742792754895/?type=1&permPage=1 MoD of Ukraine facebook post (in Ukrainian) 25.7.15] [http://korrespondent.net/ukraine/3397381-ukraynskaia-armyia-ne-yspolzovala-zrk-y-avyatsyui-v-den-katastrofy-boynha korrespondent.net (in Russian) 25.7.15] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Here is the video that is rarely discussed.[https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=HXMWhdqUTdk]. It is from allegedly 16 July 2014 (posted on 17 July). On 20th minute they are discussing the SU that is in the sky but not sure if it can be seen on the video. There is no reason for them to pretend that there is SU flying around on that date. The whole video also doesn’t indicate staging of conversation. <br />
--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 00:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
==International Tribunal==<br />
*Russia is [http://www.radiosvoboda.org/content/news/27155501.html set] to vote against establishing international tribunal at the UN vote on July 29. Russian [http://ria.ru/mh17/20150727/1150125332.html#ixzz3h7UgG0OU position] is that this is an isolated criminal case and not a threat to world security requiring special UN tribunal structure; and that setting the tribunal now before the official investigation is completed as unnecessary and divisive; has filed an alternative proposal (involving special representative, and more transparency -as they are now excluded from investigation). <br />
<br />
Commentary. It appears to me outcome of Yukos case tribunal may play a role here. Yukos matter is not as black and white as sides presented it; it was in legal grey area, with laws not sufficiently developed after collapse of the Soviet system; and there was unfairness at privatization and operation stages, as well as unfairness of selective prosecution of that. But all those subtleties were just thrown away on some 3 pages of the final judgement, and full market value of the company before the affair was awarded to claimants. This is a very long decision overall and I do not have command of all details and legal aspects, but from outside it appears as steamrolling the case really; replacing one injustice by another (the people are told to pay; but they have all but nothing to do with this and do not owe the awarded amount). Likewise here, once it is in legal rather than investigative field, all sort of legal steamrolling may show up. Tribunals are good only if they are fair, and seen as fair. (What are even the laws governing such tribunal, and who are lawyers practicing it? Where do they come from? ). It may be not by accident that [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Khodorkovsky Khodorkovskii] stated in July 2015 TV rain interview that he "is not interested" in Yukos legal process (still supporting [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonid_Nevzlin Leonid Nevzlin] and others handling this)<br />
:Also, former Yugoslavia tribunal was widely unpopular in Russia at the time and this feeling in Russia has sharpened since<br />
: Russian officials stated that other civilian aircraft were shot down, and special tribunals were not used in those cases. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 19:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*Russia vetoes UNSC MH17 tribunal resolution [http://tass.ru/mezhdunarodnaya-panorama/2152807 -TASS] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 00:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)</div>Antidyatelhttps://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17/Zaroshchenskoye&diff=23607Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Zaroshchenskoye2015-08-02T09:38:01Z<p>Antidyatel: /* Partial Answers */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Three questions? ==<br />
These three questions need to be answered. (Discuss each issue in a separate section below.)<br />
# Where there BUK launchers in Zaroshchenskoye in mid July 2014? What proof is there of their existence?<br />
# Were there Ukrainian soldiers in Zaroshchenskoye in mid July? Who were they loyal to? Or were they somehow trying to remain neutral?<br />
# When and how did NAF take over Zaroshchenskoye?<br />
-- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 03:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Partial Answers==<br />
I don't think we know for sure (and I do not see Zaroshenskoe as the only possibility, despite Almaz-Antei report; matching fragment damage to missile orientation being the tricky part)<br />
:1. Russian MoD gave us satellite photos. Bellingcat tried to disprove it, with an early attempt debunked. Than they purchased satellite images from a commercial provider and [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/06/12/july-17-imagery-mod-comparison/ claimed] that MoD were faked. <br />
:I do not have a strong view, could be inaccurately presented by MoD, or commercial photos are not accurately timed, or we see those images at different angles and image qualities, which appears as a mismatch. Since 'investigative' methods at bc are propaganda-driven, conclusion cannot be reached just on the basis of their presentation; there is no independent info available to me. <br />
::Zaroshesnkoe photos [http://archive.mid.ru/bdomp/brp_4.nsf/9f9f2a6497b5822f43256a2900463456/f6c3bbd89ac2532d44257d1d00203ccf/body/27.3E9C!OpenElement&FieldElemFormat=jpg Zaroshenskoe 17 July, 11:32] "A= two Buk M1 self-propelled missile launchers, B= one armored vehicle" [http://archive.mid.ru/bdomp/brp_4.nsf/9f9f2a6497b5822f43256a2900463456/f6c3bbd89ac2532d44257d1d00203ccf/body/30.3EC6!OpenElement&FieldElemFormat=jpg Zaroshenskoe 18 July, 11:39] (A, B gone)<br />
::Also [http://archive.mid.ru//brp_4.nsf/newsline/F6C3BBD89AC2532D44257D1D00203CCF Donetsk, Lugansk photos]<br />
:: I understand, Bellingcat disputes those from Donetsk<br />
:2. It was not a base really, some launchers parked there is all, can move easily. Loyalties -we do not know<br />
:3 I do not know (was not following really, as never had strong belief in Zaroshenskoe location. Maps can be found and may give some answers). Almaz-Antey was telling us, Buk was from Zaroshenskoe, and we do not know who was there at the time. Without more research, that would be state of play here. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 03:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
::[https://www.bellingcat.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Zaroshchenske_EN_1.pdf Another bc] on Zaroshenskoe-has a collection of maps at least and usual twisty stuff leading to the predetermined conclusion. I have not gone through all that and unsure whether will have time in the near future. But all this long winding stuff can be probably summarized as we do not really know. And no reason really to focus heavily on Torez and ignore anything else. <br />
<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPop2oSw6Xo MOD presentation]-Zaroshenkoe at about 10:00 mark<br />
<br />
[http://www.novayagazeta.ru/inquests/68728.html Novaia Gazeta], Grabovo, Zaroshenskoe and Snezhnoe interviews. None anywhere mentioned Buk contrail or seeing Buk; conflicting account on planes. About half reluctant to talk on camera or afraid. <br />
:[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRS64s4n-o4 Anatolii, Grabovo]. He says at the moment he looked up (he was swimming) he saw a fireball, which quickly disappeared into clouds. That was followed by the crash. His description does not match Buk contrail, could be a flare<br />
:Zaroshenskoe. Several interviews, mostly audio. Confused account seemingly agreeing that Zaroshenskoe was not controlled by either side; that nobody saw Buk itself or tracks, although some tried to find tracks; one woman said that there was another planes on that day (first interview), the other woman said she did not see herself so cannot tell; than the first one said she did not see it either but her husband saw it and told her<br />
:Pevomaika, Snezhnoe. Woman says there was another SU <br />
::Another interview, woman says it was a drone; and that she saw multiple white trails going up. She was afraid it is phosphor bomb, later thought it could be flares ;- but in another interview similar multiple white trails were attributed to opolchenie trying to shoot a plane--creating cloud of fragments in the sky (unsure here, - have not heard such description before; likely just an anti-aircraft gun? [http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/150418163107-yemen-anti-aircraft-fire-exlarge-169.jpg (like here)] or is this some sort of cluster type munition? ) <br />
:Diadia Serezha (uncle Serezha)-said that military planes were often hiding under civilian ones, and thought it could happen on the day; thought that Boeing could be shot with an anti-aircraft gun <br />
:Nikolai Ivanovich. Have not seen much apart from the crash itself. Confused/afraid account. (There was some sound but he did not see another plane, and did not claim there was one) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 07:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Just realised something that might compromise the primary Bellingcat witness - the one that supplied trail photo. The only photo till now. Here is his statement: "And at 16:20 we heard an explosion. The first explosion was not very heavy. 15 seconds later, something like that, there was a second explosion, which was louder and it made the windows shake.”<br />
Of course 15 seconds is impossible if Snezhnoe is the launch site, particularly location claimed by Bellingcat. Will not go into it right now as it can be argued that his 15 seconds is a perceived number and should not be taken literally (although why so accurate, could be just 20 sec). More importantly is a description of two explosions. First small and second very loud. Now, the first explosion is attributed to rocket launch. Second is rocket explosion. From first glance it is logical that second will be louder. But the second explosion happened 20 km ground distance from his location and 10 km in altitude, according to Bellingcat fairytale. At 10km air pressure is only 100 mbar. 10 times less than on the ground. It is low vacuum and sound will be strongly attenuated. He could probably hear it better if he was just under the hit point. At oblique angles the warmer air in lower parts of the atmosphere will make refractive index to change creating reflection interfaces that will further increase sound dissipation. His description, particularly with claimed time interval is just impossible. So, either it is a total fake or the missile hit the target at much lower altitude and very close to his location. From leaks in the media, his photo and testimony are also going to be center point of Dutch report. If true, shame on them. Let me know if my analysis has a flaw.--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 09:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
:Interesting thought. Two things, whether it helps and physics. I am skeptical on the first (missile launch wooshing sound vs a blast at a distance, both played by an ear and reported with a long delay--not very usable. Other witnesses described it in different ways but some were saying it was a blast or like something dropping of. <br />
Physics-wise, at this distance, it is no longer a shock wave and will propagate as sound. Therefore, pressure and velocity drop as 1/L , and intensity which is sort of P v dies as 1/L^2 . It is doable, though not immediate, to have an estimate of what those will be say with 70 kg TNT going off. This is without attenuation. Actually I do not know quickly how that will attenuate. Engineers will tell that attenuation is frequencey dependent, and this is low frequency which pretty much just 1/L^2 . --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 11:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
First of all he was not talking about whooshing sound but about explosion. But let's skip this point for now as it is relying on his 15 sec claim, which is easily brushed away. In terms of physics. The explosion at 10 km will be happening in low pressure environment. Intensity is defined as I=(ξω)^2cρ, where we have particle displacement, sound frequency, speed of sound and density. For the same blast we can assume displacement and frequency the same. Pressure is 10 times smaller so density is also 10 times smaller. Due to low temperature the speed of sound is also smaller,roughly 20%. So we get more than 10 times smaller initial intensity. Then we have a refraction index difference between upper and lower levels of atmosphere. That gives two effects: 1) sound is reflected from the boundary and thus lost to propagation towards the guy; 2) sound is refracted towards the Earth making the wave, actually reaching him, travel longer distance and thus, be more attenuated. Your formula only takes into account geometrical attenuation of spherical wave. We should also look at attenuation by moisture in the air. It was cloudy, so that part of attenuation will be quite high. Of course the actual value should be calculated but I'm quite confident that this will not get the overwhelming explosion that he describes. And it will definitely not shake the windows. <br />
Not sure about that paper but they claim that 100dB is equivalent to 99.8 kg of TNT detonated at 12.5m distance [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4126588/]. At 20 km it will attenuate to 42 dB just by geometric attenuation (which is a background noise in large conference room [http://www.airportsites.net/lambert-stl/workshop1/nc_b29.aspx]). For 150 dB the result will be 80 dB at 20 km by geometric attenuation - noise of the vacuum cleaner. Still not able to shake the window. If we add other attenuation factors we can practically forget about second explosion. <br />
--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 13:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::Thanks for the paper. Earlier comment I was about to put:<br />
:: what you call (ξω)^2 really should be internal energy per unit mass; there is no frequency here; there is also velocity and pressure, and gas dynamics equations relating all. It is interesting and doable with some effort, and will depend on density although not in such simple way-- but I am skeptical it is helpful to refute MH17 claims. Can't really compare outcome of this computation with a witness statement - other people did hear it and said it was 'loud', he could hear it as well, and his account is imprecise in any case. <br />
::It seems to me official investigation will not use the photo, they will perhaps say about direction--that's what I thought after reading CNN and/or Parry ---somewhere from the front because it hit the cabin--and they did not use Antey stuff so far. In front, there was Russian separatists--bingo, case closed. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
::What's going on in this paper--100 kilograms at 12.5 meters distance???? No way this is 100db. I think they put this is high-bar test reactor and took care to have it as quiet as possible ...<br />
<br />
Got an idea for an estimate. Up to some numerical constants of order 1, shock wave will turn into sound at a radius r0 such that c^2 rho r0^3 = E= released energy. I think this r0 for 70 kg TNT is about 8 meters (which seems low but this is what I am getting). At his point, our intensity I, which we take as energy per volume times c, is I=c^3 rho (this does not depend on E, but size of this ball does). Than at a distance R, our intensity is c^3 rho (r0/R)^2 . With R = | {20 km , 10 km} | , getting 6 watts per square meter--what on hell that would be in loudness? Looking it up, reference intensity is 10^(-12) watt/m^2 --getting 127 decibel which is loud ...--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 17:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
127dB at 20 or even 10 km mark from the explosion of 70kg TNT is unlikely correct. It could have been at 10 meter distance but not at 10 km. Here is the video of BUK LAUNCH. It doesn’t seem that rockets go far but I can hear any of the explosions. [https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QwnUtIn9Rh8]. --[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 00:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Sorry, I know that I'm lazy to do my own calculations but allow me just to reference. You can Google paper titled "Use of Noise Attenuation Modeling in Missile<br />
Motor Detonation Activities". They actually give formula for estimating peak intensity. Didn’t use it but just noticed that "the detonations missile<br />
motors characterized by a propellant charge ranging <br />
from 50,000 to 120,000 lb (TNT equivalent) should not<br />
exceed the UTTR operational noise threshold of 134 dB at a<br />
30-km distance from the detonation site." 50,000 lb is more than 20,000 kg. I really think that the 70kg that we are discussing is not measurable for our purposes. Especially when explosion takes place at 10 km altitude and sound has to propagate the ground distance of 10/20km at shallow angles to cold-hot air interface and through the clouds (excessive moisture) <br />
--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 01:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
127dB at 20 or even 10 km mark from the explosion of 70kg TNT is unlikely correct. It could have been at 10 meter distance but not at 10 km. Here is the video of BUK LAUNCH. It doesn’t seem that rockets go far but I can hear any of the explosions. [https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QwnUtIn9Rh8]. --[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 00:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
:Missile will not use all of that at once --the sound will last longer so what arrives will have less intensity than going of instantly<br />
<br />
At 10 meters there will be still shock wave felt. At threshold of the two, decibel level is about 194 decibel--engineers call this "Loudest sound possible" meaning pressure difference is over 1 atmosphere. An estimate gives 194 decibels at 8 meters or so. 10 meters will be close to 194 level (70 kg is like artillery shell- seems a sensible distance scale) . Other witnesses-talking about planes, tell about one loud, or 2-3 separate bahs; unsure what is that exactly--there is also crashing sounds later, whether their accounts clearly separate explosion and crash? (crash is later of course and not by 15 secs --the freefall without air resistance takes 45 secs) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
:This is short in duration and low frequency (8 meters wavelength is 40 hz); --and both mean that subjectively it will sound as less loud than actual power suggests...Also this is order-of magnitude computation meaning can be less by some 10-20 db . So it appears plausible... basically its high wattage because it is short ...--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 02:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
So if I understand correctly, 127 dB at 20 km mark will happen if we assume that all energy will go into one particular frequency, explosions happens at atmospheric pressure and normal temperature (20C) and sound propagates in air with uniform density and temperature and with normal humidity. <br />
<br />
'': no, it's the same computation above, matching shock wave and sound regimes , there is no frequency involved , but knowing length scale , frequencies scale where signal lives may be roughly estimated (continuous spectrum of course, -but largest at such sort of frequency-low rumbling overall )'' <br />
<br />
I have to disagree with you here. "Ideal" explosion is practically a delta function in time, which would be flat spectrum with unity probability for all frequencies. Then attenuation will filter out many frequencies depending on interaction with media (primarily high frequency waves). But as such the power will be dissipated in the whole spectrum. At least that would be my guess. --[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 07:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
All these assumptions are not valid, obviously. Let's accept your calculation of initial intensity (I'm still lazy to double check :)). But with all the assumptions reiterated, the final intensity will be much lower. And I'm quite confident that it will not be a large explosion shaking windows that guy is describing (we can't here them on the video that I linked above). So either the witness is lying or the target was at much lower altitude and much closer to him. Explosion from the falling plane has a problem due to 15 seconds. You can't misjudge few minutes for 15 seconds. We could think that both explosions were actually at the plane. But the first explosion convinced him to look to the opposite side from where the plane fell. So we will have to come out with some acoustic reflection effect to explain it. While it doesn’t require so many assumptions to just assume that he was lying.<br />
<br />
Here is a good article for sound attenuation in clouds [http://films-lab.univ-lille1.fr/michael/michael/Publications_files/JAS001142.pdf]. For 40 Hz the attention is somewhere around 0.005 dB/m. That will already give you 50 dB for 10 km. And the sound had to travel long at oblique angle in thick clouds on that day from hit location to his house.<br />
--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 04:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Sound Attenuation===<br />
That article does not load without subscription.... But the number is quite high...if it consistently this for a range of low audio frequencies, and stays about the same for lower temperatures and densities, this is dropping 111 db for {10, 15} km in {vertical, horizontal} direction. It starts at at most 194 db as long as it is sound;( maybe some 7 db lower at 10 km up); and geometric attenuation is 57 to 68 db for a reasonable distance where this becomes a sound wave (some 8 meters away and not more that 30 meters away from the blast). All of that together gives whisper levels. Also may be worthwhile to compare with other witnesses close to impact; pain starts at 125 db and none seems to say it was painful ... --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 07:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
The good thing is that we can see most if those explosions claiming posts summarised by Bellingcat.<br />
[https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/07/16/in-their-own-words/]<br />
Few examples: 1) "Vlad, I also didn’t immediately realize. I saw that something was flying. I was out in the country in a tree and picking pears. And then an explosion. There was an extremely strong sound…I would have captured it on my phone (((( but people did capture the end"<br />
<br />
Now we can discredit it as obvious planted message.<br />
<br />
2)"I saw how this rocket flew!!! I even saw where it came from and where it went!!! It was terrible as hell to see it!!!!"<br />
<br />
Even easier to discredit, assuming the clouds in the area.<br />
<br />
3)"I saw how a rocket flew from the direction of Saurovka…and then a minute-long lull and a loud explosion…a trail remained in the sky from the rocket…I didn’t see the explosion myself it was very loud….all of my family ran out into the street…..we were all very scared……….I don’t know who to believe but we didn’t hear the sound of an SU[-25]…..it was quiet just like with a normal passenger plane and then that’s all……"<br />
Now we can discredit this one as well. With all these explosion descriptions.<br />
<br />
So it seems that all the messages are planted in with particular purpose at particular time. In any case somebody was lying, as there were witness accounts that didn't see rockets flying or heard such explosions.<br />
And now we have clear indication who was lying. SBU operative just made a seemingly logical but physically incorrect assumption that rocket explosion will be easily heard by everyone, like fireworks.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 10:20, 31 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Witnesses describing planes also talk about explosions; often unclear how strong it appeared to them. They could be closer by. Need to be careful. Also paper may need close reading, is this modeling or experiment and how much water or ice or whatever else needed for all these to happen <br />
: What do you think of Max van den Werf work [https://twitter.com/maxvanderwerff ], and the witness he interviewed? --He also had a lot to say about photos, went there to check it out. Showed it could not be from the roof --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 11:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
I agree that we should be careful. Plus that witness seem to be changing his story all the time, as noticed by Max van den Werk and www.7mei.nl. Clear indication of lying. Particularly he can't make his mind if he took all the photos from roof or some of them were taken from a balcony. But I still didn't form my opinion on it. The cables in the photo story was attacked quite thoroughly and it seems those criticisms were not replied. <br />
However, for the purpose of our discussion I want to point you, that 70kg is not the TNT equivalent of the BUK missile explosive but the physical eight of the warhead including the fragments. Based on Almaz-Antey presentation they will have a cumulative weight of nearly 30 kG. Plus the weight of the casing. So The actual explosive is much lighter but I can't find the spec. So it get's really hard to believe the second explosion had any relation to the rocket explosion. Alternative explanation can be that the first explosion that he heard was explosion of engine or fuel tank on MH17 mid-air and second explosion was when MH17 crashed on the ground. Both would be on opposite side of the trail, and it is hard to imagine that he will be even trying to go to the window on opposite side of the building and more importantly, after he reaches the roof, he first still photographs the trail direction (in some interviews twice) and only then focuses his attention on the direction of main explosion. At such distances he should not have any confusion about the direction of the sound. Nature was kind to humans and equipped us with quite good capability in determining the direction of the sound. There is no escape for this witness in open court. In fair trial he would be torn apart as a liar and then arrested for providing false testimony. Hopefully he will eventually face trial, together with his mentor Eliot Higgins.--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 09:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
::[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEzTCTEZNMA Lev Bulatov] We have main plane witnesses [[Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17/Witnesses|links]] collected in one place; there were also early videos right after crash, people giving immediate account; I remember one said 'krepko zhahnulo' or something like that; need to double-check<br />
<br />
:::[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6jJYKs6qqQ Early video] at 0:40 'крепко жахнуло! (it was a strong bang!-approximate translation, zhahnut means to strike [https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B6%D0%B0%D1%85%D0%BD%D1%83%D1%82%D1%8C ' zhahnut]--to emit strong low sound like when a shot is fired, [https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BF%D0%BA%D0%BE krepko] means strong. Exact location uncertain--may be closer. (I'd guess conclusion is that paper needs to be looked at in more detail, what are conditions/assumptions to have such attenuation. If this is closer by 10 km say, will give + 50 db to sound according to present attenuation estimate; will look but this may be not quick) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 05:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::There is [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gg_8iTiWpn0 another version] of this early video with different sound; крепко жахнуло is not there... looks like 'крепко жахнуло!' is fake ...--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 06:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Yes, the first video is an obvious manipulation. Although in the second video in the background somebody is using a synonym "bahnulo". But exact content is unclear.<br />
<br />
Lev Bulatov is the main not anonymous and not "social media" witness. He is also ready to testify. JIT would be better to organize his arrival to Netherlands, instead of issuing propaganda video asking for witnesses to come forward. --[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 09:38, 2 August 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Unauthorized launch story ==<br />
Unauthorized launch story appeared early on, also quoting unnamed sources; we had this somewhere, in fall of 2014. Nothing more definite came out, so this seems to recycle old story, not a new information coming out now. Debunk link--could not see much said in there on the issue. Novaia Gazeta published Almaz Antey and than two competing versions, the last one 'there were no planes at all and our unnamed sources tell that Russians did it' . It ends with Petrovskii delivering Buk audio transcript. But Petrovskii recently denied involvement, on social media forum. And those unnamed sources said it both ways --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 02:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Official Facebook Reaction==<br />
MoD of Ukraine: no UAF flights in ATO area on 17 July, no UAF zenith anti-aircraft missile systems used, it is not true that UAF training accident caused MH17 crash.<br />
<br />
У день катастрофи літака Boing-777 авіація Повітряних Сил Збройних Сил України в районі проведення АТО польоти не виконувала, зенітні ракетні комплекси не застосовувалися<br />
<br />
Інформація про те, що можливою причиною катастрофи літака Boing-777 (рейс MAS-17) авіакомпанії “Малазійські авіалінії” 17 липня 2014 року у небі над Донеччиною може бути нештатна ситуація під час проведення тренування підрозділів ППО Повітряних Сил Збройних Сил України не відповідає дійсності та може бути розцінена як спроба вплинути на результати незалежного розслідування трагічної події. <br />
Про це сьогодні, 25 липня, повідомили у Командуванні Повітряних Сил Збройних Сил України у відповідь на поширену деякими російськими засобами масової інформації заяву з посиланням на так зване “джерело в одному з силових відомств України”.<br />
У день катастрофи літака Boing-777 польоти авіації Повітряних Сил Збройних Сил України в районі проведення АТО не виконувалися. Зенітні ракетні комплекси Збройних Сил України не застосовувалися, жодного пуску зенітних керованих ракет не проводилося.<br />
Довідково. 17 липня цивільний літак Boing-777 (рейс MAS-17) авіакомпанії “Малазійські авіалінії” виконував рейсовий політ за маршрутом Амстердам (Голландія) — Куала Лумпур (Малайзія) на висоті 10100 метрів.<br />
О 16.45 літак впав в 3 кілометрах на північний захід від населеного пункту Грабове, Шахтарського району Донецької області. [https://www.facebook.com/theministryofdefence.ua/photos/a.209841809078332.54058.207023122693534/739742792754895/?type=1&permPage=1 MoD of Ukraine facebook post (in Ukrainian) 25.7.15] [http://korrespondent.net/ukraine/3397381-ukraynskaia-armyia-ne-yspolzovala-zrk-y-avyatsyui-v-den-katastrofy-boynha korrespondent.net (in Russian) 25.7.15] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==International Tribunal==<br />
*Russia is [http://www.radiosvoboda.org/content/news/27155501.html set] to vote against establishing international tribunal at the UN vote on July 29. Russian [http://ria.ru/mh17/20150727/1150125332.html#ixzz3h7UgG0OU position] is that this is an isolated criminal case and not a threat to world security requiring special UN tribunal structure; and that setting the tribunal now before the official investigation is completed as unnecessary and divisive; has filed an alternative proposal (involving special representative, and more transparency -as they are now excluded from investigation). <br />
<br />
Commentary. It appears to me outcome of Yukos case tribunal may play a role here. Yukos matter is not as black and white as sides presented it; it was in legal grey area, with laws not sufficiently developed after collapse of the Soviet system; and there was unfairness at privatization and operation stages, as well as unfairness of selective prosecution of that. But all those subtleties were just thrown away on some 3 pages of the final judgement, and full market value of the company before the affair was awarded to claimants. This is a very long decision overall and I do not have command of all details and legal aspects, but from outside it appears as steamrolling the case really; replacing one injustice by another (the people are told to pay; but they have all but nothing to do with this and do not owe the awarded amount). Likewise here, once it is in legal rather than investigative field, all sort of legal steamrolling may show up. Tribunals are good only if they are fair, and seen as fair. (What are even the laws governing such tribunal, and who are lawyers practicing it? Where do they come from? ). It may be not by accident that [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Khodorkovsky Khodorkovskii] stated in July 2015 TV rain interview that he "is not interested" in Yukos legal process (still supporting [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonid_Nevzlin Leonid Nevzlin] and others handling this)<br />
:Also, former Yugoslavia tribunal was widely unpopular in Russia at the time and this feeling in Russia has sharpened since<br />
: Russian officials stated that other civilian aircraft were shot down, and special tribunals were not used in those cases. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 19:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*Russia vetoes UNSC MH17 tribunal resolution [http://tass.ru/mezhdunarodnaya-panorama/2152807 -TASS] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 00:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)</div>Antidyatelhttps://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17/Zaroshchenskoye&diff=23606Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Zaroshchenskoye2015-08-02T09:28:59Z<p>Antidyatel: Warhead weight is not equivalent to the explosive amount.</p>
<hr />
<div>== Three questions? ==<br />
These three questions need to be answered. (Discuss each issue in a separate section below.)<br />
# Where there BUK launchers in Zaroshchenskoye in mid July 2014? What proof is there of their existence?<br />
# Were there Ukrainian soldiers in Zaroshchenskoye in mid July? Who were they loyal to? Or were they somehow trying to remain neutral?<br />
# When and how did NAF take over Zaroshchenskoye?<br />
-- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 03:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Partial Answers==<br />
I don't think we know for sure (and I do not see Zaroshenskoe as the only possibility, despite Almaz-Antei report; matching fragment damage to missile orientation being the tricky part)<br />
:1. Russian MoD gave us satellite photos. Bellingcat tried to disprove it, with an early attempt debunked. Than they purchased satellite images from a commercial provider and [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/06/12/july-17-imagery-mod-comparison/ claimed] that MoD were faked. <br />
:I do not have a strong view, could be inaccurately presented by MoD, or commercial photos are not accurately timed, or we see those images at different angles and image qualities, which appears as a mismatch. Since 'investigative' methods at bc are propaganda-driven, conclusion cannot be reached just on the basis of their presentation; there is no independent info available to me. <br />
::Zaroshesnkoe photos [http://archive.mid.ru/bdomp/brp_4.nsf/9f9f2a6497b5822f43256a2900463456/f6c3bbd89ac2532d44257d1d00203ccf/body/27.3E9C!OpenElement&FieldElemFormat=jpg Zaroshenskoe 17 July, 11:32] "A= two Buk M1 self-propelled missile launchers, B= one armored vehicle" [http://archive.mid.ru/bdomp/brp_4.nsf/9f9f2a6497b5822f43256a2900463456/f6c3bbd89ac2532d44257d1d00203ccf/body/30.3EC6!OpenElement&FieldElemFormat=jpg Zaroshenskoe 18 July, 11:39] (A, B gone)<br />
::Also [http://archive.mid.ru//brp_4.nsf/newsline/F6C3BBD89AC2532D44257D1D00203CCF Donetsk, Lugansk photos]<br />
:: I understand, Bellingcat disputes those from Donetsk<br />
:2. It was not a base really, some launchers parked there is all, can move easily. Loyalties -we do not know<br />
:3 I do not know (was not following really, as never had strong belief in Zaroshenskoe location. Maps can be found and may give some answers). Almaz-Antey was telling us, Buk was from Zaroshenskoe, and we do not know who was there at the time. Without more research, that would be state of play here. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 03:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
::[https://www.bellingcat.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Zaroshchenske_EN_1.pdf Another bc] on Zaroshenskoe-has a collection of maps at least and usual twisty stuff leading to the predetermined conclusion. I have not gone through all that and unsure whether will have time in the near future. But all this long winding stuff can be probably summarized as we do not really know. And no reason really to focus heavily on Torez and ignore anything else. <br />
<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPop2oSw6Xo MOD presentation]-Zaroshenkoe at about 10:00 mark<br />
<br />
[http://www.novayagazeta.ru/inquests/68728.html Novaia Gazeta], Grabovo, Zaroshenskoe and Snezhnoe interviews. None anywhere mentioned Buk contrail or seeing Buk; conflicting account on planes. About half reluctant to talk on camera or afraid. <br />
:[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRS64s4n-o4 Anatolii, Grabovo]. He says at the moment he looked up (he was swimming) he saw a fireball, which quickly disappeared into clouds. That was followed by the crash. His description does not match Buk contrail, could be a flare<br />
:Zaroshenskoe. Several interviews, mostly audio. Confused account seemingly agreeing that Zaroshenskoe was not controlled by either side; that nobody saw Buk itself or tracks, although some tried to find tracks; one woman said that there was another planes on that day (first interview), the other woman said she did not see herself so cannot tell; than the first one said she did not see it either but her husband saw it and told her<br />
:Pevomaika, Snezhnoe. Woman says there was another SU <br />
::Another interview, woman says it was a drone; and that she saw multiple white trails going up. She was afraid it is phosphor bomb, later thought it could be flares ;- but in another interview similar multiple white trails were attributed to opolchenie trying to shoot a plane--creating cloud of fragments in the sky (unsure here, - have not heard such description before; likely just an anti-aircraft gun? [http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/150418163107-yemen-anti-aircraft-fire-exlarge-169.jpg (like here)] or is this some sort of cluster type munition? ) <br />
:Diadia Serezha (uncle Serezha)-said that military planes were often hiding under civilian ones, and thought it could happen on the day; thought that Boeing could be shot with an anti-aircraft gun <br />
:Nikolai Ivanovich. Have not seen much apart from the crash itself. Confused/afraid account. (There was some sound but he did not see another plane, and did not claim there was one) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 07:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Just realised something that might compromise the primary Bellingcat witness - the one that supplied trail photo. The only photo till now. Here is his statement: "And at 16:20 we heard an explosion. The first explosion was not very heavy. 15 seconds later, something like that, there was a second explosion, which was louder and it made the windows shake.”<br />
Of course 15 seconds is impossible if Snezhnoe is the launch site, particularly location claimed by Bellingcat. Will not go into it right now as it can be argued that his 15 seconds is a perceived number and should not be taken literally (although why so accurate, could be just 20 sec). More importantly is a description of two explosions. First small and second very loud. Now, the first explosion is attributed to rocket launch. Second is rocket explosion. From first glance it is logical that second will be louder. But the second explosion happened 20 km ground distance from his location and 10 km in altitude, according to Bellingcat fairytale. At 10km air pressure is only 100 mbar. 10 times less than on the ground. It is low vacuum and sound will be strongly attenuated. He could probably hear it better if he was just under the hit point. At oblique angles the warmer air in lower parts of the atmosphere will make refractive index to change creating reflection interfaces that will further increase sound dissipation. His description, particularly with claimed time interval is just impossible. So, either it is a total fake or the missile hit the target at much lower altitude and very close to his location. From leaks in the media, his photo and testimony are also going to be center point of Dutch report. If true, shame on them. Let me know if my analysis has a flaw.--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 09:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
:Interesting thought. Two things, whether it helps and physics. I am skeptical on the first (missile launch wooshing sound vs a blast at a distance, both played by an ear and reported with a long delay--not very usable. Other witnesses described it in different ways but some were saying it was a blast or like something dropping of. <br />
Physics-wise, at this distance, it is no longer a shock wave and will propagate as sound. Therefore, pressure and velocity drop as 1/L , and intensity which is sort of P v dies as 1/L^2 . It is doable, though not immediate, to have an estimate of what those will be say with 70 kg TNT going off. This is without attenuation. Actually I do not know quickly how that will attenuate. Engineers will tell that attenuation is frequencey dependent, and this is low frequency which pretty much just 1/L^2 . --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 11:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
First of all he was not talking about whooshing sound but about explosion. But let's skip this point for now as it is relying on his 15 sec claim, which is easily brushed away. In terms of physics. The explosion at 10 km will be happening in low pressure environment. Intensity is defined as I=(ξω)^2cρ, where we have particle displacement, sound frequency, speed of sound and density. For the same blast we can assume displacement and frequency the same. Pressure is 10 times smaller so density is also 10 times smaller. Due to low temperature the speed of sound is also smaller,roughly 20%. So we get more than 10 times smaller initial intensity. Then we have a refraction index difference between upper and lower levels of atmosphere. That gives two effects: 1) sound is reflected from the boundary and thus lost to propagation towards the guy; 2) sound is refracted towards the Earth making the wave, actually reaching him, travel longer distance and thus, be more attenuated. Your formula only takes into account geometrical attenuation of spherical wave. We should also look at attenuation by moisture in the air. It was cloudy, so that part of attenuation will be quite high. Of course the actual value should be calculated but I'm quite confident that this will not get the overwhelming explosion that he describes. And it will definitely not shake the windows. <br />
Not sure about that paper but they claim that 100dB is equivalent to 99.8 kg of TNT detonated at 12.5m distance [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4126588/]. At 20 km it will attenuate to 42 dB just by geometric attenuation (which is a background noise in large conference room [http://www.airportsites.net/lambert-stl/workshop1/nc_b29.aspx]). For 150 dB the result will be 80 dB at 20 km by geometric attenuation - noise of the vacuum cleaner. Still not able to shake the window. If we add other attenuation factors we can practically forget about second explosion. <br />
--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 13:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::Thanks for the paper. Earlier comment I was about to put:<br />
:: what you call (ξω)^2 really should be internal energy per unit mass; there is no frequency here; there is also velocity and pressure, and gas dynamics equations relating all. It is interesting and doable with some effort, and will depend on density although not in such simple way-- but I am skeptical it is helpful to refute MH17 claims. Can't really compare outcome of this computation with a witness statement - other people did hear it and said it was 'loud', he could hear it as well, and his account is imprecise in any case. <br />
::It seems to me official investigation will not use the photo, they will perhaps say about direction--that's what I thought after reading CNN and/or Parry ---somewhere from the front because it hit the cabin--and they did not use Antey stuff so far. In front, there was Russian separatists--bingo, case closed. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
::What's going on in this paper--100 kilograms at 12.5 meters distance???? No way this is 100db. I think they put this is high-bar test reactor and took care to have it as quiet as possible ...<br />
<br />
Got an idea for an estimate. Up to some numerical constants of order 1, shock wave will turn into sound at a radius r0 such that c^2 rho r0^3 = E= released energy. I think this r0 for 70 kg TNT is about 8 meters (which seems low but this is what I am getting). At his point, our intensity I, which we take as energy per volume times c, is I=c^3 rho (this does not depend on E, but size of this ball does). Than at a distance R, our intensity is c^3 rho (r0/R)^2 . With R = | {20 km , 10 km} | , getting 6 watts per square meter--what on hell that would be in loudness? Looking it up, reference intensity is 10^(-12) watt/m^2 --getting 127 decibel which is loud ...--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 17:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
127dB at 20 or even 10 km mark from the explosion of 70kg TNT is unlikely correct. It could have been at 10 meter distance but not at 10 km. Here is the video of BUK LAUNCH. It doesn’t seem that rockets go far but I can hear any of the explosions. [https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QwnUtIn9Rh8]. --[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 00:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Sorry, I know that I'm lazy to do my own calculations but allow me just to reference. You can Google paper titled "Use of Noise Attenuation Modeling in Missile<br />
Motor Detonation Activities". They actually give formula for estimating peak intensity. Didn’t use it but just noticed that "the detonations missile<br />
motors characterized by a propellant charge ranging <br />
from 50,000 to 120,000 lb (TNT equivalent) should not<br />
exceed the UTTR operational noise threshold of 134 dB at a<br />
30-km distance from the detonation site." 50,000 lb is more than 20,000 kg. I really think that the 70kg that we are discussing is not measurable for our purposes. Especially when explosion takes place at 10 km altitude and sound has to propagate the ground distance of 10/20km at shallow angles to cold-hot air interface and through the clouds (excessive moisture) <br />
--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 01:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
127dB at 20 or even 10 km mark from the explosion of 70kg TNT is unlikely correct. It could have been at 10 meter distance but not at 10 km. Here is the video of BUK LAUNCH. It doesn’t seem that rockets go far but I can hear any of the explosions. [https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QwnUtIn9Rh8]. --[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 00:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
:Missile will not use all of that at once --the sound will last longer so what arrives will have less intensity than going of instantly<br />
<br />
At 10 meters there will be still shock wave felt. At threshold of the two, decibel level is about 194 decibel--engineers call this "Loudest sound possible" meaning pressure difference is over 1 atmosphere. An estimate gives 194 decibels at 8 meters or so. 10 meters will be close to 194 level (70 kg is like artillery shell- seems a sensible distance scale) . Other witnesses-talking about planes, tell about one loud, or 2-3 separate bahs; unsure what is that exactly--there is also crashing sounds later, whether their accounts clearly separate explosion and crash? (crash is later of course and not by 15 secs --the freefall without air resistance takes 45 secs) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
:This is short in duration and low frequency (8 meters wavelength is 40 hz); --and both mean that subjectively it will sound as less loud than actual power suggests...Also this is order-of magnitude computation meaning can be less by some 10-20 db . So it appears plausible... basically its high wattage because it is short ...--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 02:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
So if I understand correctly, 127 dB at 20 km mark will happen if we assume that all energy will go into one particular frequency, explosions happens at atmospheric pressure and normal temperature (20C) and sound propagates in air with uniform density and temperature and with normal humidity. <br />
<br />
'': no, it's the same computation above, matching shock wave and sound regimes , there is no frequency involved , but knowing length scale , frequencies scale where signal lives may be roughly estimated (continuous spectrum of course, -but largest at such sort of frequency-low rumbling overall )'' <br />
<br />
I have to disagree with you here. "Ideal" explosion is practically a delta function in time, which would be flat spectrum with unity probability for all frequencies. Then attenuation will filter out many frequencies depending on interaction with media (primarily high frequency waves). But as such the power will be dissipated in the whole spectrum. At least that would be my guess. --[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 07:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
All these assumptions are not valid, obviously. Let's accept your calculation of initial intensity (I'm still lazy to double check :)). But with all the assumptions reiterated, the final intensity will be much lower. And I'm quite confident that it will not be a large explosion shaking windows that guy is describing (we can't here them on the video that I linked above). So either the witness is lying or the target was at much lower altitude and much closer to him. Explosion from the falling plane has a problem due to 15 seconds. You can't misjudge few minutes for 15 seconds. We could think that both explosions were actually at the plane. But the first explosion convinced him to look to the opposite side from where the plane fell. So we will have to come out with some acoustic reflection effect to explain it. While it doesn’t require so many assumptions to just assume that he was lying.<br />
<br />
Here is a good article for sound attenuation in clouds [http://films-lab.univ-lille1.fr/michael/michael/Publications_files/JAS001142.pdf]. For 40 Hz the attention is somewhere around 0.005 dB/m. That will already give you 50 dB for 10 km. And the sound had to travel long at oblique angle in thick clouds on that day from hit location to his house.<br />
--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 04:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Sound Attenuation===<br />
That article does not load without subscription.... But the number is quite high...if it consistently this for a range of low audio frequencies, and stays about the same for lower temperatures and densities, this is dropping 111 db for {10, 15} km in {vertical, horizontal} direction. It starts at at most 194 db as long as it is sound;( maybe some 7 db lower at 10 km up); and geometric attenuation is 57 to 68 db for a reasonable distance where this becomes a sound wave (some 8 meters away and not more that 30 meters away from the blast). All of that together gives whisper levels. Also may be worthwhile to compare with other witnesses close to impact; pain starts at 125 db and none seems to say it was painful ... --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 07:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
The good thing is that we can see most if those explosions claiming posts summarised by Bellingcat.<br />
[https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/07/16/in-their-own-words/]<br />
Few examples: 1) "Vlad, I also didn’t immediately realize. I saw that something was flying. I was out in the country in a tree and picking pears. And then an explosion. There was an extremely strong sound…I would have captured it on my phone (((( but people did capture the end"<br />
<br />
Now we can discredit it as obvious planted message.<br />
<br />
2)"I saw how this rocket flew!!! I even saw where it came from and where it went!!! It was terrible as hell to see it!!!!"<br />
<br />
Even easier to discredit, assuming the clouds in the area.<br />
<br />
3)"I saw how a rocket flew from the direction of Saurovka…and then a minute-long lull and a loud explosion…a trail remained in the sky from the rocket…I didn’t see the explosion myself it was very loud….all of my family ran out into the street…..we were all very scared……….I don’t know who to believe but we didn’t hear the sound of an SU[-25]…..it was quiet just like with a normal passenger plane and then that’s all……"<br />
Now we can discredit this one as well. With all these explosion descriptions.<br />
<br />
So it seems that all the messages are planted in with particular purpose at particular time. In any case somebody was lying, as there were witness accounts that didn't see rockets flying or heard such explosions.<br />
And now we have clear indication who was lying. SBU operative just made a seemingly logical but physically incorrect assumption that rocket explosion will be easily heard by everyone, like fireworks.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 10:20, 31 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Witnesses describing planes also talk about explosions; often unclear how strong it appeared to them. They could be closer by. Need to be careful. Also paper may need close reading, is this modeling or experiment and how much water or ice or whatever else needed for all these to happen <br />
: What do you think of Max van den Werf work [https://twitter.com/maxvanderwerff ], and the witness he interviewed? --He also had a lot to say about photos, went there to check it out. Showed it could not be from the roof --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 11:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
I agree that we should be careful. Plus that witness seem to be changing his story all the time, as noticed by Max van den Werk and www.7mei.nl. Clear indication of lying. Particularly he can't make his mind if he took all the photos from roof or some of them were taken from a balcony. But I still didn't form my opinion on it. The cables in the photo story was attacked quite thoroughly and it seems those criticisms were not replied. <br />
However, for the purpose of our discussion I want to point you, that 70kg is not the TNT equivalent of the BUK missile explosive but the physical eight of the warhead including the fragments. Based on Almaz-Antey presentation they will have a cumulative weight of nearly 30 kG. Plus the weight of the casing. So The actual explosive is much lighter but I can't find the spec. So it get's really hard to believe the second explosion had any relation to the rocket explosion. Alternative explanation can be that the first explosion that he heard was explosion of engine or fuel tank on MH17 mid-air and second explosion was when MH17 crashed on the ground. Both would be on opposite side of the trail, and it is hard to imagine that he will be even trying to go to the window on opposite side of the building and more importantly, after he reaches the roof, he first still photographs the trail direction (in some interviews twice) and only then focuses his attention on the direction of main explosion. At such distances he should not have any confusion about the direction of the sound. Nature was kind to humans and equipped us with quite good capability in determining the direction of the sound. There is no escape for this witness in open court. In fair trial he would be torn apart as a liar and then arrested for providing false testimony. Hopefully he will eventually face trial, together with his mentor Eliot Higgins.--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 09:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
::[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEzTCTEZNMA Lev Bulatov] We have main plane witnesses [[Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17/Witnesses|links]] collected in one place; there were also early videos right after crash, people giving immediate account; I remember one said 'krepko zhahnulo' or something like that; need to double-check<br />
<br />
:::[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6jJYKs6qqQ Early video] at 0:40 'крепко жахнуло! (it was a strong bang!-approximate translation, zhahnut means to strike [https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B6%D0%B0%D1%85%D0%BD%D1%83%D1%82%D1%8C ' zhahnut]--to emit strong low sound like when a shot is fired, [https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BF%D0%BA%D0%BE krepko] means strong. Exact location uncertain--may be closer. (I'd guess conclusion is that paper needs to be looked at in more detail, what are conditions/assumptions to have such attenuation. If this is closer by 10 km say, will give + 50 db to sound according to present attenuation estimate; will look but this may be not quick) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 05:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::There is [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gg_8iTiWpn0 another version] of this early video with different sound; крепко жахнуло is not there... looks like 'крепко жахнуло!' is fake ...--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 06:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Unauthorized launch story ==<br />
Unauthorized launch story appeared early on, also quoting unnamed sources; we had this somewhere, in fall of 2014. Nothing more definite came out, so this seems to recycle old story, not a new information coming out now. Debunk link--could not see much said in there on the issue. Novaia Gazeta published Almaz Antey and than two competing versions, the last one 'there were no planes at all and our unnamed sources tell that Russians did it' . It ends with Petrovskii delivering Buk audio transcript. But Petrovskii recently denied involvement, on social media forum. And those unnamed sources said it both ways --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 02:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Official Facebook Reaction==<br />
MoD of Ukraine: no UAF flights in ATO area on 17 July, no UAF zenith anti-aircraft missile systems used, it is not true that UAF training accident caused MH17 crash.<br />
<br />
У день катастрофи літака Boing-777 авіація Повітряних Сил Збройних Сил України в районі проведення АТО польоти не виконувала, зенітні ракетні комплекси не застосовувалися<br />
<br />
Інформація про те, що можливою причиною катастрофи літака Boing-777 (рейс MAS-17) авіакомпанії “Малазійські авіалінії” 17 липня 2014 року у небі над Донеччиною може бути нештатна ситуація під час проведення тренування підрозділів ППО Повітряних Сил Збройних Сил України не відповідає дійсності та може бути розцінена як спроба вплинути на результати незалежного розслідування трагічної події. <br />
Про це сьогодні, 25 липня, повідомили у Командуванні Повітряних Сил Збройних Сил України у відповідь на поширену деякими російськими засобами масової інформації заяву з посиланням на так зване “джерело в одному з силових відомств України”.<br />
У день катастрофи літака Boing-777 польоти авіації Повітряних Сил Збройних Сил України в районі проведення АТО не виконувалися. Зенітні ракетні комплекси Збройних Сил України не застосовувалися, жодного пуску зенітних керованих ракет не проводилося.<br />
Довідково. 17 липня цивільний літак Boing-777 (рейс MAS-17) авіакомпанії “Малазійські авіалінії” виконував рейсовий політ за маршрутом Амстердам (Голландія) — Куала Лумпур (Малайзія) на висоті 10100 метрів.<br />
О 16.45 літак впав в 3 кілометрах на північний захід від населеного пункту Грабове, Шахтарського району Донецької області. [https://www.facebook.com/theministryofdefence.ua/photos/a.209841809078332.54058.207023122693534/739742792754895/?type=1&permPage=1 MoD of Ukraine facebook post (in Ukrainian) 25.7.15] [http://korrespondent.net/ukraine/3397381-ukraynskaia-armyia-ne-yspolzovala-zrk-y-avyatsyui-v-den-katastrofy-boynha korrespondent.net (in Russian) 25.7.15] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==International Tribunal==<br />
*Russia is [http://www.radiosvoboda.org/content/news/27155501.html set] to vote against establishing international tribunal at the UN vote on July 29. Russian [http://ria.ru/mh17/20150727/1150125332.html#ixzz3h7UgG0OU position] is that this is an isolated criminal case and not a threat to world security requiring special UN tribunal structure; and that setting the tribunal now before the official investigation is completed as unnecessary and divisive; has filed an alternative proposal (involving special representative, and more transparency -as they are now excluded from investigation). <br />
<br />
Commentary. It appears to me outcome of Yukos case tribunal may play a role here. Yukos matter is not as black and white as sides presented it; it was in legal grey area, with laws not sufficiently developed after collapse of the Soviet system; and there was unfairness at privatization and operation stages, as well as unfairness of selective prosecution of that. But all those subtleties were just thrown away on some 3 pages of the final judgement, and full market value of the company before the affair was awarded to claimants. This is a very long decision overall and I do not have command of all details and legal aspects, but from outside it appears as steamrolling the case really; replacing one injustice by another (the people are told to pay; but they have all but nothing to do with this and do not owe the awarded amount). Likewise here, once it is in legal rather than investigative field, all sort of legal steamrolling may show up. Tribunals are good only if they are fair, and seen as fair. (What are even the laws governing such tribunal, and who are lawyers practicing it? Where do they come from? ). It may be not by accident that [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Khodorkovsky Khodorkovskii] stated in July 2015 TV rain interview that he "is not interested" in Yukos legal process (still supporting [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonid_Nevzlin Leonid Nevzlin] and others handling this)<br />
:Also, former Yugoslavia tribunal was widely unpopular in Russia at the time and this feeling in Russia has sharpened since<br />
: Russian officials stated that other civilian aircraft were shot down, and special tribunals were not used in those cases. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 19:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*Russia vetoes UNSC MH17 tribunal resolution [http://tass.ru/mezhdunarodnaya-panorama/2152807 -TASS] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 00:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)</div>Antidyatelhttps://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17/Zaroshchenskoye&diff=23523Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Zaroshchenskoye2015-07-31T10:35:22Z<p>Antidyatel: One more obviously planted message</p>
<hr />
<div>== Three questions? ==<br />
These three questions need to be answered. (Discuss each issue in a separate section below.)<br />
# Where there BUK launchers in Zaroshchenskoye in mid July 2014? What proof is there of their existence?<br />
# Were there Ukrainian soldiers in Zaroshchenskoye in mid July? Who were they loyal to? Or were they somehow trying to remain neutral?<br />
# When and how did NAF take over Zaroshchenskoye?<br />
-- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 03:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Partial Answers==<br />
I don't think we know for sure (and I do not see Zaroshenskoe as the only possibility, despite Almaz-Antei report; matching fragment damage to missile orientation being the tricky part)<br />
:1. Russian MoD gave us satellite photos. Bellingcat tried to disprove it, with an early attempt debunked. Than they purchased satellite images from a commercial provider and [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/06/12/july-17-imagery-mod-comparison/ claimed] that MoD were faked. <br />
:I do not have a strong view, could be inaccurately presented by MoD, or commercial photos are not accurately timed, or we see those images at different angles and image qualities, which appears as a mismatch. Since 'investigative' methods at bc are propaganda-driven, conclusion cannot be reached just on the basis of their presentation; there is no independent info available to me. <br />
::Zaroshesnkoe photos [http://archive.mid.ru/bdomp/brp_4.nsf/9f9f2a6497b5822f43256a2900463456/f6c3bbd89ac2532d44257d1d00203ccf/body/27.3E9C!OpenElement&FieldElemFormat=jpg Zaroshenskoe 17 July, 11:32] "A= two Buk M1 self-propelled missile launchers, B= one armored vehicle" [http://archive.mid.ru/bdomp/brp_4.nsf/9f9f2a6497b5822f43256a2900463456/f6c3bbd89ac2532d44257d1d00203ccf/body/30.3EC6!OpenElement&FieldElemFormat=jpg Zaroshenskoe 18 July, 11:39] (A, B gone)<br />
::Also [http://archive.mid.ru//brp_4.nsf/newsline/F6C3BBD89AC2532D44257D1D00203CCF Donetsk, Lugansk photos]<br />
:: I understand, Bellingcat disputes those from Donetsk<br />
:2. It was not a base really, some launchers parked there is all, can move easily. Loyalties -we do not know<br />
:3 I do not know (was not following really, as never had strong belief in Zaroshenskoe location. Maps can be found and may give some answers). Almaz-Antey was telling us, Buk was from Zaroshenskoe, and we do not know who was there at the time. Without more research, that would be state of play here. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 03:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
::[https://www.bellingcat.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Zaroshchenske_EN_1.pdf Another bc] on Zaroshenskoe-has a collection of maps at least and usual twisty stuff leading to the predetermined conclusion. I have not gone through all that and unsure whether will have time in the near future. But all this long winding stuff can be probably summarized as we do not really know. And no reason really to focus heavily on Torez and ignore anything else. <br />
<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPop2oSw6Xo MOD presentation]-Zaroshenkoe at about 10:00 mark<br />
<br />
[http://www.novayagazeta.ru/inquests/68728.html Novaia Gazeta], Grabovo, Zaroshenskoe and Snezhnoe interviews. None anywhere mentioned Buk contrail or seeing Buk; conflicting account on planes. About half reluctant to talk on camera or afraid. <br />
:[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRS64s4n-o4 Anatolii, Grabovo]. He says at the moment he looked up (he was swimming) he saw a fireball, which quickly disappeared into clouds. That was followed by the crash. His description does not match Buk contrail, could be a flare<br />
:Zaroshenskoe. Several interviews, mostly audio. Confused account seemingly agreeing that Zaroshenskoe was not controlled by either side; that nobody saw Buk itself or tracks, although some tried to find tracks; one woman said that there was another planes on that day (first interview), the other woman said she did not see herself so cannot tell; than the first one said she did not see it either but her husband saw it and told her<br />
:Pevomaika, Snezhnoe. Woman says there was another SU <br />
::Another interview, woman says it was a drone; and that she saw multiple white trails going up. She was afraid it is phosphor bomb, later thought it could be flares ;- but in another interview similar multiple white trails were attributed to opolchenie trying to shoot a plane--creating cloud of fragments in the sky (unsure here, - have not heard such description before; likely just an anti-aircraft gun? [http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/150418163107-yemen-anti-aircraft-fire-exlarge-169.jpg (like here)] or is this some sort of cluster type munition? ) <br />
:Diadia Serezha (uncle Serezha)-said that military planes were often hiding under civilian ones, and thought it could happen on the day; thought that Boeing could be shot with an anti-aircraft gun <br />
:Nikolai Ivanovich. Have not seen much apart from the crash itself. Confused/afraid account. (There was some sound but he did not see another plane, and did not claim there was one) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 07:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Just realised something that might compromise the primary Bellingcat witness - the one that supplied trail photo. The only photo till now. Here is his statement: "And at 16:20 we heard an explosion. The first explosion was not very heavy. 15 seconds later, something like that, there was a second explosion, which was louder and it made the windows shake.”<br />
Of course 15 seconds is impossible if Snezhnoe is the launch site, particularly location claimed by Bellingcat. Will not go into it right now as it can be argued that his 15 seconds is a perceived number and should not be taken literally (although why so accurate, could be just 20 sec). More importantly is a description of two explosions. First small and second very loud. Now, the first explosion is attributed to rocket launch. Second is rocket explosion. From first glance it is logical that second will be louder. But the second explosion happened 20 km ground distance from his location and 10 km in altitude, according to Bellingcat fairytale. At 10km air pressure is only 100 mbar. 10 times less than on the ground. It is low vacuum and sound will be strongly attenuated. He could probably hear it better if he was just under the hit point. At oblique angles the warmer air in lower parts of the atmosphere will make refractive index to change creating reflection interfaces that will further increase sound dissipation. His description, particularly with claimed time interval is just impossible. So, either it is a total fake or the missile hit the target at much lower altitude and very close to his location. From leaks in the media, his photo and testimony are also going to be center point of Dutch report. If true, shame on them. Let me know if my analysis has a flaw.--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 09:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
:Interesting thought. Two things, whether it helps and physics. I am skeptical on the first (missile launch wooshing sound vs a blast at a distance, both played by an ear and reported with a long delay--not very usable. Other witnesses described it in different ways but some were saying it was a blast or like something dropping of. <br />
Physics-wise, at this distance, it is no longer a shock wave and will propagate as sound. Therefore, pressure and velocity drop as 1/L , and intensity which is sort of P v dies as 1/L^2 . It is doable, though not immediate, to have an estimate of what those will be say with 70 kg TNT going off. This is without attenuation. Actually I do not know quickly how that will attenuate. Engineers will tell that attenuation is frequencey dependent, and this is low frequency which pretty much just 1/L^2 . --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 11:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
First of all he was not talking about whooshing sound but about explosion. But let's skip this point for now as it is relying on his 15 sec claim, which is easily brushed away. In terms of physics. The explosion at 10 km will be happening in low pressure environment. Intensity is defined as I=(ξω)^2cρ, where we have particle displacement, sound frequency, speed of sound and density. For the same blast we can assume displacement and frequency the same. Pressure is 10 times smaller so density is also 10 times smaller. Due to low temperature the speed of sound is also smaller,roughly 20%. So we get more than 10 times smaller initial intensity. Then we have a refraction index difference between upper and lower levels of atmosphere. That gives two effects: 1) sound is reflected from the boundary and thus lost to propagation towards the guy; 2) sound is refracted towards the Earth making the wave, actually reaching him, travel longer distance and thus, be more attenuated. Your formula only takes into account geometrical attenuation of spherical wave. We should also look at attenuation by moisture in the air. It was cloudy, so that part of attenuation will be quite high. Of course the actual value should be calculated but I'm quite confident that this will not get the overwhelming explosion that he describes. And it will definitely not shake the windows. <br />
Not sure about that paper but they claim that 100dB is equivalent to 99.8 kg of TNT detonated at 12.5m distance [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4126588/]. At 20 km it will attenuate to 42 dB just by geometric attenuation (which is a background noise in large conference room [http://www.airportsites.net/lambert-stl/workshop1/nc_b29.aspx]). For 150 dB the result will be 80 dB at 20 km by geometric attenuation - noise of the vacuum cleaner. Still not able to shake the window. If we add other attenuation factors we can practically forget about second explosion. <br />
--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 13:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::Thanks for the paper. Earlier comment I was about to put:<br />
:: what you call (ξω)^2 really should be internal energy per unit mass; there is no frequency here; there is also velocity and pressure, and gas dynamics equations relating all. It is interesting and doable with some effort, and will depend on density although not in such simple way-- but I am skeptical it is helpful to refute MH17 claims. Can't really compare outcome of this computation with a witness statement - other people did hear it and said it was 'loud', he could hear it as well, and his account is imprecise in any case. <br />
::It seems to me official investigation will not use the photo, they will perhaps say about direction--that's what I thought after reading CNN and/or Parry ---somewhere from the front because it hit the cabin--and they did not use Antey stuff so far. In front, there was Russian separatists--bingo, case closed. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
::What's going on in this paper--100 kilograms at 12.5 meters distance???? No way this is 100db. I think they put this is high-bar test reactor and took care to have it as quiet as possible ...<br />
<br />
Got an idea for an estimate. Up to some numerical constants of order 1, shock wave will turn into sound at a radius r0 such that c^2 rho r0^3 = E= released energy. I think this r0 for 70 kg TNT is about 8 meters (which seems low but this is what I am getting). At his point, our intensity I, which we take as energy per volume times c, is I=c^3 rho (this does not depend on E, but size of this ball does). Than at a distance R, our intensity is c^3 rho (r0/R)^2 . With R = | {20 km , 10 km} | , getting 6 watts per square meter--what on hell that would be in loudness? Looking it up, reference intensity is 10^(-12) watt/m^2 --getting 127 decibel which is loud ...--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 17:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
127dB at 20 or even 10 km mark from the explosion of 70kg TNT is unlikely correct. It could have been at 10 meter distance but not at 10 km. Here is the video of BUK LAUNCH. It doesn’t seem that rockets go far but I can hear any of the explosions. [https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QwnUtIn9Rh8]. --[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 00:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Sorry, I know that I'm lazy to do my own calculations but allow me just to reference. You can Google paper titled "Use of Noise Attenuation Modeling in Missile<br />
Motor Detonation Activities". They actually give formula for estimating peak intensity. Didn’t use it but just noticed that "the detonations missile<br />
motors characterized by a propellant charge ranging <br />
from 50,000 to 120,000 lb (TNT equivalent) should not<br />
exceed the UTTR operational noise threshold of 134 dB at a<br />
30-km distance from the detonation site." 50,000 lb is more than 20,000 kg. I really think that the 70kg that we are discussing is not measurable for our purposes. Especially when explosion takes place at 10 km altitude and sound has to propagate the ground distance of 10/20km at shallow angles to cold-hot air interface and through the clouds (excessive moisture) <br />
--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 01:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
127dB at 20 or even 10 km mark from the explosion of 70kg TNT is unlikely correct. It could have been at 10 meter distance but not at 10 km. Here is the video of BUK LAUNCH. It doesn’t seem that rockets go far but I can hear any of the explosions. [https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QwnUtIn9Rh8]. --[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 00:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
:Missile will not use all of that at once --the sound will last longer so what arrives will have less intensity than going of instantly<br />
<br />
At 10 meters there will be still shock wave felt. At threshold of the two, decibel level is about 194 decibel--engineers call this "Loudest sound possible" meaning pressure difference is over 1 atmosphere. An estimate gives 194 decibels at 8 meters or so. 10 meters will be close to 194 level (70 kg is like artillery shell- seems a sensible distance scale) . Other witnesses-talking about planes, tell about one loud, or 2-3 separate bahs; unsure what is that exactly--there is also crashing sounds later, whether their accounts clearly separate explosion and crash? (crash is later of course and not by 15 secs --the freefall without air resistance takes 45 secs) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
:This is short in duration and low frequency (8 meters wavelength is 40 hz); --and both mean that subjectively it will sound as less loud than actual power suggests...Also this is order-of magnitude computation meaning can be less by some 10-20 db . So it appears plausible... basically its high wattage because it is short ...--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 02:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
So if I understand correctly, 127 dB at 20 km mark will happen if we assume that all energy will go into one particular frequency, explosions happens at atmospheric pressure and normal temperature (20C) and sound propagates in air with uniform density and temperature and with normal humidity. <br />
<br />
'': no, it's the same computation above, matching shock wave and sound regimes , there is no frequency involved , but knowing length scale , frequencies scale where signal lives may be roughly estimated (continuous spectrum of course, -but largest at such sort of frequency-low rumbling overall )'' <br />
<br />
I have to disagree with you here. "Ideal" explosion is practically a delta function in time, which would be flat spectrum with unity probability for all frequencies. Then attenuation will filter out many frequencies depending on interaction with media (primarily high frequency waves). But as such the power will be dissipated in the whole spectrum. At least that would be my guess. --[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 07:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
All these assumptions are not valid, obviously. Let's accept your calculation of initial intensity (I'm still lazy to double check :)). But with all the assumptions reiterated, the final intensity will be much lower. And I'm quite confident that it will not be a large explosion shaking windows that guy is describing (we can't here them on the video that I linked above). So either the witness is lying or the target was at much lower altitude and much closer to him. Explosion from the falling plane has a problem due to 15 seconds. You can't misjudge few minutes for 15 seconds. We could think that both explosions were actually at the plane. But the first explosion convinced him to look to the opposite side from where the plane fell. So we will have to come out with some acoustic reflection effect to explain it. While it doesn’t require so many assumptions to just assume that he was lying.<br />
<br />
Here is a good article for sound attenuation in clouds [http://films-lab.univ-lille1.fr/michael/michael/Publications_files/JAS001142.pdf]. For 40 Hz the attention is somewhere around 0.005 dB/m. That will already give you 50 dB for 10 km. And the sound had to travel long at oblique angle in thick clouds on that day from hit location to his house.<br />
--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 04:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Sound Attenuation===<br />
That article does not load without subscription.... But the number is quite high...if it consistently this for a range of low audio frequencies, and stays about the same for lower temperatures and densities, this is dropping 111 db for {10, 15} km in {vertical, horizontal} direction. It starts at at most 194 db as long as it is sound;( maybe some 7 db lower at 10 km up); and geometric attenuation is 57 to 68 db for a reasonable distance where this becomes a sound wave (some 8 meters away and not more that 30 meters away from the blast). All of that together gives whisper levels. Also may be worthwhile to compare with other witnesses close to impact; pain starts at 125 db and none seems to say it was painful ... --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 07:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
The good thing is that we can see most if those explosions claiming posts summarised by Bellingcat.<br />
[https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/07/16/in-their-own-words/]<br />
Few examples: 1) "Vlad, I also didn’t immediately realize. I saw that something was flying. I was out in the country in a tree and picking pears. And then an explosion. There was an extremely strong sound…I would have captured it on my phone (((( but people did capture the end"<br />
<br />
Now we can discredit it as obvious planted message.<br />
<br />
2)"I saw how this rocket flew!!! I even saw where it came from and where it went!!! It was terrible as hell to see it!!!!"<br />
<br />
Even easier to discredit, assuming the clouds in the area.<br />
<br />
3)"I saw how a rocket flew from the direction of Saurovka…and then a minute-long lull and a loud explosion…a trail remained in the sky from the rocket…I didn’t see the explosion myself it was very loud….all of my family ran out into the street…..we were all very scared……….I don’t know who to believe but we didn’t hear the sound of an SU[-25]…..it was quiet just like with a normal passenger plane and then that’s all……"<br />
Now we can discredit this one as well. With all these explosion descriptions.<br />
<br />
So it seems that all the messages are planted in with particular purpose at particular time. In any case somebody was lying, as there were witness accounts that didn't see rockets flying or heard such explosions.<br />
And now we have clear indication who was lying. SBU operative just made a seemingly logical but physically incorrect assumption that rocket explosion will be easily heard by everyone, like fireworks.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 10:20, 31 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Unauthorized launch story ==<br />
Unauthorized launch story appeared early on, also quoting unnamed sources; we had this somewhere, in fall of 2014. Nothing more definite came out, so this seems to recycle old story, not a new information coming out now. Debunk link--could not see much said in there on the issue. Novaia Gazeta published Almaz Antey and than two competing versions, the last one 'there were no planes at all and our unnamed sources tell that Russians did it' . It ends with Petrovskii delivering Buk audio transcript. But Petrovskii recently denied involvement, on social media forum. And those unnamed sources said it both ways --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 02:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Official Facebook Reaction==<br />
MoD of Ukraine: no UAF flights in ATO area on 17 July, no UAF zenith anti-aircraft missile systems used, it is not true that UAF training accident caused MH17 crash.<br />
<br />
У день катастрофи літака Boing-777 авіація Повітряних Сил Збройних Сил України в районі проведення АТО польоти не виконувала, зенітні ракетні комплекси не застосовувалися<br />
<br />
Інформація про те, що можливою причиною катастрофи літака Boing-777 (рейс MAS-17) авіакомпанії “Малазійські авіалінії” 17 липня 2014 року у небі над Донеччиною може бути нештатна ситуація під час проведення тренування підрозділів ППО Повітряних Сил Збройних Сил України не відповідає дійсності та може бути розцінена як спроба вплинути на результати незалежного розслідування трагічної події. <br />
Про це сьогодні, 25 липня, повідомили у Командуванні Повітряних Сил Збройних Сил України у відповідь на поширену деякими російськими засобами масової інформації заяву з посиланням на так зване “джерело в одному з силових відомств України”.<br />
У день катастрофи літака Boing-777 польоти авіації Повітряних Сил Збройних Сил України в районі проведення АТО не виконувалися. Зенітні ракетні комплекси Збройних Сил України не застосовувалися, жодного пуску зенітних керованих ракет не проводилося.<br />
Довідково. 17 липня цивільний літак Boing-777 (рейс MAS-17) авіакомпанії “Малазійські авіалінії” виконував рейсовий політ за маршрутом Амстердам (Голландія) — Куала Лумпур (Малайзія) на висоті 10100 метрів.<br />
О 16.45 літак впав в 3 кілометрах на північний захід від населеного пункту Грабове, Шахтарського району Донецької області. [https://www.facebook.com/theministryofdefence.ua/photos/a.209841809078332.54058.207023122693534/739742792754895/?type=1&permPage=1 MoD of Ukraine facebook post (in Ukrainian) 25.7.15] [http://korrespondent.net/ukraine/3397381-ukraynskaia-armyia-ne-yspolzovala-zrk-y-avyatsyui-v-den-katastrofy-boynha korrespondent.net (in Russian) 25.7.15] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==International Tribunal==<br />
*Russia is [http://www.radiosvoboda.org/content/news/27155501.html set] to vote against establishing international tribunal at the UN vote on July 29. Russian [http://ria.ru/mh17/20150727/1150125332.html#ixzz3h7UgG0OU position] is that this is an isolated criminal case and not a threat to world security requiring special UN tribunal structure; and that setting the tribunal now before the official investigation is completed as unnecessary and divisive; has filed an alternative proposal (involving special representative, and more transparency -as they are now excluded from investigation). <br />
<br />
Commentary. It appears to me outcome of Yukos case tribunal may play a role here. Yukos matter is not as black and white as sides presented it; it was in legal grey area, with laws not sufficiently developed after collapse of the Soviet system; and there was unfairness at privatization and operation stages, as well as unfairness of selective prosecution of that. But all those subtleties were just thrown away on some 3 pages of the final judgement, and full market value of the company before the affair was awarded to claimants. This is a very long decision overall and I do not have command of all details and legal aspects, but from outside it appears as steamrolling the case really; replacing one injustice by another (the people are told to pay; but they have all but nothing to do with this and do not owe the awarded amount). Likewise here, once it is in legal rather than investigative field, all sort of legal steamrolling may show up. Tribunals are good only if they are fair, and seen as fair. (What are even the laws governing such tribunal, and who are lawyers practicing it? Where do they come from? ). It may be not by accident that [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Khodorkovsky Khodorkovskii] stated in July 2015 TV rain interview that he "is not interested" in Yukos legal process (still supporting [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonid_Nevzlin Leonid Nevzlin] and others handling this)<br />
:Also, former Yugoslavia tribunal was widely unpopular in Russia at the time and this feeling in Russia has sharpened since<br />
: Russian officials stated that other civilian aircraft were shot down, and special tribunals were not used in those cases. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 19:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*Russia vetoes UNSC MH17 tribunal resolution [http://tass.ru/mezhdunarodnaya-panorama/2152807 -TASS] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 00:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)</div>Antidyatelhttps://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17/Zaroshchenskoye&diff=23522Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Zaroshchenskoye2015-07-31T10:20:51Z<p>Antidyatel: Strategically planted messages on social media.</p>
<hr />
<div>== Three questions? ==<br />
These three questions need to be answered. (Discuss each issue in a separate section below.)<br />
# Where there BUK launchers in Zaroshchenskoye in mid July 2014? What proof is there of their existence?<br />
# Were there Ukrainian soldiers in Zaroshchenskoye in mid July? Who were they loyal to? Or were they somehow trying to remain neutral?<br />
# When and how did NAF take over Zaroshchenskoye?<br />
-- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 03:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Partial Answers==<br />
I don't think we know for sure (and I do not see Zaroshenskoe as the only possibility, despite Almaz-Antei report; matching fragment damage to missile orientation being the tricky part)<br />
:1. Russian MoD gave us satellite photos. Bellingcat tried to disprove it, with an early attempt debunked. Than they purchased satellite images from a commercial provider and [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/06/12/july-17-imagery-mod-comparison/ claimed] that MoD were faked. <br />
:I do not have a strong view, could be inaccurately presented by MoD, or commercial photos are not accurately timed, or we see those images at different angles and image qualities, which appears as a mismatch. Since 'investigative' methods at bc are propaganda-driven, conclusion cannot be reached just on the basis of their presentation; there is no independent info available to me. <br />
::Zaroshesnkoe photos [http://archive.mid.ru/bdomp/brp_4.nsf/9f9f2a6497b5822f43256a2900463456/f6c3bbd89ac2532d44257d1d00203ccf/body/27.3E9C!OpenElement&FieldElemFormat=jpg Zaroshenskoe 17 July, 11:32] "A= two Buk M1 self-propelled missile launchers, B= one armored vehicle" [http://archive.mid.ru/bdomp/brp_4.nsf/9f9f2a6497b5822f43256a2900463456/f6c3bbd89ac2532d44257d1d00203ccf/body/30.3EC6!OpenElement&FieldElemFormat=jpg Zaroshenskoe 18 July, 11:39] (A, B gone)<br />
::Also [http://archive.mid.ru//brp_4.nsf/newsline/F6C3BBD89AC2532D44257D1D00203CCF Donetsk, Lugansk photos]<br />
:: I understand, Bellingcat disputes those from Donetsk<br />
:2. It was not a base really, some launchers parked there is all, can move easily. Loyalties -we do not know<br />
:3 I do not know (was not following really, as never had strong belief in Zaroshenskoe location. Maps can be found and may give some answers). Almaz-Antey was telling us, Buk was from Zaroshenskoe, and we do not know who was there at the time. Without more research, that would be state of play here. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 03:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
::[https://www.bellingcat.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Zaroshchenske_EN_1.pdf Another bc] on Zaroshenskoe-has a collection of maps at least and usual twisty stuff leading to the predetermined conclusion. I have not gone through all that and unsure whether will have time in the near future. But all this long winding stuff can be probably summarized as we do not really know. And no reason really to focus heavily on Torez and ignore anything else. <br />
<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPop2oSw6Xo MOD presentation]-Zaroshenkoe at about 10:00 mark<br />
<br />
[http://www.novayagazeta.ru/inquests/68728.html Novaia Gazeta], Grabovo, Zaroshenskoe and Snezhnoe interviews. None anywhere mentioned Buk contrail or seeing Buk; conflicting account on planes. About half reluctant to talk on camera or afraid. <br />
:[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRS64s4n-o4 Anatolii, Grabovo]. He says at the moment he looked up (he was swimming) he saw a fireball, which quickly disappeared into clouds. That was followed by the crash. His description does not match Buk contrail, could be a flare<br />
:Zaroshenskoe. Several interviews, mostly audio. Confused account seemingly agreeing that Zaroshenskoe was not controlled by either side; that nobody saw Buk itself or tracks, although some tried to find tracks; one woman said that there was another planes on that day (first interview), the other woman said she did not see herself so cannot tell; than the first one said she did not see it either but her husband saw it and told her<br />
:Pevomaika, Snezhnoe. Woman says there was another SU <br />
::Another interview, woman says it was a drone; and that she saw multiple white trails going up. She was afraid it is phosphor bomb, later thought it could be flares ;- but in another interview similar multiple white trails were attributed to opolchenie trying to shoot a plane--creating cloud of fragments in the sky (unsure here, - have not heard such description before; likely just an anti-aircraft gun? [http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/150418163107-yemen-anti-aircraft-fire-exlarge-169.jpg (like here)] or is this some sort of cluster type munition? ) <br />
:Diadia Serezha (uncle Serezha)-said that military planes were often hiding under civilian ones, and thought it could happen on the day; thought that Boeing could be shot with an anti-aircraft gun <br />
:Nikolai Ivanovich. Have not seen much apart from the crash itself. Confused/afraid account. (There was some sound but he did not see another plane, and did not claim there was one) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 07:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Just realised something that might compromise the primary Bellingcat witness - the one that supplied trail photo. The only photo till now. Here is his statement: "And at 16:20 we heard an explosion. The first explosion was not very heavy. 15 seconds later, something like that, there was a second explosion, which was louder and it made the windows shake.”<br />
Of course 15 seconds is impossible if Snezhnoe is the launch site, particularly location claimed by Bellingcat. Will not go into it right now as it can be argued that his 15 seconds is a perceived number and should not be taken literally (although why so accurate, could be just 20 sec). More importantly is a description of two explosions. First small and second very loud. Now, the first explosion is attributed to rocket launch. Second is rocket explosion. From first glance it is logical that second will be louder. But the second explosion happened 20 km ground distance from his location and 10 km in altitude, according to Bellingcat fairytale. At 10km air pressure is only 100 mbar. 10 times less than on the ground. It is low vacuum and sound will be strongly attenuated. He could probably hear it better if he was just under the hit point. At oblique angles the warmer air in lower parts of the atmosphere will make refractive index to change creating reflection interfaces that will further increase sound dissipation. His description, particularly with claimed time interval is just impossible. So, either it is a total fake or the missile hit the target at much lower altitude and very close to his location. From leaks in the media, his photo and testimony are also going to be center point of Dutch report. If true, shame on them. Let me know if my analysis has a flaw.--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 09:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
:Interesting thought. Two things, whether it helps and physics. I am skeptical on the first (missile launch wooshing sound vs a blast at a distance, both played by an ear and reported with a long delay--not very usable. Other witnesses described it in different ways but some were saying it was a blast or like something dropping of. <br />
Physics-wise, at this distance, it is no longer a shock wave and will propagate as sound. Therefore, pressure and velocity drop as 1/L , and intensity which is sort of P v dies as 1/L^2 . It is doable, though not immediate, to have an estimate of what those will be say with 70 kg TNT going off. This is without attenuation. Actually I do not know quickly how that will attenuate. Engineers will tell that attenuation is frequencey dependent, and this is low frequency which pretty much just 1/L^2 . --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 11:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
First of all he was not talking about whooshing sound but about explosion. But let's skip this point for now as it is relying on his 15 sec claim, which is easily brushed away. In terms of physics. The explosion at 10 km will be happening in low pressure environment. Intensity is defined as I=(ξω)^2cρ, where we have particle displacement, sound frequency, speed of sound and density. For the same blast we can assume displacement and frequency the same. Pressure is 10 times smaller so density is also 10 times smaller. Due to low temperature the speed of sound is also smaller,roughly 20%. So we get more than 10 times smaller initial intensity. Then we have a refraction index difference between upper and lower levels of atmosphere. That gives two effects: 1) sound is reflected from the boundary and thus lost to propagation towards the guy; 2) sound is refracted towards the Earth making the wave, actually reaching him, travel longer distance and thus, be more attenuated. Your formula only takes into account geometrical attenuation of spherical wave. We should also look at attenuation by moisture in the air. It was cloudy, so that part of attenuation will be quite high. Of course the actual value should be calculated but I'm quite confident that this will not get the overwhelming explosion that he describes. And it will definitely not shake the windows. <br />
Not sure about that paper but they claim that 100dB is equivalent to 99.8 kg of TNT detonated at 12.5m distance [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4126588/]. At 20 km it will attenuate to 42 dB just by geometric attenuation (which is a background noise in large conference room [http://www.airportsites.net/lambert-stl/workshop1/nc_b29.aspx]). For 150 dB the result will be 80 dB at 20 km by geometric attenuation - noise of the vacuum cleaner. Still not able to shake the window. If we add other attenuation factors we can practically forget about second explosion. <br />
--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 13:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::Thanks for the paper. Earlier comment I was about to put:<br />
:: what you call (ξω)^2 really should be internal energy per unit mass; there is no frequency here; there is also velocity and pressure, and gas dynamics equations relating all. It is interesting and doable with some effort, and will depend on density although not in such simple way-- but I am skeptical it is helpful to refute MH17 claims. Can't really compare outcome of this computation with a witness statement - other people did hear it and said it was 'loud', he could hear it as well, and his account is imprecise in any case. <br />
::It seems to me official investigation will not use the photo, they will perhaps say about direction--that's what I thought after reading CNN and/or Parry ---somewhere from the front because it hit the cabin--and they did not use Antey stuff so far. In front, there was Russian separatists--bingo, case closed. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
::What's going on in this paper--100 kilograms at 12.5 meters distance???? No way this is 100db. I think they put this is high-bar test reactor and took care to have it as quiet as possible ...<br />
<br />
Got an idea for an estimate. Up to some numerical constants of order 1, shock wave will turn into sound at a radius r0 such that c^2 rho r0^3 = E= released energy. I think this r0 for 70 kg TNT is about 8 meters (which seems low but this is what I am getting). At his point, our intensity I, which we take as energy per volume times c, is I=c^3 rho (this does not depend on E, but size of this ball does). Than at a distance R, our intensity is c^3 rho (r0/R)^2 . With R = | {20 km , 10 km} | , getting 6 watts per square meter--what on hell that would be in loudness? Looking it up, reference intensity is 10^(-12) watt/m^2 --getting 127 decibel which is loud ...--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 17:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
127dB at 20 or even 10 km mark from the explosion of 70kg TNT is unlikely correct. It could have been at 10 meter distance but not at 10 km. Here is the video of BUK LAUNCH. It doesn’t seem that rockets go far but I can hear any of the explosions. [https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QwnUtIn9Rh8]. --[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 00:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Sorry, I know that I'm lazy to do my own calculations but allow me just to reference. You can Google paper titled "Use of Noise Attenuation Modeling in Missile<br />
Motor Detonation Activities". They actually give formula for estimating peak intensity. Didn’t use it but just noticed that "the detonations missile<br />
motors characterized by a propellant charge ranging <br />
from 50,000 to 120,000 lb (TNT equivalent) should not<br />
exceed the UTTR operational noise threshold of 134 dB at a<br />
30-km distance from the detonation site." 50,000 lb is more than 20,000 kg. I really think that the 70kg that we are discussing is not measurable for our purposes. Especially when explosion takes place at 10 km altitude and sound has to propagate the ground distance of 10/20km at shallow angles to cold-hot air interface and through the clouds (excessive moisture) <br />
--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 01:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
127dB at 20 or even 10 km mark from the explosion of 70kg TNT is unlikely correct. It could have been at 10 meter distance but not at 10 km. Here is the video of BUK LAUNCH. It doesn’t seem that rockets go far but I can hear any of the explosions. [https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QwnUtIn9Rh8]. --[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 00:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
:Missile will not use all of that at once --the sound will last longer so what arrives will have less intensity than going of instantly<br />
<br />
At 10 meters there will be still shock wave felt. At threshold of the two, decibel level is about 194 decibel--engineers call this "Loudest sound possible" meaning pressure difference is over 1 atmosphere. An estimate gives 194 decibels at 8 meters or so. 10 meters will be close to 194 level (70 kg is like artillery shell- seems a sensible distance scale) . Other witnesses-talking about planes, tell about one loud, or 2-3 separate bahs; unsure what is that exactly--there is also crashing sounds later, whether their accounts clearly separate explosion and crash? (crash is later of course and not by 15 secs --the freefall without air resistance takes 45 secs) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
:This is short in duration and low frequency (8 meters wavelength is 40 hz); --and both mean that subjectively it will sound as less loud than actual power suggests...Also this is order-of magnitude computation meaning can be less by some 10-20 db . So it appears plausible... basically its high wattage because it is short ...--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 02:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
So if I understand correctly, 127 dB at 20 km mark will happen if we assume that all energy will go into one particular frequency, explosions happens at atmospheric pressure and normal temperature (20C) and sound propagates in air with uniform density and temperature and with normal humidity. <br />
<br />
'': no, it's the same computation above, matching shock wave and sound regimes , there is no frequency involved , but knowing length scale , frequencies scale where signal lives may be roughly estimated (continuous spectrum of course, -but largest at such sort of frequency-low rumbling overall )'' <br />
<br />
I have to disagree with you here. "Ideal" explosion is practically a delta function in time, which would be flat spectrum with unity probability for all frequencies. Then attenuation will filter out many frequencies depending on interaction with media (primarily high frequency waves). But as such the power will be dissipated in the whole spectrum. At least that would be my guess. --[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 07:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
All these assumptions are not valid, obviously. So your calculation of initial intensity can be accepted (I'm still lazy to double check :)). But will all the assumptions reiterated, the final intensity will be much lower. And I'm quite confident that it will jot be a large explosion shaking windows that guy is describing (we can't here them on the video that I linked above). So either the witness is lying or the target was at Mach lower altitude and much closer to him. Explosion from the falling plane has a problem due to 15 seconds. You can't misjudge few minutes for 15 seconds. We could think that both explosions were actually at the plane. But the first explosion convinced him to look to the opposite side from where the plane fell. So we will have to come put with some acoustic reflection effect to explain it. While it doesn’t require so many assumptions to just assume that he was lying.<br />
<br />
Here is a good article for sound attenuation in clouds [http://films-lab.univ-lille1.fr/michael/michael/Publications_files/JAS001142.pdf]. For 40 Hz the attention is somewhere around 0.005 dB/m. That will already give you 50 dB for 10 km. And the sound had to travel long at oblique angle in thick clouds on that day from hit location to his house.<br />
--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 04:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Sound Attenuation===<br />
That article does not load without subscription.... But the number is quite high...if it consistently this for a range of low audio frequencies, and stays about the same for lower temperatures and densities, this is dropping 111 db for {10, 15} km in {vertical, horizontal} direction. It starts at at most 194 db as long as it is sound;( maybe some 7 db lower at 10 km up); and geometric attenuation is 57 to 68 db for a reasonable distance where this becomes a sound wave (some 8 meters away and not more that 30 meters away from the blast). All of that together gives whisper levels. Also may be worthwhile to compare with other witnesses close to impact; pain starts at 125 db and none seems to say it was painful ... --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 07:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
The good thing is that we can see most if those explosions claiming posts summarised by Bellingcat.<br />
[https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/07/16/in-their-own-words/]<br />
Few examples: 1) "Vlad, I also didn’t immediately realize. I saw that something was flying. I was out in the country in a tree and picking pears. And then an explosion. There was an extremely strong sound…I would have captured it on my phone (((( but people did capture the end"<br />
<br />
Now we can discredit it as obvious planted message.<br />
2)"I saw how this rocket flew!!! I even saw where it came from and where it went!!! It was terrible as hell to see it!!!!"<br />
<br />
Even easier to discredit, assuming the clouds in the area.<br />
<br />
So it might be that all the messages are planted in with particular purpose. In any case somebody was lying, as there were witness accounts that didn't see rockets flying or heard such explosions. --[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 10:20, 31 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Unauthorized launch story ==<br />
Unauthorized launch story appeared early on, also quoting unnamed sources; we had this somewhere, in fall of 2014. Nothing more definite came out, so this seems to recycle old story, not a new information coming out now. Debunk link--could not see much said in there on the issue. Novaia Gazeta published Almaz Antey and than two competing versions, the last one 'there were no planes at all and our unnamed sources tell that Russians did it' . It ends with Petrovskii delivering Buk audio transcript. But Petrovskii recently denied involvement, on social media forum. And those unnamed sources said it both ways --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 02:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Official Facebook Reaction==<br />
MoD of Ukraine: no UAF flights in ATO area on 17 July, no UAF zenith anti-aircraft missile systems used, it is not true that UAF training accident caused MH17 crash.<br />
<br />
У день катастрофи літака Boing-777 авіація Повітряних Сил Збройних Сил України в районі проведення АТО польоти не виконувала, зенітні ракетні комплекси не застосовувалися<br />
<br />
Інформація про те, що можливою причиною катастрофи літака Boing-777 (рейс MAS-17) авіакомпанії “Малазійські авіалінії” 17 липня 2014 року у небі над Донеччиною може бути нештатна ситуація під час проведення тренування підрозділів ППО Повітряних Сил Збройних Сил України не відповідає дійсності та може бути розцінена як спроба вплинути на результати незалежного розслідування трагічної події. <br />
Про це сьогодні, 25 липня, повідомили у Командуванні Повітряних Сил Збройних Сил України у відповідь на поширену деякими російськими засобами масової інформації заяву з посиланням на так зване “джерело в одному з силових відомств України”.<br />
У день катастрофи літака Boing-777 польоти авіації Повітряних Сил Збройних Сил України в районі проведення АТО не виконувалися. Зенітні ракетні комплекси Збройних Сил України не застосовувалися, жодного пуску зенітних керованих ракет не проводилося.<br />
Довідково. 17 липня цивільний літак Boing-777 (рейс MAS-17) авіакомпанії “Малазійські авіалінії” виконував рейсовий політ за маршрутом Амстердам (Голландія) — Куала Лумпур (Малайзія) на висоті 10100 метрів.<br />
О 16.45 літак впав в 3 кілометрах на північний захід від населеного пункту Грабове, Шахтарського району Донецької області. [https://www.facebook.com/theministryofdefence.ua/photos/a.209841809078332.54058.207023122693534/739742792754895/?type=1&permPage=1 MoD of Ukraine facebook post (in Ukrainian) 25.7.15] [http://korrespondent.net/ukraine/3397381-ukraynskaia-armyia-ne-yspolzovala-zrk-y-avyatsyui-v-den-katastrofy-boynha korrespondent.net (in Russian) 25.7.15] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==International Tribunal==<br />
*Russia is [http://www.radiosvoboda.org/content/news/27155501.html set] to vote against establishing international tribunal at the UN vote on July 29. Russian [http://ria.ru/mh17/20150727/1150125332.html#ixzz3h7UgG0OU position] is that this is an isolated criminal case and not a threat to world security requiring special UN tribunal structure; and that setting the tribunal now before the official investigation is completed as unnecessary and divisive; has filed an alternative proposal (involving special representative, and more transparency -as they are now excluded from investigation). <br />
<br />
Commentary. It appears to me outcome of Yukos case tribunal may play a role here. Yukos matter is not as black and white as sides presented it; it was in legal grey area, with laws not sufficiently developed after collapse of the Soviet system; and there was unfairness at privatization and operation stages, as well as unfairness of selective prosecution of that. But all those subtleties were just thrown away on some 3 pages of the final judgement, and full market value of the company before the affair was awarded to claimants. This is a very long decision overall and I do not have command of all details and legal aspects, but from outside it appears as steamrolling the case really; replacing one injustice by another (the people are told to pay; but they have all but nothing to do with this and do not owe the awarded amount). Likewise here, once it is in legal rather than investigative field, all sort of legal steamrolling may show up. Tribunals are good only if they are fair, and seen as fair. (What are even the laws governing such tribunal, and who are lawyers practicing it? Where do they come from? ). It may be not by accident that [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Khodorkovsky Khodorkovskii] stated in July 2015 TV rain interview that he "is not interested" in Yukos legal process (still supporting [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonid_Nevzlin Leonid Nevzlin] and others handling this)<br />
:Also, former Yugoslavia tribunal was widely unpopular in Russia at the time and this feeling in Russia has sharpened since<br />
: Russian officials stated that other civilian aircraft were shot down, and special tribunals were not used in those cases. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 19:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*Russia vetoes UNSC MH17 tribunal resolution [http://tass.ru/mezhdunarodnaya-panorama/2152807 -TASS] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 00:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)</div>Antidyatelhttps://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17/Zaroshchenskoye&diff=23519Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Zaroshchenskoye2015-07-31T07:32:27Z<p>Antidyatel: modified the link to the one that opens the article</p>
<hr />
<div>== Three questions? ==<br />
These three questions need to be answered. (Discuss each issue in a separate section below.)<br />
# Where there BUK launchers in Zaroshchenskoye in mid July 2014? What proof is there of their existence?<br />
# Were there Ukrainian soldiers in Zaroshchenskoye in mid July? Who were they loyal to? Or were they somehow trying to remain neutral?<br />
# When and how did NAF take over Zaroshchenskoye?<br />
-- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 03:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Partial Answers==<br />
I don't think we know for sure (and I do not see Zaroshenskoe as the only possibility, despite Almaz-Antei report; matching fragment damage to missile orientation being the tricky part)<br />
:1. Russian MoD gave us satellite photos. Bellingcat tried to disprove it, with an early attempt debunked. Than they purchased satellite images from a commercial provider and [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/06/12/july-17-imagery-mod-comparison/ claimed] that MoD were faked. <br />
:I do not have a strong view, could be inaccurately presented by MoD, or commercial photos are not accurately timed, or we see those images at different angles and image qualities, which appears as a mismatch. Since 'investigative' methods at bc are propaganda-driven, conclusion cannot be reached just on the basis of their presentation; there is no independent info available to me. <br />
::Zaroshesnkoe photos [http://archive.mid.ru/bdomp/brp_4.nsf/9f9f2a6497b5822f43256a2900463456/f6c3bbd89ac2532d44257d1d00203ccf/body/27.3E9C!OpenElement&FieldElemFormat=jpg Zaroshenskoe 17 July, 11:32] "A= two Buk M1 self-propelled missile launchers, B= one armored vehicle" [http://archive.mid.ru/bdomp/brp_4.nsf/9f9f2a6497b5822f43256a2900463456/f6c3bbd89ac2532d44257d1d00203ccf/body/30.3EC6!OpenElement&FieldElemFormat=jpg Zaroshenskoe 18 July, 11:39] (A, B gone)<br />
::Also [http://archive.mid.ru//brp_4.nsf/newsline/F6C3BBD89AC2532D44257D1D00203CCF Donetsk, Lugansk photos]<br />
:: I understand, Bellingcat disputes those from Donetsk<br />
:2. It was not a base really, some launchers parked there is all, can move easily. Loyalties -we do not know<br />
:3 I do not know (was not following really, as never had strong belief in Zaroshenskoe location. Maps can be found and may give some answers). Almaz-Antey was telling us, Buk was from Zaroshenskoe, and we do not know who was there at the time. Without more research, that would be state of play here. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 03:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
::[https://www.bellingcat.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Zaroshchenske_EN_1.pdf Another bc] on Zaroshenskoe-has a collection of maps at least and usual twisty stuff leading to the predetermined conclusion. I have not gone through all that and unsure whether will have time in the near future. But all this long winding stuff can be probably summarized as we do not really know. And no reason really to focus heavily on Torez and ignore anything else. <br />
<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPop2oSw6Xo MOD presentation]-Zaroshenkoe at about 10:00 mark<br />
<br />
[http://www.novayagazeta.ru/inquests/68728.html Novaia Gazeta], Grabovo, Zaroshenskoe and Snezhnoe interviews. None anywhere mentioned Buk contrail or seeing Buk; conflicting account on planes. About half reluctant to talk on camera or afraid. <br />
:[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRS64s4n-o4 Anatolii, Grabovo]. He says at the moment he looked up (he was swimming) he saw a fireball, which quickly disappeared into clouds. That was followed by the crash. His description does not match Buk contrail, could be a flare<br />
:Zaroshenskoe. Several interviews, mostly audio. Confused account seemingly agreeing that Zaroshenskoe was not controlled by either side; that nobody saw Buk itself or tracks, although some tried to find tracks; one woman said that there was another planes on that day (first interview), the other woman said she did not see herself so cannot tell; than the first one said she did not see it either but her husband saw it and told her<br />
:Pevomaika, Snezhnoe. Woman says there was another SU <br />
::Another interview, woman says it was a drone; and that she saw multiple white trails going up. She was afraid it is phosphor bomb, later thought it could be flares ;- but in another interview similar multiple white trails were attributed to opolchenie trying to shoot a plane--creating cloud of fragments in the sky (unsure here, - have not heard such description before; likely just an anti-aircraft gun? [http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/150418163107-yemen-anti-aircraft-fire-exlarge-169.jpg (like here)] or is this some sort of cluster type munition? ) <br />
:Diadia Serezha (uncle Serezha)-said that military planes were often hiding under civilian ones, and thought it could happen on the day; thought that Boeing could be shot with an anti-aircraft gun <br />
:Nikolai Ivanovich. Have not seen much apart from the crash itself. Confused/afraid account. (There was some sound but he did not see another plane, and did not claim there was one) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 07:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Just realised something that might compromise the primary Bellingcat witness - the one that supplied trail photo. The only photo till now. Here is his statement: "And at 16:20 we heard an explosion. The first explosion was not very heavy. 15 seconds later, something like that, there was a second explosion, which was louder and it made the windows shake.”<br />
Of course 15 seconds is impossible if Snezhnoe is the launch site, particularly location claimed by Bellingcat. Will not go into it right now as it can be argued that his 15 seconds is a perceived number and should not be taken literally (although why so accurate, could be just 20 sec). More importantly is a description of two explosions. First small and second very loud. Now, the first explosion is attributed to rocket launch. Second is rocket explosion. From first glance it is logical that second will be louder. But the second explosion happened 20 km ground distance from his location and 10 km in altitude, according to Bellingcat fairytale. At 10km air pressure is only 100 mbar. 10 times less than on the ground. It is low vacuum and sound will be strongly attenuated. He could probably hear it better if he was just under the hit point. At oblique angles the warmer air in lower parts of the atmosphere will make refractive index to change creating reflection interfaces that will further increase sound dissipation. His description, particularly with claimed time interval is just impossible. So, either it is a total fake or the missile hit the target at much lower altitude and very close to his location. From leaks in the media, his photo and testimony are also going to be center point of Dutch report. If true, shame on them. Let me know if my analysis has a flaw.--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 09:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
:Interesting thought. Two things, whether it helps and physics. I am skeptical on the first (missile launch wooshing sound vs a blast at a distance, both played by an ear and reported with a long delay--not very usable. Other witnesses described it in different ways but some were saying it was a blast or like something dropping of. <br />
Physics-wise, at this distance, it is no longer a shock wave and will propagate as sound. Therefore, pressure and velocity drop as 1/L , and intensity which is sort of P v dies as 1/L^2 . It is doable, though not immediate, to have an estimate of what those will be say with 70 kg TNT going off. This is without attenuation. Actually I do not know quickly how that will attenuate. Engineers will tell that attenuation is frequencey dependent, and this is low frequency which pretty much just 1/L^2 . --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 11:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
First of all he was not talking about whooshing sound but about explosion. But let's skip this point for now as it is relying on his 15 sec claim, which is easily brushed away. In terms of physics. The explosion at 10 km will be happening in low pressure environment. Intensity is defined as I=(ξω)^2cρ, where we have particle displacement, sound frequency, speed of sound and density. For the same blast we can assume displacement and frequency the same. Pressure is 10 times smaller so density is also 10 times smaller. Due to low temperature the speed of sound is also smaller,roughly 20%. So we get more than 10 times smaller initial intensity. Then we have a refraction index difference between upper and lower levels of atmosphere. That gives two effects: 1) sound is reflected from the boundary and thus lost to propagation towards the guy; 2) sound is refracted towards the Earth making the wave, actually reaching him, travel longer distance and thus, be more attenuated. Your formula only takes into account geometrical attenuation of spherical wave. We should also look at attenuation by moisture in the air. It was cloudy, so that part of attenuation will be quite high. Of course the actual value should be calculated but I'm quite confident that this will not get the overwhelming explosion that he describes. And it will definitely not shake the windows. <br />
Not sure about that paper but they claim that 100dB is equivalent to 99.8 kg of TNT detonated at 12.5m distance [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4126588/]. At 20 km it will attenuate to 42 dB just by geometric attenuation (which is a background noise in large conference room [http://www.airportsites.net/lambert-stl/workshop1/nc_b29.aspx]). For 150 dB the result will be 80 dB at 20 km by geometric attenuation - noise of the vacuum cleaner. Still not able to shake the window. If we add other attenuation factors we can practically forget about second explosion. <br />
--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 13:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::Thanks for the paper. Earlier comment I was about to put:<br />
:: what you call (ξω)^2 really should be internal energy per unit mass; there is no frequency here; there is also velocity and pressure, and gas dynamics equations relating all. It is interesting and doable with some effort, and will depend on density although not in such simple way-- but I am skeptical it is helpful to refute MH17 claims. Can't really compare outcome of this computation with a witness statement - other people did hear it and said it was 'loud', he could hear it as well, and his account is imprecise in any case. <br />
::It seems to me official investigation will not use the photo, they will perhaps say about direction--that's what I thought after reading CNN and/or Parry ---somewhere from the front because it hit the cabin--and they did not use Antey stuff so far. In front, there was Russian separatists--bingo, case closed. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
::What's going on in this paper--100 kilograms at 12.5 meters distance???? No way this is 100db. I think they put this is high-bar test reactor and took care to have it as quiet as possible ...<br />
<br />
Got an idea for an estimate. Up to some numerical constants of order 1, shock wave will turn into sound at a radius r0 such that c^2 rho r0^3 = E= released energy. I think this r0 for 70 kg TNT is about 8 meters (which seems low but this is what I am getting). At his point, our intensity I, which we take as energy per volume times c, is I=c^3 rho (this does not depend on E, but size of this ball does). Than at a distance R, our intensity is c^3 rho (r0/R)^2 . With R = | {20 km , 10 km} | , getting 6 watts per square meter--what on hell that would be in loudness? Looking it up, reference intensity is 10^(-12) watt/m^2 --getting 127 decibel which is loud ...--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 17:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
127dB at 20 or even 10 km mark from the explosion of 70kg TNT is unlikely correct. It could have been at 10 meter distance but not at 10 km. Here is the video of BUK LAUNCH. It doesn’t seem that rockets go far but I can hear any of the explosions. [https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QwnUtIn9Rh8]. --[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 00:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Sorry, I know that I'm lazy to do my own calculations but allow me just to reference. You can Google paper titled "Use of Noise Attenuation Modeling in Missile<br />
Motor Detonation Activities". They actually give formula for estimating peak intensity. Didn’t use it but just noticed that "the detonations missile<br />
motors characterized by a propellant charge ranging <br />
from 50,000 to 120,000 lb (TNT equivalent) should not<br />
exceed the UTTR operational noise threshold of 134 dB at a<br />
30-km distance from the detonation site." 50,000 lb is more than 20,000 kg. I really think that the 70kg that we are discussing is not measurable for our purposes. Especially when explosion takes place at 10 km altitude and sound has to propagate the ground distance of 10/20km at shallow angles to cold-hot air interface and through the clouds (excessive moisture) <br />
--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 01:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
127dB at 20 or even 10 km mark from the explosion of 70kg TNT is unlikely correct. It could have been at 10 meter distance but not at 10 km. Here is the video of BUK LAUNCH. It doesn’t seem that rockets go far but I can hear any of the explosions. [https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QwnUtIn9Rh8]. --[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 00:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
:Missile will not use all of that at once --the sound will last longer so what arrives will have less intensity than going of instantly<br />
<br />
At 10 meters there will be still shock wave felt. At threshold of the two, decibel level is about 194 decibel--engineers call this "Loudest sound possible" meaning pressure difference is over 1 atmosphere. An estimate gives 194 decibels at 8 meters or so. 10 meters will be close to 194 level (70 kg is like artillery shell- seems a sensible distance scale) . Other witnesses-talking about planes, tell about one loud, or 2-3 separate bahs; unsure what is that exactly--there is also crashing sounds later, whether their accounts clearly separate explosion and crash? (crash is later of course and not by 15 secs --the freefall without air resistance takes 45 secs) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
:This is short in duration and low frequency (8 meters wavelength is 40 hz); --and both mean that subjectively it will sound as less loud than actual power suggests...Also this is order-of magnitude computation meaning can be less by some 10-20 db . So it appears plausible... basically its high wattage because it is short ...--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 02:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
So if I understand correctly, 127 dB at 20 km mark will happen if we assume that all energy will go into one particular frequency, explosions happens at atmospheric pressure and normal temperature (20C) and sound propagates in air with uniform density and temperature and with normal humidity. <br />
<br />
'': no, it's the same computation above, matching shock wave and sound regimes , there is no frequency involved , but knowing length scale , frequencies scale where signal lives may be roughly estimated (continuous spectrum of course, -but largest at such sort of frequency-low rumbling overall )'' <br />
<br />
I have to disagree with you here. "Ideal" explosion is practically a delta function in time, which would be flat spectrum with unity probability for all frequencies. Then attenuation will filter out many frequencies depending on interaction with media (primarily high frequency waves). But as such the power will be dissipated in the whole spectrum. At least that would be my guess. --[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 07:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
All these assumptions are not valid, obviously. So your calculation of initial intensity can be accepted (I'm still lazy to double check :)). But will all the assumptions reiterated, the final intensity will be much lower. And I'm quite confident that it will jot be a large explosion shaking windows that guy is describing (we can't here them on the video that I linked above). So either the witness is lying or the target was at Mach lower altitude and much closer to him. Explosion from the falling plane has a problem due to 15 seconds. You can't misjudge few minutes for 15 seconds. We could think that both explosions were actually at the plane. But the first explosion convinced him to look to the opposite side from where the plane fell. So we will have to come put with some acoustic reflection effect to explain it. While it doesn’t require so many assumptions to just assume that he was lying.<br />
<br />
Here is a good article for sound attenuation in clouds [http://films-lab.univ-lille1.fr/michael/michael/Publications_files/JAS001142.pdf]. For 40 Hz the attention is somewhere around 0.005 dB/m. That will already give you 50 dB for 10 km. And the sound had to travel long at oblique angle in thick clouds on that day from hit location to his house.<br />
--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 04:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Sound Attenuation===<br />
That article does not load without subscription.... But the number is quite high...if it consistently this for a range of low audio frequencies, and stays about the same for lower temperatures and densities, this is dropping 111 db for {10, 15} km in {vertical, horizontal} direction. It starts at at most 194 db as long as it is sound;( maybe some 7 db lower at 10 km up); and geometric attenuation is 57 to 68 db for a reasonable distance where this becomes a sound wave (some 8 meters away and not more that 30 meters away from the blast). All of that together gives whisper levels. Also may be worthwhile to compare with other witnesses close to impact; pain starts at 125 db and none seems to say it was painful ... --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 07:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Unauthorized launch story ==<br />
Unauthorized launch story appeared early on, also quoting unnamed sources; we had this somewhere, in fall of 2014. Nothing more definite came out, so this seems to recycle old story, not a new information coming out now. Debunk link--could not see much said in there on the issue. Novaia Gazeta published Almaz Antey and than two competing versions, the last one 'there were no planes at all and our unnamed sources tell that Russians did it' . It ends with Petrovskii delivering Buk audio transcript. But Petrovskii recently denied involvement, on social media forum. And those unnamed sources said it both ways --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 02:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Official Facebook Reaction==<br />
MoD of Ukraine: no UAF flights in ATO area on 17 July, no UAF zenith anti-aircraft missile systems used, it is not true that UAF training accident caused MH17 crash.<br />
<br />
У день катастрофи літака Boing-777 авіація Повітряних Сил Збройних Сил України в районі проведення АТО польоти не виконувала, зенітні ракетні комплекси не застосовувалися<br />
<br />
Інформація про те, що можливою причиною катастрофи літака Boing-777 (рейс MAS-17) авіакомпанії “Малазійські авіалінії” 17 липня 2014 року у небі над Донеччиною може бути нештатна ситуація під час проведення тренування підрозділів ППО Повітряних Сил Збройних Сил України не відповідає дійсності та може бути розцінена як спроба вплинути на результати незалежного розслідування трагічної події. <br />
Про це сьогодні, 25 липня, повідомили у Командуванні Повітряних Сил Збройних Сил України у відповідь на поширену деякими російськими засобами масової інформації заяву з посиланням на так зване “джерело в одному з силових відомств України”.<br />
У день катастрофи літака Boing-777 польоти авіації Повітряних Сил Збройних Сил України в районі проведення АТО не виконувалися. Зенітні ракетні комплекси Збройних Сил України не застосовувалися, жодного пуску зенітних керованих ракет не проводилося.<br />
Довідково. 17 липня цивільний літак Boing-777 (рейс MAS-17) авіакомпанії “Малазійські авіалінії” виконував рейсовий політ за маршрутом Амстердам (Голландія) — Куала Лумпур (Малайзія) на висоті 10100 метрів.<br />
О 16.45 літак впав в 3 кілометрах на північний захід від населеного пункту Грабове, Шахтарського району Донецької області. [https://www.facebook.com/theministryofdefence.ua/photos/a.209841809078332.54058.207023122693534/739742792754895/?type=1&permPage=1 MoD of Ukraine facebook post (in Ukrainian) 25.7.15] [http://korrespondent.net/ukraine/3397381-ukraynskaia-armyia-ne-yspolzovala-zrk-y-avyatsyui-v-den-katastrofy-boynha korrespondent.net (in Russian) 25.7.15] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==International Tribunal==<br />
*Russia is [http://www.radiosvoboda.org/content/news/27155501.html set] to vote against establishing international tribunal at the UN vote on July 29. Russian [http://ria.ru/mh17/20150727/1150125332.html#ixzz3h7UgG0OU position] is that this is an isolated criminal case and not a threat to world security requiring special UN tribunal structure; and that setting the tribunal now before the official investigation is completed as unnecessary and divisive; has filed an alternative proposal (involving special representative, and more transparency -as they are now excluded from investigation). <br />
<br />
Commentary. It appears to me outcome of Yukos case tribunal may play a role here. Yukos matter is not as black and white as sides presented it; it was in legal grey area, with laws not sufficiently developed after collapse of the Soviet system; and there was unfairness at privatization and operation stages, as well as unfairness of selective prosecution of that. But all those subtleties were just thrown away on some 3 pages of the final judgement, and full market value of the company before the affair was awarded to claimants. This is a very long decision overall and I do not have command of all details and legal aspects, but from outside it appears as steamrolling the case really; replacing one injustice by another (the people are told to pay; but they have all but nothing to do with this and do not owe the awarded amount). Likewise here, once it is in legal rather than investigative field, all sort of legal steamrolling may show up. Tribunals are good only if they are fair, and seen as fair. (What are even the laws governing such tribunal, and who are lawyers practicing it? Where do they come from? ). It may be not by accident that [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Khodorkovsky Khodorkovskii] stated in July 2015 TV rain interview that he "is not interested" in Yukos legal process (still supporting [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonid_Nevzlin Leonid Nevzlin] and others handling this)<br />
:Also, former Yugoslavia tribunal was widely unpopular in Russia at the time and this feeling in Russia has sharpened since<br />
: Russian officials stated that other civilian aircraft were shot down, and special tribunals were not used in those cases. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 19:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*Russia vetoes UNSC MH17 tribunal resolution [http://tass.ru/mezhdunarodnaya-panorama/2152807 -TASS] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 00:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)</div>Antidyatelhttps://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17/Zaroshchenskoye&diff=23515Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Zaroshchenskoye2015-07-31T07:14:02Z<p>Antidyatel: sound spectrum</p>
<hr />
<div>== Three questions? ==<br />
These three questions need to be answered. (Discuss each issue in a separate section below.)<br />
# Where there BUK launchers in Zaroshchenskoye in mid July 2014? What proof is there of their existence?<br />
# Were there Ukrainian soldiers in Zaroshchenskoye in mid July? Who were they loyal to? Or were they somehow trying to remain neutral?<br />
# When and how did NAF take over Zaroshchenskoye?<br />
-- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 03:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Partial Answers==<br />
I don't think we know for sure (and I do not see Zaroshenskoe as the only possibility, despite Almaz-Antei report; matching fragment damage to missile orientation being the tricky part)<br />
:1. Russian MoD gave us satellite photos. Bellingcat tried to disprove it, with an early attempt debunked. Than they purchased satellite images from a commercial provider and [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/06/12/july-17-imagery-mod-comparison/ claimed] that MoD were faked. <br />
:I do not have a strong view, could be inaccurately presented by MoD, or commercial photos are not accurately timed, or we see those images at different angles and image qualities, which appears as a mismatch. Since 'investigative' methods at bc are propaganda-driven, conclusion cannot be reached just on the basis of their presentation; there is no independent info available to me. <br />
::Zaroshesnkoe photos [http://archive.mid.ru/bdomp/brp_4.nsf/9f9f2a6497b5822f43256a2900463456/f6c3bbd89ac2532d44257d1d00203ccf/body/27.3E9C!OpenElement&FieldElemFormat=jpg Zaroshenskoe 17 July, 11:32] "A= two Buk M1 self-propelled missile launchers, B= one armored vehicle" [http://archive.mid.ru/bdomp/brp_4.nsf/9f9f2a6497b5822f43256a2900463456/f6c3bbd89ac2532d44257d1d00203ccf/body/30.3EC6!OpenElement&FieldElemFormat=jpg Zaroshenskoe 18 July, 11:39] (A, B gone)<br />
::Also [http://archive.mid.ru//brp_4.nsf/newsline/F6C3BBD89AC2532D44257D1D00203CCF Donetsk, Lugansk photos]<br />
:: I understand, Bellingcat disputes those from Donetsk<br />
:2. It was not a base really, some launchers parked there is all, can move easily. Loyalties -we do not know<br />
:3 I do not know (was not following really, as never had strong belief in Zaroshenskoe location. Maps can be found and may give some answers). Almaz-Antey was telling us, Buk was from Zaroshenskoe, and we do not know who was there at the time. Without more research, that would be state of play here. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 03:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
::[https://www.bellingcat.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Zaroshchenske_EN_1.pdf Another bc] on Zaroshenskoe-has a collection of maps at least and usual twisty stuff leading to the predetermined conclusion. I have not gone through all that and unsure whether will have time in the near future. But all this long winding stuff can be probably summarized as we do not really know. And no reason really to focus heavily on Torez and ignore anything else. <br />
<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPop2oSw6Xo MOD presentation]-Zaroshenkoe at about 10:00 mark<br />
<br />
[http://www.novayagazeta.ru/inquests/68728.html Novaia Gazeta], Grabovo, Zaroshenskoe and Snezhnoe interviews. None anywhere mentioned Buk contrail or seeing Buk; conflicting account on planes. About half reluctant to talk on camera or afraid. <br />
:[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRS64s4n-o4 Anatolii, Grabovo]. He says at the moment he looked up (he was swimming) he saw a fireball, which quickly disappeared into clouds. That was followed by the crash. His description does not match Buk contrail, could be a flare<br />
:Zaroshenskoe. Several interviews, mostly audio. Confused account seemingly agreeing that Zaroshenskoe was not controlled by either side; that nobody saw Buk itself or tracks, although some tried to find tracks; one woman said that there was another planes on that day (first interview), the other woman said she did not see herself so cannot tell; than the first one said she did not see it either but her husband saw it and told her<br />
:Pevomaika, Snezhnoe. Woman says there was another SU <br />
::Another interview, woman says it was a drone; and that she saw multiple white trails going up. She was afraid it is phosphor bomb, later thought it could be flares ;- but in another interview similar multiple white trails were attributed to opolchenie trying to shoot a plane--creating cloud of fragments in the sky (unsure here, - have not heard such description before; likely just an anti-aircraft gun? [http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/150418163107-yemen-anti-aircraft-fire-exlarge-169.jpg (like here)] or is this some sort of cluster type munition? ) <br />
:Diadia Serezha (uncle Serezha)-said that military planes were often hiding under civilian ones, and thought it could happen on the day; thought that Boeing could be shot with an anti-aircraft gun <br />
:Nikolai Ivanovich. Have not seen much apart from the crash itself. Confused/afraid account. (There was some sound but he did not see another plane, and did not claim there was one) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 07:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Just realised something that might compromise the primary Bellingcat witness - the one that supplied trail photo. The only photo till now. Here is his statement: "And at 16:20 we heard an explosion. The first explosion was not very heavy. 15 seconds later, something like that, there was a second explosion, which was louder and it made the windows shake.”<br />
Of course 15 seconds is impossible if Snezhnoe is the launch site, particularly location claimed by Bellingcat. Will not go into it right now as it can be argued that his 15 seconds is a perceived number and should not be taken literally (although why so accurate, could be just 20 sec). More importantly is a description of two explosions. First small and second very loud. Now, the first explosion is attributed to rocket launch. Second is rocket explosion. From first glance it is logical that second will be louder. But the second explosion happened 20 km ground distance from his location and 10 km in altitude, according to Bellingcat fairytale. At 10km air pressure is only 100 mbar. 10 times less than on the ground. It is low vacuum and sound will be strongly attenuated. He could probably hear it better if he was just under the hit point. At oblique angles the warmer air in lower parts of the atmosphere will make refractive index to change creating reflection interfaces that will further increase sound dissipation. His description, particularly with claimed time interval is just impossible. So, either it is a total fake or the missile hit the target at much lower altitude and very close to his location. From leaks in the media, his photo and testimony are also going to be center point of Dutch report. If true, shame on them. Let me know if my analysis has a flaw.--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 09:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
:Interesting thought. Two things, whether it helps and physics. I am skeptical on the first (missile launch wooshing sound vs a blast at a distance, both played by an ear and reported with a long delay--not very usable. Other witnesses described it in different ways but some were saying it was a blast or like something dropping of. <br />
Physics-wise, at this distance, it is no longer a shock wave and will propagate as sound. Therefore, pressure and velocity drop as 1/L , and intensity which is sort of P v dies as 1/L^2 . It is doable, though not immediate, to have an estimate of what those will be say with 70 kg TNT going off. This is without attenuation. Actually I do not know quickly how that will attenuate. Engineers will tell that attenuation is frequencey dependent, and this is low frequency which pretty much just 1/L^2 . --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 11:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
First of all he was not talking about whooshing sound but about explosion. But let's skip this point for now as it is relying on his 15 sec claim, which is easily brushed away. In terms of physics. The explosion at 10 km will be happening in low pressure environment. Intensity is defined as I=(ξω)^2cρ, where we have particle displacement, sound frequency, speed of sound and density. For the same blast we can assume displacement and frequency the same. Pressure is 10 times smaller so density is also 10 times smaller. Due to low temperature the speed of sound is also smaller,roughly 20%. So we get more than 10 times smaller initial intensity. Then we have a refraction index difference between upper and lower levels of atmosphere. That gives two effects: 1) sound is reflected from the boundary and thus lost to propagation towards the guy; 2) sound is refracted towards the Earth making the wave, actually reaching him, travel longer distance and thus, be more attenuated. Your formula only takes into account geometrical attenuation of spherical wave. We should also look at attenuation by moisture in the air. It was cloudy, so that part of attenuation will be quite high. Of course the actual value should be calculated but I'm quite confident that this will not get the overwhelming explosion that he describes. And it will definitely not shake the windows. <br />
Not sure about that paper but they claim that 100dB is equivalent to 99.8 kg of TNT detonated at 12.5m distance [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4126588/]. At 20 km it will attenuate to 42 dB just by geometric attenuation (which is a background noise in large conference room [http://www.airportsites.net/lambert-stl/workshop1/nc_b29.aspx]). For 150 dB the result will be 80 dB at 20 km by geometric attenuation - noise of the vacuum cleaner. Still not able to shake the window. If we add other attenuation factors we can practically forget about second explosion. <br />
--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 13:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::Thanks for the paper. Earlier comment I was about to put:<br />
:: what you call (ξω)^2 really should be internal energy per unit mass; there is no frequency here; there is also velocity and pressure, and gas dynamics equations relating all. It is interesting and doable with some effort, and will depend on density although not in such simple way-- but I am skeptical it is helpful to refute MH17 claims. Can't really compare outcome of this computation with a witness statement - other people did hear it and said it was 'loud', he could hear it as well, and his account is imprecise in any case. <br />
::It seems to me official investigation will not use the photo, they will perhaps say about direction--that's what I thought after reading CNN and/or Parry ---somewhere from the front because it hit the cabin--and they did not use Antey stuff so far. In front, there was Russian separatists--bingo, case closed. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
::What's going on in this paper--100 kilograms at 12.5 meters distance???? No way this is 100db. I think they put this is high-bar test reactor and took care to have it as quiet as possible ...<br />
<br />
Got an idea for an estimate. Up to some numerical constants of order 1, shock wave will turn into sound at a radius r0 such that c^2 rho r0^3 = E= released energy. I think this r0 for 70 kg TNT is about 8 meters (which seems low but this is what I am getting). At his point, our intensity I, which we take as energy per volume times c, is I=c^3 rho (this does not depend on E, but size of this ball does). Than at a distance R, our intensity is c^3 rho (r0/R)^2 . With R = | {20 km , 10 km} | , getting 6 watts per square meter--what on hell that would be in loudness? Looking it up, reference intensity is 10^(-12) watt/m^2 --getting 127 decibel which is loud ...--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 17:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
127dB at 20 or even 10 km mark from the explosion of 70kg TNT is unlikely correct. It could have been at 10 meter distance but not at 10 km. Here is the video of BUK LAUNCH. It doesn’t seem that rockets go far but I can hear any of the explosions. [https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QwnUtIn9Rh8]. --[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 00:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Sorry, I know that I'm lazy to do my own calculations but allow me just to reference. You can Google paper titled "Use of Noise Attenuation Modeling in Missile<br />
Motor Detonation Activities". They actually give formula for estimating peak intensity. Didn’t use it but just noticed that "the detonations missile<br />
motors characterized by a propellant charge ranging <br />
from 50,000 to 120,000 lb (TNT equivalent) should not<br />
exceed the UTTR operational noise threshold of 134 dB at a<br />
30-km distance from the detonation site." 50,000 lb is more than 20,000 kg. I really think that the 70kg that we are discussing is not measurable for our purposes. Especially when explosion takes place at 10 km altitude and sound has to propagate the ground distance of 10/20km at shallow angles to cold-hot air interface and through the clouds (excessive moisture) <br />
--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 01:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
127dB at 20 or even 10 km mark from the explosion of 70kg TNT is unlikely correct. It could have been at 10 meter distance but not at 10 km. Here is the video of BUK LAUNCH. It doesn’t seem that rockets go far but I can hear any of the explosions. [https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QwnUtIn9Rh8]. --[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 00:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
:Missile will not use all of that at once --the sound will last longer so what arrives will have less intensity than going of instantly<br />
<br />
At 10 meters there will be still shock wave felt. At threshold of the two, decibel level is about 194 decibel--engineers call this "Loudest sound possible" meaning pressure difference is over 1 atmosphere. An estimate gives 194 decibels at 8 meters or so. 10 meters will be close to 194 level (70 kg is like artillery shell- seems a sensible distance scale) . Other witnesses-talking about planes, tell about one loud, or 2-3 separate bahs; unsure what is that exactly--there is also crashing sounds later, whether their accounts clearly separate explosion and crash? (crash is later of course and not by 15 secs --the freefall without air resistance takes 45 secs) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
:This is short in duration and low frequency (8 meters wavelength is 40 hz); --and both mean that subjectively it will sound as less loud than actual power suggests...Also this is order-of magnitude computation meaning can be less by some 10-20 db . So it appears plausible... basically its high wattage because it is short ...--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 02:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
So if I understand correctly, 127 dB at 20 km mark will happen if we assume that all energy will go into one particular frequency, explosions happens at atmospheric pressure and normal temperature (20C) and sound propagates in air with uniform density and temperature and with normal humidity. <br />
<br />
'': no, it's the same computation above, matching shock wave and sound regimes , there is no frequency involved , but knowing length scale , frequencies scale where signal lives may be roughly estimated (continuous spectrum of course, -but largest at such sort of frequency-low rumbling overall )'' <br />
<br />
I have to disagree with you here. "Ideal" explosion is practically a delta function in time, which would be flat spectrum with unity probability for all frequencies. Then attenuation will filter out many frequencies depending on interaction with media (primarily high frequency waves). But as such the power will be dissipated in the whole spectrum. At least that would be my guess. --[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 07:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
All these assumptions are not valid, obviously. So your calculation of initial intensity can be accepted (I'm still lazy to double check :)). But will all the assumptions reiterated, the final intensity will be much lower. And I'm quite confident that it will jot be a large explosion shaking windows that guy is describing (we can't here them on the video that I linked above). So either the witness is lying or the target was at Mach lower altitude and much closer to him. Explosion from the falling plane has a problem due to 15 seconds. You can't misjudge few minutes for 15 seconds. We could think that both explosions were actually at the plane. But the first explosion convinced him to look to the opposite side from where the plane fell. So we will have to come put with some acoustic reflection effect to explain it. While it doesn’t require so many assumptions to just assume that he was lying.<br />
<br />
Here is a good article for sound attenuation in clouds [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21895057]. For 40 Hz the attention is somewhere around 0.005 dB/m. That will already give you 50 dB for 10 km. And the sound had to travel long at oblique angle in thick clouds on that day from hit location to his house.<br />
--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 04:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Unauthorized launch story ==<br />
Unauthorized launch story appeared early on, also quoting unnamed sources; we had this somewhere, in fall of 2014. Nothing more definite came out, so this seems to recycle old story, not a new information coming out now. Debunk link--could not see much said in there on the issue. Novaia Gazeta published Almaz Antey and than two competing versions, the last one 'there were no planes at all and our unnamed sources tell that Russians did it' . It ends with Petrovskii delivering Buk audio transcript. But Petrovskii recently denied involvement, on social media forum. And those unnamed sources said it both ways --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 02:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Official Facebook Reaction==<br />
MoD of Ukraine: no UAF flights in ATO area on 17 July, no UAF zenith anti-aircraft missile systems used, it is not true that UAF training accident caused MH17 crash.<br />
<br />
У день катастрофи літака Boing-777 авіація Повітряних Сил Збройних Сил України в районі проведення АТО польоти не виконувала, зенітні ракетні комплекси не застосовувалися<br />
<br />
Інформація про те, що можливою причиною катастрофи літака Boing-777 (рейс MAS-17) авіакомпанії “Малазійські авіалінії” 17 липня 2014 року у небі над Донеччиною може бути нештатна ситуація під час проведення тренування підрозділів ППО Повітряних Сил Збройних Сил України не відповідає дійсності та може бути розцінена як спроба вплинути на результати незалежного розслідування трагічної події. <br />
Про це сьогодні, 25 липня, повідомили у Командуванні Повітряних Сил Збройних Сил України у відповідь на поширену деякими російськими засобами масової інформації заяву з посиланням на так зване “джерело в одному з силових відомств України”.<br />
У день катастрофи літака Boing-777 польоти авіації Повітряних Сил Збройних Сил України в районі проведення АТО не виконувалися. Зенітні ракетні комплекси Збройних Сил України не застосовувалися, жодного пуску зенітних керованих ракет не проводилося.<br />
Довідково. 17 липня цивільний літак Boing-777 (рейс MAS-17) авіакомпанії “Малазійські авіалінії” виконував рейсовий політ за маршрутом Амстердам (Голландія) — Куала Лумпур (Малайзія) на висоті 10100 метрів.<br />
О 16.45 літак впав в 3 кілометрах на північний захід від населеного пункту Грабове, Шахтарського району Донецької області. [https://www.facebook.com/theministryofdefence.ua/photos/a.209841809078332.54058.207023122693534/739742792754895/?type=1&permPage=1 MoD of Ukraine facebook post (in Ukrainian) 25.7.15] [http://korrespondent.net/ukraine/3397381-ukraynskaia-armyia-ne-yspolzovala-zrk-y-avyatsyui-v-den-katastrofy-boynha korrespondent.net (in Russian) 25.7.15] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==International Tribunal==<br />
*Russia is [http://www.radiosvoboda.org/content/news/27155501.html set] to vote against establishing international tribunal at the UN vote on July 29. Russian [http://ria.ru/mh17/20150727/1150125332.html#ixzz3h7UgG0OU position] is that this is an isolated criminal case and not a threat to world security requiring special UN tribunal structure; and that setting the tribunal now before the official investigation is completed as unnecessary and divisive; has filed an alternative proposal (involving special representative, and more transparency -as they are now excluded from investigation). <br />
<br />
Commentary. It appears to me outcome of Yukos case tribunal may play a role here. Yukos matter is not as black and white as sides presented it; it was in legal grey area, with laws not sufficiently developed after collapse of the Soviet system; and there was unfairness at privatization and operation stages, as well as unfairness of selective prosecution of that. But all those subtleties were just thrown away on some 3 pages of the final judgement, and full market value of the company before the affair was awarded to claimants. This is a very long decision overall and I do not have command of all details and legal aspects, but from outside it appears as steamrolling the case really; replacing one injustice by another (the people are told to pay; but they have all but nothing to do with this and do not owe the awarded amount). Likewise here, once it is in legal rather than investigative field, all sort of legal steamrolling may show up. Tribunals are good only if they are fair, and seen as fair. (What are even the laws governing such tribunal, and who are lawyers practicing it? Where do they come from? ). It may be not by accident that [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Khodorkovsky Khodorkovskii] stated in July 2015 TV rain interview that he "is not interested" in Yukos legal process (still supporting [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonid_Nevzlin Leonid Nevzlin] and others handling this)<br />
:Also, former Yugoslavia tribunal was widely unpopular in Russia at the time and this feeling in Russia has sharpened since<br />
: Russian officials stated that other civilian aircraft were shot down, and special tribunals were not used in those cases. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 19:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*Russia vetoes UNSC MH17 tribunal resolution [http://tass.ru/mezhdunarodnaya-panorama/2152807 -TASS] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 00:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)</div>Antidyatelhttps://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17/Zaroshchenskoye&diff=23510Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Zaroshchenskoye2015-07-31T05:01:54Z<p>Antidyatel: /* Partial Answers */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Three questions? ==<br />
These three questions need to be answered. (Discuss each issue in a separate section below.)<br />
# Where there BUK launchers in Zaroshchenskoye in mid July 2014? What proof is there of their existence?<br />
# Were there Ukrainian soldiers in Zaroshchenskoye in mid July? Who were they loyal to? Or were they somehow trying to remain neutral?<br />
# When and how did NAF take over Zaroshchenskoye?<br />
-- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 03:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Partial Answers==<br />
I don't think we know for sure (and I do not see Zaroshenskoe as the only possibility, despite Almaz-Antei report; matching fragment damage to missile orientation being the tricky part)<br />
:1. Russian MoD gave us satellite photos. Bellingcat tried to disprove it, with an early attempt debunked. Than they purchased satellite images from a commercial provider and [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/06/12/july-17-imagery-mod-comparison/ claimed] that MoD were faked. <br />
:I do not have a strong view, could be inaccurately presented by MoD, or commercial photos are not accurately timed, or we see those images at different angles and image qualities, which appears as a mismatch. Since 'investigative' methods at bc are propaganda-driven, conclusion cannot be reached just on the basis of their presentation; there is no independent info available to me. <br />
::Zaroshesnkoe photos [http://archive.mid.ru/bdomp/brp_4.nsf/9f9f2a6497b5822f43256a2900463456/f6c3bbd89ac2532d44257d1d00203ccf/body/27.3E9C!OpenElement&FieldElemFormat=jpg Zaroshenskoe 17 July, 11:32] "A= two Buk M1 self-propelled missile launchers, B= one armored vehicle" [http://archive.mid.ru/bdomp/brp_4.nsf/9f9f2a6497b5822f43256a2900463456/f6c3bbd89ac2532d44257d1d00203ccf/body/30.3EC6!OpenElement&FieldElemFormat=jpg Zaroshenskoe 18 July, 11:39] (A, B gone)<br />
::Also [http://archive.mid.ru//brp_4.nsf/newsline/F6C3BBD89AC2532D44257D1D00203CCF Donetsk, Lugansk photos]<br />
:: I understand, Bellingcat disputes those from Donetsk<br />
:2. It was not a base really, some launchers parked there is all, can move easily. Loyalties -we do not know<br />
:3 I do not know (was not following really, as never had strong belief in Zaroshenskoe location. Maps can be found and may give some answers). Almaz-Antey was telling us, Buk was from Zaroshenskoe, and we do not know who was there at the time. Without more research, that would be state of play here. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 03:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
::[https://www.bellingcat.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Zaroshchenske_EN_1.pdf Another bc] on Zaroshenskoe-has a collection of maps at least and usual twisty stuff leading to the predetermined conclusion. I have not gone through all that and unsure whether will have time in the near future. But all this long winding stuff can be probably summarized as we do not really know. And no reason really to focus heavily on Torez and ignore anything else. <br />
<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPop2oSw6Xo MOD presentation]-Zaroshenkoe at about 10:00 mark<br />
<br />
[http://www.novayagazeta.ru/inquests/68728.html Novaia Gazeta], Grabovo, Zaroshenskoe and Snezhnoe interviews. None anywhere mentioned Buk contrail or seeing Buk; conflicting account on planes. About half reluctant to talk on camera or afraid. <br />
:[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRS64s4n-o4 Anatolii, Grabovo]. He says at the moment he looked up (he was swimming) he saw a fireball, which quickly disappeared into clouds. That was followed by the crash. His description does not match Buk contrail, could be a flare<br />
:Zaroshenskoe. Several interviews, mostly audio. Confused account seemingly agreeing that Zaroshenskoe was not controlled by either side; that nobody saw Buk itself or tracks, although some tried to find tracks; one woman said that there was another planes on that day (first interview), the other woman said she did not see herself so cannot tell; than the first one said she did not see it either but her husband saw it and told her<br />
:Pevomaika, Snezhnoe. Woman says there was another SU <br />
::Another interview, woman says it was a drone; and that she saw multiple white trails going up. She was afraid it is phosphor bomb, later thought it could be flares ;- but in another interview similar multiple white trails were attributed to opolchenie trying to shoot a plane--creating cloud of fragments in the sky (unsure here, - have not heard such description before; likely just an anti-aircraft gun? [http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/150418163107-yemen-anti-aircraft-fire-exlarge-169.jpg (like here)] or is this some sort of cluster type munition? ) <br />
:Diadia Serezha (uncle Serezha)-said that military planes were often hiding under civilian ones, and thought it could happen on the day; thought that Boeing could be shot with an anti-aircraft gun <br />
:Nikolai Ivanovich. Have not seen much apart from the crash itself. Confused/afraid account. (There was some sound but he did not see another plane, and did not claim there was one) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 07:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Just realised something that might compromise the primary Bellingcat witness - the one that supplied trail photo. The only photo till now. Here is his statement: "And at 16:20 we heard an explosion. The first explosion was not very heavy. 15 seconds later, something like that, there was a second explosion, which was louder and it made the windows shake.”<br />
Of course 15 seconds is impossible if Snezhnoe is the launch site, particularly location claimed by Bellingcat. Will not go into it right now as it can be argued that his 15 seconds is a perceived number and should not be taken literally (although why so accurate, could be just 20 sec). More importantly is a description of two explosions. First small and second very loud. Now, the first explosion is attributed to rocket launch. Second is rocket explosion. From first glance it is logical that second will be louder. But the second explosion happened 20 km ground distance from his location and 10 km in altitude, according to Bellingcat fairytale. At 10km air pressure is only 100 mbar. 10 times less than on the ground. It is low vacuum and sound will be strongly attenuated. He could probably hear it better if he was just under the hit point. At oblique angles the warmer air in lower parts of the atmosphere will make refractive index to change creating reflection interfaces that will further increase sound dissipation. His description, particularly with claimed time interval is just impossible. So, either it is a total fake or the missile hit the target at much lower altitude and very close to his location. From leaks in the media, his photo and testimony are also going to be center point of Dutch report. If true, shame on them. Let me know if my analysis has a flaw.--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 09:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
:Interesting thought. Two things, whether it helps and physics. I am skeptical on the first (missile launch wooshing sound vs a blast at a distance, both played by an ear and reported with a long delay--not very usable. Other witnesses described it in different ways but some were saying it was a blast or like something dropping of. <br />
Physics-wise, at this distance, it is no longer a shock wave and will propagate as sound. Therefore, pressure and velocity drop as 1/L , and intensity which is sort of P v dies as 1/L^2 . It is doable, though not immediate, to have an estimate of what those will be say with 70 kg TNT going off. This is without attenuation. Actually I do not know quickly how that will attenuate. Engineers will tell that attenuation is frequencey dependent, and this is low frequency which pretty much just 1/L^2 . --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 11:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
First of all he was not talking about whooshing sound but about explosion. But let's skip this point for now as it is relying on his 15 sec claim, which is easily brushed away. In terms of physics. The explosion at 10 km will be happening in low pressure environment. Intensity is defined as I=(ξω)^2cρ, where we have particle displacement, sound frequency, speed of sound and density. For the same blast we can assume displacement and frequency the same. Pressure is 10 times smaller so density is also 10 times smaller. Due to low temperature the speed of sound is also smaller,roughly 20%. So we get more than 10 times smaller initial intensity. Then we have a refraction index difference between upper and lower levels of atmosphere. That gives two effects: 1) sound is reflected from the boundary and thus lost to propagation towards the guy; 2) sound is refracted towards the Earth making the wave, actually reaching him, travel longer distance and thus, be more attenuated. Your formula only takes into account geometrical attenuation of spherical wave. We should also look at attenuation by moisture in the air. It was cloudy, so that part of attenuation will be quite high. Of course the actual value should be calculated but I'm quite confident that this will not get the overwhelming explosion that he describes. And it will definitely not shake the windows. <br />
Not sure about that paper but they claim that 100dB is equivalent to 99.8 kg of TNT detonated at 12.5m distance [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4126588/]. At 20 km it will attenuate to 42 dB just by geometric attenuation (which is a background noise in large conference room [http://www.airportsites.net/lambert-stl/workshop1/nc_b29.aspx]). For 150 dB the result will be 80 dB at 20 km by geometric attenuation - noise of the vacuum cleaner. Still not able to shake the window. If we add other attenuation factors we can practically forget about second explosion. <br />
--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 13:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::Thanks for the paper. Earlier comment I was about to put:<br />
:: what you call (ξω)^2 really should be internal energy per unit mass; there is no frequency here; there is also velocity and pressure, and gas dynamics equations relating all. It is interesting and doable with some effort, and will depend on density although not in such simple way-- but I am skeptical it is helpful to refute MH17 claims. Can't really compare outcome of this computation with a witness statement - other people did hear it and said it was 'loud', he could hear it as well, and his account is imprecise in any case. <br />
::It seems to me official investigation will not use the photo, they will perhaps say about direction--that's what I thought after reading CNN and/or Parry ---somewhere from the front because it hit the cabin--and they did not use Antey stuff so far. In front, there was Russian separatists--bingo, case closed. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
::What's going on in this paper--100 kilograms at 12.5 meters distance???? No way this is 100db. I think they put this is high-bar test reactor and took care to have it as quiet as possible ...<br />
<br />
Got an idea for an estimate. Up to some numerical constants of order 1, shock wave will turn into sound at a radius r0 such that c^2 rho r0^3 = E= released energy. I think this r0 for 70 kg TNT is about 8 meters (which seems low but this is what I am getting). At his point, our intensity I, which we take as energy per volume times c, is I=c^3 rho (this does not depend on E, but size of this ball does). Than at a distance R, our intensity is c^3 rho (r0/R)^2 . With R = | {20 km , 10 km} | , getting 6 watts per square meter--what on hell that would be in loudness? Looking it up, reference intensity is 10^(-12) watt/m^2 --getting 127 decibel which is loud ...--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 17:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
127dB at 20 or even 10 km mark from the explosion of 70kg TNT is unlikely correct. It could have been at 10 meter distance but not at 10 km. Here is the video of BUK LAUNCH. It doesn’t seem that rockets go far but I can hear any of the explosions. [https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QwnUtIn9Rh8]. --[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 00:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Sorry, I know that I'm lazy to do my own calculations but allow me just to reference. You can Google paper titled "Use of Noise Attenuation Modeling in Missile<br />
Motor Detonation Activities". They actually give formula for estimating peak intensity. Didn’t use it but just noticed that "the detonations missile<br />
motors characterized by a propellant charge ranging <br />
from 50,000 to 120,000 lb (TNT equivalent) should not<br />
exceed the UTTR operational noise threshold of 134 dB at a<br />
30-km distance from the detonation site." 50,000 lb is more than 20,000 kg. I really think that the 70kg that we are discussing is not measurable for our purposes. Especially when explosion takes place at 10 km altitude and sound has to propagate the ground distance of 10/20km at shallow angles to cold-hot air interface and through the clouds (excessive moisture) <br />
--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 01:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
127dB at 20 or even 10 km mark from the explosion of 70kg TNT is unlikely correct. It could have been at 10 meter distance but not at 10 km. Here is the video of BUK LAUNCH. It doesn’t seem that rockets go far but I can hear any of the explosions. [https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QwnUtIn9Rh8]. --[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 00:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
:Missile will not use all of that at once --the sound will last longer so what arrives will have less intensity than going of instantly<br />
<br />
At 10 meters there will be still shock wave felt. At threshold of the two, decibel level is about 194 decibel--engineers call this "Loudest sound possible" meaning pressure difference is over 1 atmosphere. An estimate gives 194 decibels at 8 meters or so. 10 meters will be close to 194 level (70 kg is like artillery shell- seems a sensible distance scale) . Other witnesses-talking about planes, tell about one loud, or 2-3 separate bahs; unsure what is that exactly--there is also crashing sounds later, whether their accounts clearly separate explosion and crash? (crash is later of course and not by 15 secs --the freefall without air resistance takes 45 secs) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
:This is short in duration and low frequency (8 meters wavelength is 40 hz); --and both mean that subjectively it will sound as less loud than actual power suggests...Also this is order-of magnitude computation meaning can be less by some 10-20 db . So it appears plausible... basically its high wattage because it is short ...--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 02:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
So if I understand correctly, 127 dB at 20 km mark will happen if we assume that all energy will go into one particular frequency, explosions happens at atmospheric pressure and normal temperature (20C) and sound propagates in air with uniform density and temperature and with normal humidity. All these assumptions are not valid, obviously. So your calculation of initial intensity can be accepted (I'm still lazy to double check :)). But will all the assumptions reiterated, the final intensity will be much lower. And I'm quite confident that it will jot be a large explosion shaking windows that guy is describing (we can't here them on the video that I linked above). So either the witness is lying or the target was at Mach lower altitude and much closer to him. Explosion from the falling plane has a problem due to 15 seconds. You can't misjudge few minutes for 15 seconds. We could think that both explosions were actually at the plane. But the first explosion convinced him to look to the opposite side from where the plane fell. So we will have to come put with some acoustic reflection effect to explain it. While it doesn’t require so many assumptions to just assume that he was lying.<br />
<br />
Here is a good article for sound attenuation in clouds [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21895057]. For 40 Hz the attention is somewhere around 0.005 dB/m. That will already give you 50 dB for 10 km. And the sound had to travel long at oblique angle in thick clouds on that day from hit location to his house.<br />
--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 04:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Unauthorized launch story ==<br />
Unauthorized launch story appeared early on, also quoting unnamed sources; we had this somewhere, in fall of 2014. Nothing more definite came out, so this seems to recycle old story, not a new information coming out now. Debunk link--could not see much said in there on the issue. Novaia Gazeta published Almaz Antey and than two competing versions, the last one 'there were no planes at all and our unnamed sources tell that Russians did it' . It ends with Petrovskii delivering Buk audio transcript. But Petrovskii recently denied involvement, on social media forum. And those unnamed sources said it both ways --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 02:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Official Facebook Reaction==<br />
MoD of Ukraine: no UAF flights in ATO area on 17 July, no UAF zenith anti-aircraft missile systems used, it is not true that UAF training accident caused MH17 crash.<br />
<br />
У день катастрофи літака Boing-777 авіація Повітряних Сил Збройних Сил України в районі проведення АТО польоти не виконувала, зенітні ракетні комплекси не застосовувалися<br />
<br />
Інформація про те, що можливою причиною катастрофи літака Boing-777 (рейс MAS-17) авіакомпанії “Малазійські авіалінії” 17 липня 2014 року у небі над Донеччиною може бути нештатна ситуація під час проведення тренування підрозділів ППО Повітряних Сил Збройних Сил України не відповідає дійсності та може бути розцінена як спроба вплинути на результати незалежного розслідування трагічної події. <br />
Про це сьогодні, 25 липня, повідомили у Командуванні Повітряних Сил Збройних Сил України у відповідь на поширену деякими російськими засобами масової інформації заяву з посиланням на так зване “джерело в одному з силових відомств України”.<br />
У день катастрофи літака Boing-777 польоти авіації Повітряних Сил Збройних Сил України в районі проведення АТО не виконувалися. Зенітні ракетні комплекси Збройних Сил України не застосовувалися, жодного пуску зенітних керованих ракет не проводилося.<br />
Довідково. 17 липня цивільний літак Boing-777 (рейс MAS-17) авіакомпанії “Малазійські авіалінії” виконував рейсовий політ за маршрутом Амстердам (Голландія) — Куала Лумпур (Малайзія) на висоті 10100 метрів.<br />
О 16.45 літак впав в 3 кілометрах на північний захід від населеного пункту Грабове, Шахтарського району Донецької області. [https://www.facebook.com/theministryofdefence.ua/photos/a.209841809078332.54058.207023122693534/739742792754895/?type=1&permPage=1 MoD of Ukraine facebook post (in Ukrainian) 25.7.15] [http://korrespondent.net/ukraine/3397381-ukraynskaia-armyia-ne-yspolzovala-zrk-y-avyatsyui-v-den-katastrofy-boynha korrespondent.net (in Russian) 25.7.15] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==International Tribunal==<br />
*Russia is [http://www.radiosvoboda.org/content/news/27155501.html set] to vote against establishing international tribunal at the UN vote on July 29. Russian [http://ria.ru/mh17/20150727/1150125332.html#ixzz3h7UgG0OU position] is that this is an isolated criminal case and not a threat to world security requiring special UN tribunal structure; and that setting the tribunal now before the official investigation is completed as unnecessary and divisive; has filed an alternative proposal (involving special representative, and more transparency -as they are now excluded from investigation). <br />
<br />
Commentary. It appears to me outcome of Yukos case tribunal may play a role here. Yukos matter is not as black and white as sides presented it; it was in legal grey area, with laws not sufficiently developed after collapse of the Soviet system; and there was unfairness at privatization and operation stages, as well as unfairness of selective prosecution of that. But all those subtleties were just thrown away on some 3 pages of the final judgement, and full market value of the company before the affair was awarded to claimants. This is a very long decision overall and I do not have command of all details and legal aspects, but from outside it appears as steamrolling the case really; replacing one injustice by another (the people are told to pay; but they have all but nothing to do with this and do not owe the awarded amount). Likewise here, once it is in legal rather than investigative field, all sort of legal steamrolling may show up. Tribunals are good only if they are fair, and seen as fair. (What are even the laws governing such tribunal, and who are lawyers practicing it? Where do they come from? ). It may be not by accident that [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Khodorkovsky Khodorkovskii] stated in July 2015 TV rain interview that he "is not interested" in Yukos legal process (still supporting [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonid_Nevzlin Leonid Nevzlin] and others handling this)<br />
:Also, former Yugoslavia tribunal was widely unpopular in Russia at the time and this feeling in Russia has sharpened since<br />
: Russian officials stated that other civilian aircraft were shot down, and special tribunals were not used in those cases. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 19:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*Russia vetoes UNSC MH17 tribunal resolution [http://tass.ru/mezhdunarodnaya-panorama/2152807 -TASS] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 00:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)</div>Antidyatelhttps://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17/Zaroshchenskoye&diff=23507Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Zaroshchenskoye2015-07-31T04:40:44Z<p>Antidyatel: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Three questions? ==<br />
These three questions need to be answered. (Discuss each issue in a separate section below.)<br />
# Where there BUK launchers in Zaroshchenskoye in mid July 2014? What proof is there of their existence?<br />
# Were there Ukrainian soldiers in Zaroshchenskoye in mid July? Who were they loyal to? Or were they somehow trying to remain neutral?<br />
# When and how did NAF take over Zaroshchenskoye?<br />
-- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 03:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Partial Answers==<br />
I don't think we know for sure (and I do not see Zaroshenskoe as the only possibility, despite Almaz-Antei report; matching fragment damage to missile orientation being the tricky part)<br />
:1. Russian MoD gave us satellite photos. Bellingcat tried to disprove it, with an early attempt debunked. Than they purchased satellite images from a commercial provider and [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/06/12/july-17-imagery-mod-comparison/ claimed] that MoD were faked. <br />
:I do not have a strong view, could be inaccurately presented by MoD, or commercial photos are not accurately timed, or we see those images at different angles and image qualities, which appears as a mismatch. Since 'investigative' methods at bc are propaganda-driven, conclusion cannot be reached just on the basis of their presentation; there is no independent info available to me. <br />
::Zaroshesnkoe photos [http://archive.mid.ru/bdomp/brp_4.nsf/9f9f2a6497b5822f43256a2900463456/f6c3bbd89ac2532d44257d1d00203ccf/body/27.3E9C!OpenElement&FieldElemFormat=jpg Zaroshenskoe 17 July, 11:32] "A= two Buk M1 self-propelled missile launchers, B= one armored vehicle" [http://archive.mid.ru/bdomp/brp_4.nsf/9f9f2a6497b5822f43256a2900463456/f6c3bbd89ac2532d44257d1d00203ccf/body/30.3EC6!OpenElement&FieldElemFormat=jpg Zaroshenskoe 18 July, 11:39] (A, B gone)<br />
::Also [http://archive.mid.ru//brp_4.nsf/newsline/F6C3BBD89AC2532D44257D1D00203CCF Donetsk, Lugansk photos]<br />
:: I understand, Bellingcat disputes those from Donetsk<br />
:2. It was not a base really, some launchers parked there is all, can move easily. Loyalties -we do not know<br />
:3 I do not know (was not following really, as never had strong belief in Zaroshenskoe location. Maps can be found and may give some answers). Almaz-Antey was telling us, Buk was from Zaroshenskoe, and we do not know who was there at the time. Without more research, that would be state of play here. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 03:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
::[https://www.bellingcat.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Zaroshchenske_EN_1.pdf Another bc] on Zaroshenskoe-has a collection of maps at least and usual twisty stuff leading to the predetermined conclusion. I have not gone through all that and unsure whether will have time in the near future. But all this long winding stuff can be probably summarized as we do not really know. And no reason really to focus heavily on Torez and ignore anything else. <br />
<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPop2oSw6Xo MOD presentation]-Zaroshenkoe at about 10:00 mark<br />
<br />
[http://www.novayagazeta.ru/inquests/68728.html Novaia Gazeta], Grabovo, Zaroshenskoe and Snezhnoe interviews. None anywhere mentioned Buk contrail or seeing Buk; conflicting account on planes. About half reluctant to talk on camera or afraid. <br />
:[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRS64s4n-o4 Anatolii, Grabovo]. He says at the moment he looked up (he was swimming) he saw a fireball, which quickly disappeared into clouds. That was followed by the crash. His description does not match Buk contrail, could be a flare<br />
:Zaroshenskoe. Several interviews, mostly audio. Confused account seemingly agreeing that Zaroshenskoe was not controlled by either side; that nobody saw Buk itself or tracks, although some tried to find tracks; one woman said that there was another planes on that day (first interview), the other woman said she did not see herself so cannot tell; than the first one said she did not see it either but her husband saw it and told her<br />
:Pevomaika, Snezhnoe. Woman says there was another SU <br />
::Another interview, woman says it was a drone; and that she saw multiple white trails going up. She was afraid it is phosphor bomb, later thought it could be flares ;- but in another interview similar multiple white trails were attributed to opolchenie trying to shoot a plane--creating cloud of fragments in the sky (unsure here, - have not heard such description before; likely just an anti-aircraft gun? [http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/150418163107-yemen-anti-aircraft-fire-exlarge-169.jpg (like here)] or is this some sort of cluster type munition? ) <br />
:Diadia Serezha (uncle Serezha)-said that military planes were often hiding under civilian ones, and thought it could happen on the day; thought that Boeing could be shot with an anti-aircraft gun <br />
:Nikolai Ivanovich. Have not seen much apart from the crash itself. Confused/afraid account. (There was some sound but he did not see another plane, and did not claim there was one) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 07:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Just realised something that might compromise the primary Bellingcat witness - the one that supplied trail photo. The only photo till now. Here is his statement: "And at 16:20 we heard an explosion. The first explosion was not very heavy. 15 seconds later, something like that, there was a second explosion, which was louder and it made the windows shake.”<br />
Of course 15 seconds is impossible if Snezhnoe is the launch site, particularly location claimed by Bellingcat. Will not go into it right now as it can be argued that his 15 seconds is a perceived number and should not be taken literally (although why so accurate, could be just 20 sec). More importantly is a description of two explosions. First small and second very loud. Now, the first explosion is attributed to rocket launch. Second is rocket explosion. From first glance it is logical that second will be louder. But the second explosion happened 20 km ground distance from his location and 10 km in altitude, according to Bellingcat fairytale. At 10km air pressure is only 100 mbar. 10 times less than on the ground. It is low vacuum and sound will be strongly attenuated. He could probably hear it better if he was just under the hit point. At oblique angles the warmer air in lower parts of the atmosphere will make refractive index to change creating reflection interfaces that will further increase sound dissipation. His description, particularly with claimed time interval is just impossible. So, either it is a total fake or the missile hit the target at much lower altitude and very close to his location. From leaks in the media, his photo and testimony are also going to be center point of Dutch report. If true, shame on them. Let me know if my analysis has a flaw.--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 09:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
:Interesting thought. Two things, whether it helps and physics. I am skeptical on the first (missile launch wooshing sound vs a blast at a distance, both played by an ear and reported with a long delay--not very usable. Other witnesses described it in different ways but some were saying it was a blast or like something dropping of. <br />
Physics-wise, at this distance, it is no longer a shock wave and will propagate as sound. Therefore, pressure and velocity drop as 1/L , and intensity which is sort of P v dies as 1/L^2 . It is doable, though not immediate, to have an estimate of what those will be say with 70 kg TNT going off. This is without attenuation. Actually I do not know quickly how that will attenuate. Engineers will tell that attenuation is frequencey dependent, and this is low frequency which pretty much just 1/L^2 . --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 11:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
First of all he was not talking about whooshing sound but about explosion. But let's skip this point for now as it is relying on his 15 sec claim, which is easily brushed away. In terms of physics. The explosion at 10 km will be happening in low pressure environment. Intensity is defined as I=(ξω)^2cρ, where we have particle displacement, sound frequency, speed of sound and density. For the same blast we can assume displacement and frequency the same. Pressure is 10 times smaller so density is also 10 times smaller. Due to low temperature the speed of sound is also smaller,roughly 20%. So we get more than 10 times smaller initial intensity. Then we have a refraction index difference between upper and lower levels of atmosphere. That gives two effects: 1) sound is reflected from the boundary and thus lost to propagation towards the guy; 2) sound is refracted towards the Earth making the wave, actually reaching him, travel longer distance and thus, be more attenuated. Your formula only takes into account geometrical attenuation of spherical wave. We should also look at attenuation by moisture in the air. It was cloudy, so that part of attenuation will be quite high. Of course the actual value should be calculated but I'm quite confident that this will not get the overwhelming explosion that he describes. And it will definitely not shake the windows. <br />
Not sure about that paper but they claim that 100dB is equivalent to 99.8 kg of TNT detonated at 12.5m distance [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4126588/]. At 20 km it will attenuate to 42 dB just by geometric attenuation (which is a background noise in large conference room [http://www.airportsites.net/lambert-stl/workshop1/nc_b29.aspx]). For 150 dB the result will be 80 dB at 20 km by geometric attenuation - noise of the vacuum cleaner. Still not able to shake the window. If we add other attenuation factors we can practically forget about second explosion. <br />
--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 13:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::Thanks for the paper. Earlier comment I was about to put:<br />
:: what you call (ξω)^2 really should be internal energy per unit mass; there is no frequency here; there is also velocity and pressure, and gas dynamics equations relating all. It is interesting and doable with some effort, and will depend on density although not in such simple way-- but I am skeptical it is helpful to refute MH17 claims. Can't really compare outcome of this computation with a witness statement - other people did hear it and said it was 'loud', he could hear it as well, and his account is imprecise in any case. <br />
::It seems to me official investigation will not use the photo, they will perhaps say about direction--that's what I thought after reading CNN and/or Parry ---somewhere from the front because it hit the cabin--and they did not use Antey stuff so far. In front, there was Russian separatists--bingo, case closed. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
::What's going on in this paper--100 kilograms at 12.5 meters distance???? No way this is 100db. I think they put this is high-bar test reactor and took care to have it as quiet as possible ...<br />
<br />
Got an idea for an estimate. Up to some numerical constants of order 1, shock wave will turn into sound at a radius r0 such that c^2 rho r0^3 = E= released energy. I think this r0 for 70 kg TNT is about 8 meters (which seems low but this is what I am getting). At his point, our intensity I, which we take as energy per volume times c, is I=c^3 rho (this does not depend on E, but size of this ball does). Than at a distance R, our intensity is c^3 rho (r0/R)^2 . With R = | {20 km , 10 km} | , getting 6 watts per square meter--what on hell that would be in loudness? Looking it up, reference intensity is 10^(-12) watt/m^2 --getting 127 decibel which is loud ...--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 17:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
127dB at 20 or even 10 km mark from the explosion of 70kg TNT is unlikely correct. It could have been at 10 meter distance but not at 10 km. Here is the video of BUK LAUNCH. It doesn’t seem that rockets go far but I can hear any of the explosions. [https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QwnUtIn9Rh8]. --[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 00:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Sorry, I know that I'm lazy to do my own calculations but allow me just to reference. You can Google paper titled "Use of Noise Attenuation Modeling in Missile<br />
Motor Detonation Activities". They actually give formula for estimating peak intensity. Didn’t use it but just noticed that "the detonations missile<br />
motors characterized by a propellant charge ranging <br />
from 50,000 to 120,000 lb (TNT equivalent) should not<br />
exceed the UTTR operational noise threshold of 134 dB at a<br />
30-km distance from the detonation site." 50,000 lb is more than 20,000 kg. I really think that the 70kg that we are discussing is not measurable for our purposes. Especially when explosion takes place at 10 km altitude and sound has to propagate the ground distance of 10/20km at shallow angles to cold-hot air interface and through the clouds (excessive moisture) <br />
--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 01:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
127dB at 20 or even 10 km mark from the explosion of 70kg TNT is unlikely correct. It could have been at 10 meter distance but not at 10 km. Here is the video of BUK LAUNCH. It doesn’t seem that rockets go far but I can hear any of the explosions. [https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QwnUtIn9Rh8]. --[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 00:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
:Missile will not use all of that at once --the sound will last longer so what arrives will have less intensity than going of instantly<br />
<br />
At 10 meters there will be still shock wave felt. At threshold of the two, decibel level is about 194 decibel--engineers call this "Loudest sound possible" meaning pressure difference is over 1 atmosphere. An estimate gives 194 decibels at 8 meters or so. 10 meters will be close to 194 level (70 kg is like artillery shell- seems a sensible distance scale) . Other witnesses-talking about planes, tell about one loud, or 2-3 separate bahs; unsure what is that exactly--there is also crashing sounds later, whether their accounts clearly separate explosion and crash? (crash is later of course and not by 15 secs --the freefall without air resistance takes 45 secs) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
:This is short in duration and low frequency (8 meters wavelength is 40 hz); --and both mean that subjectively it will sound as less loud than actual power suggests...Also this is order-of magnitude computation meaning can be less by some 10-20 db . So it appears plausible... basically its high wattage because it is short ...--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 02:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
So if I understand correctly, 127 dB at 20 km mark will happen if we assume that all energy will go into one particular frequency, explosions happens at atmospheric pressure and normal temperature (20C) and sound propagates in air with uniform density and temperature and with normal humidity. All these assumptions are not valid, obviously. So your calculation of initial intensity can be accepted (I'm still lazy to double check :)). But will all the assumptions reiterated, the final intensity will be much lower. And I'm quite confident that it will jot be a large explosion shaking windows that guy is describing (we can't here them on the video that I linked above). So either the witness is lying or the target was at Mach lower altitude and much closer to him. Explosion from the falling plane has a problem due to 15 seconds. You can't misjudge few minutes for 15 seconds. We could think that both explosions were actually at the plane. But the first explosion convinced him to look to the opposite side from where the plane fell. So we will have to come put with some acoustic reflection effect to explain it. While it doesn’t require so many assumptions to just assume that he was lying --[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 04:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Unauthorized launch story ==<br />
Unauthorized launch story appeared early on, also quoting unnamed sources; we had this somewhere, in fall of 2014. Nothing more definite came out, so this seems to recycle old story, not a new information coming out now. Debunk link--could not see much said in there on the issue. Novaia Gazeta published Almaz Antey and than two competing versions, the last one 'there were no planes at all and our unnamed sources tell that Russians did it' . It ends with Petrovskii delivering Buk audio transcript. But Petrovskii recently denied involvement, on social media forum. And those unnamed sources said it both ways --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 02:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Official Facebook Reaction==<br />
MoD of Ukraine: no UAF flights in ATO area on 17 July, no UAF zenith anti-aircraft missile systems used, it is not true that UAF training accident caused MH17 crash.<br />
<br />
У день катастрофи літака Boing-777 авіація Повітряних Сил Збройних Сил України в районі проведення АТО польоти не виконувала, зенітні ракетні комплекси не застосовувалися<br />
<br />
Інформація про те, що можливою причиною катастрофи літака Boing-777 (рейс MAS-17) авіакомпанії “Малазійські авіалінії” 17 липня 2014 року у небі над Донеччиною може бути нештатна ситуація під час проведення тренування підрозділів ППО Повітряних Сил Збройних Сил України не відповідає дійсності та може бути розцінена як спроба вплинути на результати незалежного розслідування трагічної події. <br />
Про це сьогодні, 25 липня, повідомили у Командуванні Повітряних Сил Збройних Сил України у відповідь на поширену деякими російськими засобами масової інформації заяву з посиланням на так зване “джерело в одному з силових відомств України”.<br />
У день катастрофи літака Boing-777 польоти авіації Повітряних Сил Збройних Сил України в районі проведення АТО не виконувалися. Зенітні ракетні комплекси Збройних Сил України не застосовувалися, жодного пуску зенітних керованих ракет не проводилося.<br />
Довідково. 17 липня цивільний літак Boing-777 (рейс MAS-17) авіакомпанії “Малазійські авіалінії” виконував рейсовий політ за маршрутом Амстердам (Голландія) — Куала Лумпур (Малайзія) на висоті 10100 метрів.<br />
О 16.45 літак впав в 3 кілометрах на північний захід від населеного пункту Грабове, Шахтарського району Донецької області. [https://www.facebook.com/theministryofdefence.ua/photos/a.209841809078332.54058.207023122693534/739742792754895/?type=1&permPage=1 MoD of Ukraine facebook post (in Ukrainian) 25.7.15] [http://korrespondent.net/ukraine/3397381-ukraynskaia-armyia-ne-yspolzovala-zrk-y-avyatsyui-v-den-katastrofy-boynha korrespondent.net (in Russian) 25.7.15] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==International Tribunal==<br />
*Russia is [http://www.radiosvoboda.org/content/news/27155501.html set] to vote against establishing international tribunal at the UN vote on July 29. Russian [http://ria.ru/mh17/20150727/1150125332.html#ixzz3h7UgG0OU position] is that this is an isolated criminal case and not a threat to world security requiring special UN tribunal structure; and that setting the tribunal now before the official investigation is completed as unnecessary and divisive; has filed an alternative proposal (involving special representative, and more transparency -as they are now excluded from investigation). <br />
<br />
Commentary. It appears to me outcome of Yukos case tribunal may play a role here. Yukos matter is not as black and white as sides presented it; it was in legal grey area, with laws not sufficiently developed after collapse of the Soviet system; and there was unfairness at privatization and operation stages, as well as unfairness of selective prosecution of that. But all those subtleties were just thrown away on some 3 pages of the final judgement, and full market value of the company before the affair was awarded to claimants. This is a very long decision overall and I do not have command of all details and legal aspects, but from outside it appears as steamrolling the case really; replacing one injustice by another (the people are told to pay; but they have all but nothing to do with this and do not owe the awarded amount). Likewise here, once it is in legal rather than investigative field, all sort of legal steamrolling may show up. Tribunals are good only if they are fair, and seen as fair. (What are even the laws governing such tribunal, and who are lawyers practicing it? Where do they come from? ). It may be not by accident that [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Khodorkovsky Khodorkovskii] stated in July 2015 TV rain interview that he "is not interested" in Yukos legal process (still supporting [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonid_Nevzlin Leonid Nevzlin] and others handling this)<br />
:Also, former Yugoslavia tribunal was widely unpopular in Russia at the time and this feeling in Russia has sharpened since<br />
: Russian officials stated that other civilian aircraft were shot down, and special tribunals were not used in those cases. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 19:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*Russia vetoes UNSC MH17 tribunal resolution [http://tass.ru/mezhdunarodnaya-panorama/2152807 -TASS] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 00:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)</div>Antidyatelhttps://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17/Zaroshchenskoye&diff=23502Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Zaroshchenskoye2015-07-31T01:27:29Z<p>Antidyatel: /* Partial Answers */ 134dB is for much larger charges</p>
<hr />
<div>== Three questions? ==<br />
These three questions need to be answered. (Discuss each issue in a separate section below.)<br />
# Where there BUK launchers in Zaroshchenskoye in mid July 2014? What proof is there of their existence?<br />
# Were there Ukrainian soldiers in Zaroshchenskoye in mid July? Who were they loyal to? Or were they somehow trying to remain neutral?<br />
# When and how did NAF take over Zaroshchenskoye?<br />
-- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 03:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Partial Answers==<br />
I don't think we know for sure (and I do not see Zaroshenskoe as the only possibility, despite Almaz-Antei report; matching fragment damage to missile orientation being the tricky part)<br />
:1. Russian MoD gave us satellite photos. Bellingcat tried to disprove it, with an early attempt debunked. Than they purchased satellite images from a commercial provider and [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/06/12/july-17-imagery-mod-comparison/ claimed] that MoD were faked. <br />
:I do not have a strong view, could be inaccurately presented by MoD, or commercial photos are not accurately timed, or we see those images at different angles and image qualities, which appears as a mismatch. Since 'investigative' methods at bc are propaganda-driven, conclusion cannot be reached just on the basis of their presentation; there is no independent info available to me. <br />
::Zaroshesnkoe photos [http://archive.mid.ru/bdomp/brp_4.nsf/9f9f2a6497b5822f43256a2900463456/f6c3bbd89ac2532d44257d1d00203ccf/body/27.3E9C!OpenElement&FieldElemFormat=jpg Zaroshenskoe 17 July, 11:32] "A= two Buk M1 self-propelled missile launchers, B= one armored vehicle" [http://archive.mid.ru/bdomp/brp_4.nsf/9f9f2a6497b5822f43256a2900463456/f6c3bbd89ac2532d44257d1d00203ccf/body/30.3EC6!OpenElement&FieldElemFormat=jpg Zaroshenskoe 18 July, 11:39] (A, B gone)<br />
::Also [http://archive.mid.ru//brp_4.nsf/newsline/F6C3BBD89AC2532D44257D1D00203CCF Donetsk, Lugansk photos]<br />
:: I understand, Bellingcat disputes those from Donetsk<br />
:2. It was not a base really, some launchers parked there is all, can move easily. Loyalties -we do not know<br />
:3 I do not know (was not following really, as never had strong belief in Zaroshenskoe location. Maps can be found and may give some answers). Almaz-Antey was telling us, Buk was from Zaroshenskoe, and we do not know who was there at the time. Without more research, that would be state of play here. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 03:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
::[https://www.bellingcat.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Zaroshchenske_EN_1.pdf Another bc] on Zaroshenskoe-has a collection of maps at least and usual twisty stuff leading to the predetermined conclusion. I have not gone through all that and unsure whether will have time in the near future. But all this long winding stuff can be probably summarized as we do not really know. And no reason really to focus heavily on Torez and ignore anything else. <br />
<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPop2oSw6Xo MOD presentation]-Zaroshenkoe at about 10:00 mark<br />
<br />
[http://www.novayagazeta.ru/inquests/68728.html Novaia Gazeta], Grabovo, Zaroshenskoe and Snezhnoe interviews. None anywhere mentioned Buk contrail or seeing Buk; conflicting account on planes. About half reluctant to talk on camera or afraid. <br />
:[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRS64s4n-o4 Anatolii, Grabovo]. He says at the moment he looked up (he was swimming) he saw a fireball, which quickly disappeared into clouds. That was followed by the crash. His description does not match Buk contrail, could be a flare<br />
:Zaroshenskoe. Several interviews, mostly audio. Confused account seemingly agreeing that Zaroshenskoe was not controlled by either side; that nobody saw Buk itself or tracks, although some tried to find tracks; one woman said that there was another planes on that day (first interview), the other woman said she did not see herself so cannot tell; than the first one said she did not see it either but her husband saw it and told her<br />
:Pevomaika, Snezhnoe. Woman says there was another SU <br />
::Another interview, woman says it was a drone; and that she saw multiple white trails going up. She was afraid it is phosphor bomb, later thought it could be flares ;- but in another interview similar multiple white trails were attributed to opolchenie trying to shoot a plane--creating cloud of fragments in the sky (unsure here, - have not heard such description before; likely just an anti-aircraft gun? [http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/150418163107-yemen-anti-aircraft-fire-exlarge-169.jpg (like here)] or is this some sort of cluster type munition? ) <br />
:Diadia Serezha (uncle Serezha)-said that military planes were often hiding under civilian ones, and thought it could happen on the day; thought that Boeing could be shot with an anti-aircraft gun <br />
:Nikolai Ivanovich. Have not seen much apart from the crash itself. Confused/afraid account. (There was some sound but he did not see another plane, and did not claim there was one) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 07:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Just realised something that might compromise the primary Bellingcat witness - the one that supplied trail photo. The only photo till now. Here is his statement: "And at 16:20 we heard an explosion. The first explosion was not very heavy. 15 seconds later, something like that, there was a second explosion, which was louder and it made the windows shake.”<br />
Of course 15 seconds is impossible if Snezhnoe is the launch site, particularly location claimed by Bellingcat. Will not go into it right now as it can be argued that his 15 seconds is a perceived number and should not be taken literally (although why so accurate, could be just 20 sec). More importantly is a description of two explosions. First small and second very loud. Now, the first explosion is attributed to rocket launch. Second is rocket explosion. From first glance it is logical that second will be louder. But the second explosion happened 20 km ground distance from his location and 10 km in altitude, according to Bellingcat fairytale. At 10km air pressure is only 100 mbar. 10 times less than on the ground. It is low vacuum and sound will be strongly attenuated. He could probably hear it better if he was just under the hit point. At oblique angles the warmer air in lower parts of the atmosphere will make refractive index to change creating reflection interfaces that will further increase sound dissipation. His description, particularly with claimed time interval is just impossible. So, either it is a total fake or the missile hit the target at much lower altitude and very close to his location. From leaks in the media, his photo and testimony are also going to be center point of Dutch report. If true, shame on them. Let me know if my analysis has a flaw.--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 09:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
:Interesting thought. Two things, whether it helps and physics. I am skeptical on the first (missile launch wooshing sound vs a blast at a distance, both played by an ear and reported with a long delay--not very usable. Other witnesses described it in different ways but some were saying it was a blast or like something dropping of. <br />
Physics-wise, at this distance, it is no longer a shock wave and will propagate as sound. Therefore, pressure and velocity drop as 1/L , and intensity which is sort of P v dies as 1/L^2 . It is doable, though not immediate, to have an estimate of what those will be say with 70 kg TNT going off. This is without attenuation. Actually I do not know quickly how that will attenuate. Engineers will tell that attenuation is frequencey dependent, and this is low frequency which pretty much just 1/L^2 . --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 11:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
First of all he was not talking about whooshing sound but about explosion. But let's skip this point for now as it is relying on his 15 sec claim, which is easily brushed away. In terms of physics. The explosion at 10 km will be happening in low pressure environment. Intensity is defined as I=(ξω)^2cρ, where we have particle displacement, sound frequency, speed of sound and density. For the same blast we can assume displacement and frequency the same. Pressure is 10 times smaller so density is also 10 times smaller. Due to low temperature the speed of sound is also smaller,roughly 20%. So we get more than 10 times smaller initial intensity. Then we have a refraction index difference between upper and lower levels of atmosphere. That gives two effects: 1) sound is reflected from the boundary and thus lost to propagation towards the guy; 2) sound is refracted towards the Earth making the wave, actually reaching him, travel longer distance and thus, be more attenuated. Your formula only takes into account geometrical attenuation of spherical wave. We should also look at attenuation by moisture in the air. It was cloudy, so that part of attenuation will be quite high. Of course the actual value should be calculated but I'm quite confident that this will not get the overwhelming explosion that he describes. And it will definitely not shake the windows. <br />
Not sure about that paper but they claim that 100dB is equivalent to 99.8 kg of TNT detonated at 12.5m distance [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4126588/]. At 20 km it will attenuate to 42 dB just by geometric attenuation (which is a background noise in large conference room [http://www.airportsites.net/lambert-stl/workshop1/nc_b29.aspx]). For 150 dB the result will be 80 dB at 20 km by geometric attenuation - noise of the vacuum cleaner. Still not able to shake the window. If we add other attenuation factors we can practically forget about second explosion. <br />
--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 13:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::Thanks for the paper. Earlier comment I was about to put:<br />
:: what you call (ξω)^2 really should be internal energy per unit mass; there is no frequency here; there is also velocity and pressure, and gas dynamics equations relating all. It is interesting and doable with some effort, and will depend on density although not in such simple way-- but I am skeptical it is helpful to refute MH17 claims. Can't really compare outcome of this computation with a witness statement - other people did hear it and said it was 'loud', he could hear it as well, and his account is imprecise in any case. <br />
::It seems to me official investigation will not use the photo, they will perhaps say about direction--that's what I thought after reading CNN and/or Parry ---somewhere from the front because it hit the cabin--and they did not use Antey stuff so far. In front, there was Russian separatists--bingo, case closed. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
::What's going on in this paper--100 kilograms at 12.5 meters distance???? No way this is 100db. I think they put this is high-bar test reactor and took care to have it as quiet as possible ...<br />
<br />
Got an idea for an estimate. Up to some numerical constants of order 1, shock wave will turn into sound at a radius r0 such that c^2 rho r0^3 = E= released energy. I think this r0 for 70 kg TNT is about 8 meters (which seems low but this is what I am getting). At his point, our intensity I, which we take as energy per volume times c, is I=c^3 rho (this does not depend on E, but size of this ball does). Than at a distance R, our intensity is c^3 rho (r0/R)^2 . With R = | {20 km , 10 km} | , getting 6 watts per square meter--what on hell that would be in loudness? Looking it up, reference intensity is 10^(-12) watt/m^2 --getting 127 decibel which is loud ...--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 17:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
127dB at 20 or even 10 km mark from the explosion of 70kg TNT is unlikely correct. It could have been at 10 meter distance but not at 10 km. Here is the video of BUK LAUNCH. It doesn’t seem that rockets go far but I can hear any of the explosions. [https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QwnUtIn9Rh8]. --[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 00:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Sorry, I know that I'm lazy to do my own calculations but allow me just to reference. You can Google paper titled "Use of Noise Attenuation Modeling in Missile<br />
Motor Detonation Activities". They actually give formula for estimating peak intensity. Didn’t use it but just noticed that "the detonations missile<br />
motors characterized by a propellant charge ranging <br />
from 50,000 to 120,000 lb (TNT equivalent) should not<br />
exceed the UTTR operational noise threshold of 134 dB at a<br />
30-km distance from the detonation site." 50,000 lb is more than 20,000 kg. I really think that the 70kg that we are discussing is not measurable for our purposes. Especially when explosion takes place at 10 km altitude and sound has to propagate the ground distance of 10/20km at shallow angles to cold-hot air interface and through the clouds (excessive moisture) <br />
--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 01:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Unauthorized launch story ==<br />
Unauthorized launch story appeared early on, also quoting unnamed sources; we had this somewhere, in fall of 2014. Nothing more definite came out, so this seems to recycle old story, not a new information coming out now. Debunk link--could not see much said in there on the issue. Novaia Gazeta published Almaz Antey and than two competing versions, the last one 'there were no planes at all and our unnamed sources tell that Russians did it' . It ends with Petrovskii delivering Buk audio transcript. But Petrovskii recently denied involvement, on social media forum. And those unnamed sources said it both ways --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 02:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Official Facebook Reaction==<br />
MoD of Ukraine: no UAF flights in ATO area on 17 July, no UAF zenith anti-aircraft missile systems used, it is not true that UAF training accident caused MH17 crash.<br />
<br />
У день катастрофи літака Boing-777 авіація Повітряних Сил Збройних Сил України в районі проведення АТО польоти не виконувала, зенітні ракетні комплекси не застосовувалися<br />
<br />
Інформація про те, що можливою причиною катастрофи літака Boing-777 (рейс MAS-17) авіакомпанії “Малазійські авіалінії” 17 липня 2014 року у небі над Донеччиною може бути нештатна ситуація під час проведення тренування підрозділів ППО Повітряних Сил Збройних Сил України не відповідає дійсності та може бути розцінена як спроба вплинути на результати незалежного розслідування трагічної події. <br />
Про це сьогодні, 25 липня, повідомили у Командуванні Повітряних Сил Збройних Сил України у відповідь на поширену деякими російськими засобами масової інформації заяву з посиланням на так зване “джерело в одному з силових відомств України”.<br />
У день катастрофи літака Boing-777 польоти авіації Повітряних Сил Збройних Сил України в районі проведення АТО не виконувалися. Зенітні ракетні комплекси Збройних Сил України не застосовувалися, жодного пуску зенітних керованих ракет не проводилося.<br />
Довідково. 17 липня цивільний літак Boing-777 (рейс MAS-17) авіакомпанії “Малазійські авіалінії” виконував рейсовий політ за маршрутом Амстердам (Голландія) — Куала Лумпур (Малайзія) на висоті 10100 метрів.<br />
О 16.45 літак впав в 3 кілометрах на північний захід від населеного пункту Грабове, Шахтарського району Донецької області. [https://www.facebook.com/theministryofdefence.ua/photos/a.209841809078332.54058.207023122693534/739742792754895/?type=1&permPage=1 MoD of Ukraine facebook post (in Ukrainian) 25.7.15] [http://korrespondent.net/ukraine/3397381-ukraynskaia-armyia-ne-yspolzovala-zrk-y-avyatsyui-v-den-katastrofy-boynha korrespondent.net (in Russian) 25.7.15] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==International Tribunal==<br />
*Russia is [http://www.radiosvoboda.org/content/news/27155501.html set] to vote against establishing international tribunal at the UN vote on July 29. Russian [http://ria.ru/mh17/20150727/1150125332.html#ixzz3h7UgG0OU position] is that this is an isolated criminal case and not a threat to world security requiring special UN tribunal structure; and that setting the tribunal now before the official investigation is completed as unnecessary and divisive; has filed an alternative proposal (involving special representative, and more transparency -as they are now excluded from investigation). <br />
<br />
Commentary. It appears to me outcome of Yukos case tribunal may play a role here. Yukos matter is not as black and white as sides presented it; it was in legal grey area, with laws not sufficiently developed after collapse of the Soviet system; and there was unfairness at privatization and operation stages, as well as unfairness of selective prosecution of that. But all those subtleties were just thrown away on some 3 pages of the final judgement, and full market value of the company before the affair was awarded to claimants. This is a very long decision overall and I do not have command of all details and legal aspects, but from outside it appears as steamrolling the case really; replacing one injustice by another (the people are told to pay; but they have all but nothing to do with this and do not owe the awarded amount). Likewise here, once it is in legal rather than investigative field, all sort of legal steamrolling may show up. Tribunals are good only if they are fair, and seen as fair. (What are even the laws governing such tribunal, and who are lawyers practicing it? Where do they come from? ). It may be not by accident that [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Khodorkovsky Khodorkovskii] stated in July 2015 TV rain interview that he "is not interested" in Yukos legal process (still supporting [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonid_Nevzlin Leonid Nevzlin] and others handling this)<br />
:Also, former Yugoslavia tribunal was widely unpopular in Russia at the time and this feeling in Russia has sharpened since<br />
: Russian officials stated that other civilian aircraft were shot down, and special tribunals were not used in those cases. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 19:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*Russia vetoes UNSC MH17 tribunal resolution [http://tass.ru/mezhdunarodnaya-panorama/2152807 -TASS] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 00:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)</div>Antidyatelhttps://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17/Zaroshchenskoye&diff=23501Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Zaroshchenskoye2015-07-31T00:52:32Z<p>Antidyatel: Buk launch video</p>
<hr />
<div>== Three questions? ==<br />
These three questions need to be answered. (Discuss each issue in a separate section below.)<br />
# Where there BUK launchers in Zaroshchenskoye in mid July 2014? What proof is there of their existence?<br />
# Were there Ukrainian soldiers in Zaroshchenskoye in mid July? Who were they loyal to? Or were they somehow trying to remain neutral?<br />
# When and how did NAF take over Zaroshchenskoye?<br />
-- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 03:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Partial Answers==<br />
I don't think we know for sure (and I do not see Zaroshenskoe as the only possibility, despite Almaz-Antei report; matching fragment damage to missile orientation being the tricky part)<br />
:1. Russian MoD gave us satellite photos. Bellingcat tried to disprove it, with an early attempt debunked. Than they purchased satellite images from a commercial provider and [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/06/12/july-17-imagery-mod-comparison/ claimed] that MoD were faked. <br />
:I do not have a strong view, could be inaccurately presented by MoD, or commercial photos are not accurately timed, or we see those images at different angles and image qualities, which appears as a mismatch. Since 'investigative' methods at bc are propaganda-driven, conclusion cannot be reached just on the basis of their presentation; there is no independent info available to me. <br />
::Zaroshesnkoe photos [http://archive.mid.ru/bdomp/brp_4.nsf/9f9f2a6497b5822f43256a2900463456/f6c3bbd89ac2532d44257d1d00203ccf/body/27.3E9C!OpenElement&FieldElemFormat=jpg Zaroshenskoe 17 July, 11:32] "A= two Buk M1 self-propelled missile launchers, B= one armored vehicle" [http://archive.mid.ru/bdomp/brp_4.nsf/9f9f2a6497b5822f43256a2900463456/f6c3bbd89ac2532d44257d1d00203ccf/body/30.3EC6!OpenElement&FieldElemFormat=jpg Zaroshenskoe 18 July, 11:39] (A, B gone)<br />
::Also [http://archive.mid.ru//brp_4.nsf/newsline/F6C3BBD89AC2532D44257D1D00203CCF Donetsk, Lugansk photos]<br />
:: I understand, Bellingcat disputes those from Donetsk<br />
:2. It was not a base really, some launchers parked there is all, can move easily. Loyalties -we do not know<br />
:3 I do not know (was not following really, as never had strong belief in Zaroshenskoe location. Maps can be found and may give some answers). Almaz-Antey was telling us, Buk was from Zaroshenskoe, and we do not know who was there at the time. Without more research, that would be state of play here. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 03:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
::[https://www.bellingcat.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Zaroshchenske_EN_1.pdf Another bc] on Zaroshenskoe-has a collection of maps at least and usual twisty stuff leading to the predetermined conclusion. I have not gone through all that and unsure whether will have time in the near future. But all this long winding stuff can be probably summarized as we do not really know. And no reason really to focus heavily on Torez and ignore anything else. <br />
<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPop2oSw6Xo MOD presentation]-Zaroshenkoe at about 10:00 mark<br />
<br />
[http://www.novayagazeta.ru/inquests/68728.html Novaia Gazeta], Grabovo, Zaroshenskoe and Snezhnoe interviews. None anywhere mentioned Buk contrail or seeing Buk; conflicting account on planes. About half reluctant to talk on camera or afraid. <br />
:[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRS64s4n-o4 Anatolii, Grabovo]. He says at the moment he looked up (he was swimming) he saw a fireball, which quickly disappeared into clouds. That was followed by the crash. His description does not match Buk contrail, could be a flare<br />
:Zaroshenskoe. Several interviews, mostly audio. Confused account seemingly agreeing that Zaroshenskoe was not controlled by either side; that nobody saw Buk itself or tracks, although some tried to find tracks; one woman said that there was another planes on that day (first interview), the other woman said she did not see herself so cannot tell; than the first one said she did not see it either but her husband saw it and told her<br />
:Pevomaika, Snezhnoe. Woman says there was another SU <br />
::Another interview, woman says it was a drone; and that she saw multiple white trails going up. She was afraid it is phosphor bomb, later thought it could be flares ;- but in another interview similar multiple white trails were attributed to opolchenie trying to shoot a plane--creating cloud of fragments in the sky (unsure here, - have not heard such description before; likely just an anti-aircraft gun? [http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/150418163107-yemen-anti-aircraft-fire-exlarge-169.jpg (like here)] or is this some sort of cluster type munition? ) <br />
:Diadia Serezha (uncle Serezha)-said that military planes were often hiding under civilian ones, and thought it could happen on the day; thought that Boeing could be shot with an anti-aircraft gun <br />
:Nikolai Ivanovich. Have not seen much apart from the crash itself. Confused/afraid account. (There was some sound but he did not see another plane, and did not claim there was one) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 07:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Just realised something that might compromise the primary Bellingcat witness - the one that supplied trail photo. The only photo till now. Here is his statement: "And at 16:20 we heard an explosion. The first explosion was not very heavy. 15 seconds later, something like that, there was a second explosion, which was louder and it made the windows shake.”<br />
Of course 15 seconds is impossible if Snezhnoe is the launch site, particularly location claimed by Bellingcat. Will not go into it right now as it can be argued that his 15 seconds is a perceived number and should not be taken literally (although why so accurate, could be just 20 sec). More importantly is a description of two explosions. First small and second very loud. Now, the first explosion is attributed to rocket launch. Second is rocket explosion. From first glance it is logical that second will be louder. But the second explosion happened 20 km ground distance from his location and 10 km in altitude, according to Bellingcat fairytale. At 10km air pressure is only 100 mbar. 10 times less than on the ground. It is low vacuum and sound will be strongly attenuated. He could probably hear it better if he was just under the hit point. At oblique angles the warmer air in lower parts of the atmosphere will make refractive index to change creating reflection interfaces that will further increase sound dissipation. His description, particularly with claimed time interval is just impossible. So, either it is a total fake or the missile hit the target at much lower altitude and very close to his location. From leaks in the media, his photo and testimony are also going to be center point of Dutch report. If true, shame on them. Let me know if my analysis has a flaw.--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 09:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
:Interesting thought. Two things, whether it helps and physics. I am skeptical on the first (missile launch wooshing sound vs a blast at a distance, both played by an ear and reported with a long delay--not very usable. Other witnesses described it in different ways but some were saying it was a blast or like something dropping of. <br />
Physics-wise, at this distance, it is no longer a shock wave and will propagate as sound. Therefore, pressure and velocity drop as 1/L , and intensity which is sort of P v dies as 1/L^2 . It is doable, though not immediate, to have an estimate of what those will be say with 70 kg TNT going off. This is without attenuation. Actually I do not know quickly how that will attenuate. Engineers will tell that attenuation is frequencey dependent, and this is low frequency which pretty much just 1/L^2 . --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 11:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
First of all he was not talking about whooshing sound but about explosion. But let's skip this point for now as it is relying on his 15 sec claim, which is easily brushed away. In terms of physics. The explosion at 10 km will be happening in low pressure environment. Intensity is defined as I=(ξω)^2cρ, where we have particle displacement, sound frequency, speed of sound and density. For the same blast we can assume displacement and frequency the same. Pressure is 10 times smaller so density is also 10 times smaller. Due to low temperature the speed of sound is also smaller,roughly 20%. So we get more than 10 times smaller initial intensity. Then we have a refraction index difference between upper and lower levels of atmosphere. That gives two effects: 1) sound is reflected from the boundary and thus lost to propagation towards the guy; 2) sound is refracted towards the Earth making the wave, actually reaching him, travel longer distance and thus, be more attenuated. Your formula only takes into account geometrical attenuation of spherical wave. We should also look at attenuation by moisture in the air. It was cloudy, so that part of attenuation will be quite high. Of course the actual value should be calculated but I'm quite confident that this will not get the overwhelming explosion that he describes. And it will definitely not shake the windows. <br />
Not sure about that paper but they claim that 100dB is equivalent to 99.8 kg of TNT detonated at 12.5m distance [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4126588/]. At 20 km it will attenuate to 42 dB just by geometric attenuation (which is a background noise in large conference room [http://www.airportsites.net/lambert-stl/workshop1/nc_b29.aspx]). For 150 dB the result will be 80 dB at 20 km by geometric attenuation - noise of the vacuum cleaner. Still not able to shake the window. If we add other attenuation factors we can practically forget about second explosion. <br />
--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 13:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::Thanks for the paper. Earlier comment I was about to put:<br />
:: what you call (ξω)^2 really should be internal energy per unit mass; there is no frequency here; there is also velocity and pressure, and gas dynamics equations relating all. It is interesting and doable with some effort, and will depend on density although not in such simple way-- but I am skeptical it is helpful to refute MH17 claims. Can't really compare outcome of this computation with a witness statement - other people did hear it and said it was 'loud', he could hear it as well, and his account is imprecise in any case. <br />
::It seems to me official investigation will not use the photo, they will perhaps say about direction--that's what I thought after reading CNN and/or Parry ---somewhere from the front because it hit the cabin--and they did not use Antey stuff so far. In front, there was Russian separatists--bingo, case closed. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
::What's going on in this paper--100 kilograms at 12.5 meters distance???? No way this is 100db. I think they put this is high-bar test reactor and took care to have it as quiet as possible ...<br />
<br />
Got an idea for an estimate. Up to some numerical constants of order 1, shock wave will turn into sound at a radius r0 such that c^2 rho r0^3 = E= released energy. I think this r0 for 70 kg TNT is about 8 meters (which seems low but this is what I am getting). At his point, our intensity I, which we take as energy per volume times c, is I=c^3 rho (this does not depend on E, but size of this ball does). Than at a distance R, our intensity is c^3 rho (r0/R)^2 . With R = | {20 km , 10 km} | , getting 6 watts per square meter--what on hell that would be in loudness? Looking it up, reference intensity is 10^(-12) watt/m^2 --getting 127 decibel which is loud ...--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 17:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
127dB at 20 or even 10 km mark from the explosion of 70kg TNT is unlikely correct. It could have been at 10 meter distance but not at 10 km. Here is the video of BUK LAUNCH. It doesn’t seem that rockets go far but I can hear any of the explosions. [https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QwnUtIn9Rh8]. --[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 00:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Unauthorized launch story ==<br />
Unauthorized launch story appeared early on, also quoting unnamed sources; we had this somewhere, in fall of 2014. Nothing more definite came out, so this seems to recycle old story, not a new information coming out now. Debunk link--could not see much said in there on the issue. Novaia Gazeta published Almaz Antey and than two competing versions, the last one 'there were no planes at all and our unnamed sources tell that Russians did it' . It ends with Petrovskii delivering Buk audio transcript. But Petrovskii recently denied involvement, on social media forum. And those unnamed sources said it both ways --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 02:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Official Facebook Reaction==<br />
MoD of Ukraine: no UAF flights in ATO area on 17 July, no UAF zenith anti-aircraft missile systems used, it is not true that UAF training accident caused MH17 crash.<br />
<br />
У день катастрофи літака Boing-777 авіація Повітряних Сил Збройних Сил України в районі проведення АТО польоти не виконувала, зенітні ракетні комплекси не застосовувалися<br />
<br />
Інформація про те, що можливою причиною катастрофи літака Boing-777 (рейс MAS-17) авіакомпанії “Малазійські авіалінії” 17 липня 2014 року у небі над Донеччиною може бути нештатна ситуація під час проведення тренування підрозділів ППО Повітряних Сил Збройних Сил України не відповідає дійсності та може бути розцінена як спроба вплинути на результати незалежного розслідування трагічної події. <br />
Про це сьогодні, 25 липня, повідомили у Командуванні Повітряних Сил Збройних Сил України у відповідь на поширену деякими російськими засобами масової інформації заяву з посиланням на так зване “джерело в одному з силових відомств України”.<br />
У день катастрофи літака Boing-777 польоти авіації Повітряних Сил Збройних Сил України в районі проведення АТО не виконувалися. Зенітні ракетні комплекси Збройних Сил України не застосовувалися, жодного пуску зенітних керованих ракет не проводилося.<br />
Довідково. 17 липня цивільний літак Boing-777 (рейс MAS-17) авіакомпанії “Малазійські авіалінії” виконував рейсовий політ за маршрутом Амстердам (Голландія) — Куала Лумпур (Малайзія) на висоті 10100 метрів.<br />
О 16.45 літак впав в 3 кілометрах на північний захід від населеного пункту Грабове, Шахтарського району Донецької області. [https://www.facebook.com/theministryofdefence.ua/photos/a.209841809078332.54058.207023122693534/739742792754895/?type=1&permPage=1 MoD of Ukraine facebook post (in Ukrainian) 25.7.15] [http://korrespondent.net/ukraine/3397381-ukraynskaia-armyia-ne-yspolzovala-zrk-y-avyatsyui-v-den-katastrofy-boynha korrespondent.net (in Russian) 25.7.15] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==International Tribunal==<br />
*Russia is [http://www.radiosvoboda.org/content/news/27155501.html set] to vote against establishing international tribunal at the UN vote on July 29. Russian [http://ria.ru/mh17/20150727/1150125332.html#ixzz3h7UgG0OU position] is that this is an isolated criminal case and not a threat to world security requiring special UN tribunal structure; and that setting the tribunal now before the official investigation is completed as unnecessary and divisive; has filed an alternative proposal (involving special representative, and more transparency -as they are now excluded from investigation). <br />
<br />
Commentary. It appears to me outcome of Yukos case tribunal may play a role here. Yukos matter is not as black and white as sides presented it; it was in legal grey area, with laws not sufficiently developed after collapse of the Soviet system; and there was unfairness at privatization and operation stages, as well as unfairness of selective prosecution of that. But all those subtleties were just thrown away on some 3 pages of the final judgement, and full market value of the company before the affair was awarded to claimants. This is a very long decision overall and I do not have command of all details and legal aspects, but from outside it appears as steamrolling the case really; replacing one injustice by another (the people are told to pay; but they have all but nothing to do with this and do not owe the awarded amount). Likewise here, once it is in legal rather than investigative field, all sort of legal steamrolling may show up. Tribunals are good only if they are fair, and seen as fair. (What are even the laws governing such tribunal, and who are lawyers practicing it? Where do they come from? ). It may be not by accident that [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Khodorkovsky Khodorkovskii] stated in July 2015 TV rain interview that he "is not interested" in Yukos legal process (still supporting [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonid_Nevzlin Leonid Nevzlin] and others handling this)<br />
:Also, former Yugoslavia tribunal was widely unpopular in Russia at the time and this feeling in Russia has sharpened since<br />
: Russian officials stated that other civilian aircraft were shot down, and special tribunals were not used in those cases. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 19:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*Russia vetoes UNSC MH17 tribunal resolution [http://tass.ru/mezhdunarodnaya-panorama/2152807 -TASS] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 00:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)</div>Antidyatelhttps://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17/Zaroshchenskoye&diff=23488Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Zaroshchenskoye2015-07-30T14:40:53Z<p>Antidyatel: explosion intensity</p>
<hr />
<div>== Three questions? ==<br />
These three questions need to be answered. (Discuss each issue in a separate section below.)<br />
# Where there BUK launchers in Zaroshchenskoye in mid July 2014? What proof is there of their existence?<br />
# Were there Ukrainian soldiers in Zaroshchenskoye in mid July? Who were they loyal to? Or were they somehow trying to remain neutral?<br />
# When and how did NAF take over Zaroshchenskoye?<br />
-- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 03:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Partial Answers==<br />
I don't think we know for sure (and I do not see Zaroshenskoe as the only possibility, despite Almaz-Antei report; matching fragment damage to missile orientation being the tricky part)<br />
:1. Russian MoD gave us satellite photos. Bellingcat tried to disprove it, with an early attempt debunked. Than they purchased satellite images from a commercial provider and [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/06/12/july-17-imagery-mod-comparison/ claimed] that MoD were faked. <br />
:I do not have a strong view, could be inaccurately presented by MoD, or commercial photos are not accurately timed, or we see those images at different angles and image qualities, which appears as a mismatch. Since 'investigative' methods at bc are propaganda-driven, conclusion cannot be reached just on the basis of their presentation; there is no independent info available to me. <br />
::Zaroshesnkoe photos [http://archive.mid.ru/bdomp/brp_4.nsf/9f9f2a6497b5822f43256a2900463456/f6c3bbd89ac2532d44257d1d00203ccf/body/27.3E9C!OpenElement&FieldElemFormat=jpg Zaroshenskoe 17 July, 11:32] "A= two Buk M1 self-propelled missile launchers, B= one armored vehicle" [http://archive.mid.ru/bdomp/brp_4.nsf/9f9f2a6497b5822f43256a2900463456/f6c3bbd89ac2532d44257d1d00203ccf/body/30.3EC6!OpenElement&FieldElemFormat=jpg Zaroshenskoe 18 July, 11:39] (A, B gone)<br />
::Also [http://archive.mid.ru//brp_4.nsf/newsline/F6C3BBD89AC2532D44257D1D00203CCF Donetsk, Lugansk photos]<br />
:: I understand, Bellingcat disputes those from Donetsk<br />
:2. It was not a base really, some launchers parked there is all, can move easily. Loyalties -we do not know<br />
:3 I do not know (was not following really, as never had strong belief in Zaroshenskoe location. Maps can be found and may give some answers). Almaz-Antey was telling us, Buk was from Zaroshenskoe, and we do not know who was there at the time. Without more research, that would be state of play here. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 03:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
::[https://www.bellingcat.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Zaroshchenske_EN_1.pdf Another bc] on Zaroshenskoe-has a collection of maps at least and usual twisty stuff leading to the predetermined conclusion. I have not gone through all that and unsure whether will have time in the near future. But all this long winding stuff can be probably summarized as we do not really know. And no reason really to focus heavily on Torez and ignore anything else. <br />
<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPop2oSw6Xo MOD presentation]-Zaroshenkoe at about 10:00 mark<br />
<br />
[http://www.novayagazeta.ru/inquests/68728.html Novaia Gazeta], Grabovo, Zaroshenskoe and Snezhnoe interviews. None anywhere mentioned Buk contrail or seeing Buk; conflicting account on planes. About half reluctant to talk on camera or afraid. <br />
:[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRS64s4n-o4 Anatolii, Grabovo]. He says at the moment he looked up (he was swimming) he saw a fireball, which quickly disappeared into clouds. That was followed by the crash. His description does not match Buk contrail, could be a flare<br />
:Zaroshenskoe. Several interviews, mostly audio. Confused account seemingly agreeing that Zaroshenskoe was not controlled by either side; that nobody saw Buk itself or tracks, although some tried to find tracks; one woman said that there was another planes on that day (first interview), the other woman said she did not see herself so cannot tell; than the first one said she did not see it either but her husband saw it and told her<br />
:Pevomaika, Snezhnoe. Woman says there was another SU <br />
::Another interview, woman says it was a drone; and that she saw multiple white trails going up. She was afraid it is phosphor bomb, later thought it could be flares ;- but in another interview similar multiple white trails were attributed to opolchenie trying to shoot a plane--creating cloud of fragments in the sky (unsure here, - have not heard such description before; likely just an anti-aircraft gun? [http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/150418163107-yemen-anti-aircraft-fire-exlarge-169.jpg (like here)] or is this some sort of cluster type munition? ) <br />
:Diadia Serezha (uncle Serezha)-said that military planes were often hiding under civilian ones, and thought it could happen on the day; thought that Boeing could be shot with an anti-aircraft gun <br />
:Nikolai Ivanovich. Have not seen much apart from the crash itself. Confused/afraid account. (There was some sound but he did not see another plane, and did not claim there was one) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 07:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Just realised something that might compromise the primary Bellingcat witness - the one that supplied trail photo. The only photo till now. Here is his statement: "And at 16:20 we heard an explosion. The first explosion was not very heavy. 15 seconds later, something like that, there was a second explosion, which was louder and it made the windows shake.”<br />
Of course 15 seconds is impossible if Snezhnoe is the launch site, particularly location claimed by Bellingcat. Will not go into it right now as it can be argued that his 15 seconds is a perceived number and should not be taken literally (although why so accurate, could be just 20 sec). More importantly is a description of two explosions. First small and second very loud. Now, the first explosion is attributed to rocket launch. Second is rocket explosion. From first glance it is logical that second will be louder. But the second explosion happened 20 km ground distance from his location and 10 km in altitude, according to Bellingcat fairytale. At 10km air pressure is only 100 mbar. 10 times less than on the ground. It is low vacuum and sound will be strongly attenuated. He could probably hear it better if he was just under the hit point. At oblique angles the warmer air in lower parts of the atmosphere will make refractive index to change creating reflection interfaces that will further increase sound dissipation. His description, particularly with claimed time interval is just impossible. So, either it is a total fake or the missile hit the target at much lower altitude and very close to his location. From leaks in the media, his photo and testimony are also going to be center point of Dutch report. If true, shame on them. Let me know if my analysis has a flaw.--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 09:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
:Interesting thought. Two things, whether it helps and physics. I am skeptical on the first (missile launch wooshing sound vs a blast at a distance, both played by an ear and reported with a long delay--not very usable. Other witnesses described it in different ways but some were saying it was a blast or like something dropping of. <br />
Physics-wise, at this distance, it is no longer a shock wave and will propagate as sound. Therefore, pressure and velocity drop as 1/L , and intensity which is sort of P v dies as 1/L^2 . It is doable, though not immediate, to have an estimate of what those will be say with 70 kg TNT going off. This is without attenuation. Actually I do not know quickly how that will attenuate. Engineers will tell that attenuation is frequencey dependent, and this is low frequency which pretty much just 1/L^2 . --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 11:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
First of all he was not talking about whooshing sound but about explosion. But let's skip this point for now as it is relying on his 15 sec claim, which is easily brushed away. In terms of physics. The explosion at 10 km will be happening in low pressure environment. Intensity is defined as I=(ξω)^2cρ, where we have particle displacement, sound frequency, speed of sound and density. For the same blast we can assume displacement and frequency the same. Pressure is 10 times smaller so density is also 10 times smaller. Due to low temperature the speed of sound is also smaller,roughly 20%. So we get more than 10 times smaller initial intensity. Then we have a refraction index difference between upper and lower levels of atmosphere. That gives two effects: 1) sound is reflected from the boundary and thus lost to propagation towards the guy; 2) sound is refracted towards the Earth making the wave, actually reaching him, travel longer distance and thus, be more attenuated. Your formula only takes into account geometrical attenuation of spherical wave. We should also look at attenuation by moisture in the air. It was cloudy, so that part of attenuation will be quite high. Of course the actual value should be calculated but I'm quite confident that this will not get the overwhelming explosion that he describes. And it will definitely not shake the windows. <br />
Not sure about that paper but they claim that 100dB is equivalent to 99.8 kg of TNT detonated at 12.5m distance [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4126588/]. At 20 km it will attenuate to 42 dB just by geometric attenuation (which is a background noise in large conference room [http://www.airportsites.net/lambert-stl/workshop1/nc_b29.aspx]). For 150 dB the result will be 80 dB at 20 km by geometric attenuation - noise of the vacuum cleaner. Still not able to shake the window. If we add other attenuation factors we can practically forget about second explosion. <br />
--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 13:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Unauthorized launch story ==<br />
Unauthorized launch story appeared early on, also quoting unnamed sources; we had this somewhere, in fall of 2014. Nothing more definite came out, so this seems to recycle old story, not a new information coming out now. Debunk link--could not see much said in there on the issue. Novaia Gazeta published Almaz Antey and than two competing versions, the last one 'there were no planes at all and our unnamed sources tell that Russians did it' . It ends with Petrovskii delivering Buk audio transcript. But Petrovskii recently denied involvement, on social media forum. And those unnamed sources said it both ways --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 02:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Official Facebook Reaction==<br />
MoD of Ukraine: no UAF flights in ATO area on 17 July, no UAF zenith anti-aircraft missile systems used, it is not true that UAF training accident caused MH17 crash.<br />
<br />
У день катастрофи літака Boing-777 авіація Повітряних Сил Збройних Сил України в районі проведення АТО польоти не виконувала, зенітні ракетні комплекси не застосовувалися<br />
<br />
Інформація про те, що можливою причиною катастрофи літака Boing-777 (рейс MAS-17) авіакомпанії “Малазійські авіалінії” 17 липня 2014 року у небі над Донеччиною може бути нештатна ситуація під час проведення тренування підрозділів ППО Повітряних Сил Збройних Сил України не відповідає дійсності та може бути розцінена як спроба вплинути на результати незалежного розслідування трагічної події. <br />
Про це сьогодні, 25 липня, повідомили у Командуванні Повітряних Сил Збройних Сил України у відповідь на поширену деякими російськими засобами масової інформації заяву з посиланням на так зване “джерело в одному з силових відомств України”.<br />
У день катастрофи літака Boing-777 польоти авіації Повітряних Сил Збройних Сил України в районі проведення АТО не виконувалися. Зенітні ракетні комплекси Збройних Сил України не застосовувалися, жодного пуску зенітних керованих ракет не проводилося.<br />
Довідково. 17 липня цивільний літак Boing-777 (рейс MAS-17) авіакомпанії “Малазійські авіалінії” виконував рейсовий політ за маршрутом Амстердам (Голландія) — Куала Лумпур (Малайзія) на висоті 10100 метрів.<br />
О 16.45 літак впав в 3 кілометрах на північний захід від населеного пункту Грабове, Шахтарського району Донецької області. [https://www.facebook.com/theministryofdefence.ua/photos/a.209841809078332.54058.207023122693534/739742792754895/?type=1&permPage=1 MoD of Ukraine facebook post (in Ukrainian) 25.7.15] [http://korrespondent.net/ukraine/3397381-ukraynskaia-armyia-ne-yspolzovala-zrk-y-avyatsyui-v-den-katastrofy-boynha korrespondent.net (in Russian) 25.7.15] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==International Tribunal==<br />
*Russia is [http://www.radiosvoboda.org/content/news/27155501.html set] to vote against establishing international tribunal at the UN vote on July 29. Russian [http://ria.ru/mh17/20150727/1150125332.html#ixzz3h7UgG0OU position] is that this is an isolated criminal case and not a threat to world security requiring special UN tribunal structure; and that setting the tribunal now before the official investigation is completed as unnecessary and divisive; has filed an alternative proposal (involving special representative, and more transparency -as they are now excluded from investigation). <br />
<br />
Commentary. It appears to me outcome of Yukos case tribunal may play a role here. Yukos matter is not as black and white as sides presented it; it was in legal grey area, with laws not sufficiently developed after collapse of the Soviet system; and there was unfairness at privatization and operation stages, as well as unfairness of selective prosecution of that. But all those subtleties were just thrown away on some 3 pages of the final judgement, and full market value of the company before the affair was awarded to claimants. This is a very long decision overall and I do not have command of all details and legal aspects, but from outside it appears as steamrolling the case really; replacing one injustice by another (the people are told to pay; but they have all but nothing to do with this and do not owe the awarded amount). Likewise here, once it is in legal rather than investigative field, all sort of legal steamrolling may show up. Tribunals are good only if they are fair, and seen as fair. (What are even the laws governing such tribunal, and who are lawyers practicing it? Where do they come from? ). It may be not by accident that [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Khodorkovsky Khodorkovskii] stated in July 2015 TV rain interview that he "is not interested" in Yukos legal process (still supporting [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonid_Nevzlin Leonid Nevzlin] and others handling this)<br />
:Also, former Yugoslavia tribunal was widely unpopular in Russia at the time and this feeling in Russia has sharpened since<br />
: Russian officials stated that other civilian aircraft were shot down, and special tribunals were not used in those cases. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 19:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*Russia vetoes UNSC MH17 tribunal resolution [http://tass.ru/mezhdunarodnaya-panorama/2152807 -TASS] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 00:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)</div>Antidyatelhttps://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17/Zaroshchenskoye&diff=23487Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Zaroshchenskoye2015-07-30T13:14:23Z<p>Antidyatel: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Three questions? ==<br />
These three questions need to be answered. (Discuss each issue in a separate section below.)<br />
# Where there BUK launchers in Zaroshchenskoye in mid July 2014? What proof is there of their existence?<br />
# Were there Ukrainian soldiers in Zaroshchenskoye in mid July? Who were they loyal to? Or were they somehow trying to remain neutral?<br />
# When and how did NAF take over Zaroshchenskoye?<br />
-- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 03:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Partial Answers==<br />
I don't think we know for sure (and I do not see Zaroshenskoe as the only possibility, despite Almaz-Antei report; matching fragment damage to missile orientation being the tricky part)<br />
:1. Russian MoD gave us satellite photos. Bellingcat tried to disprove it, with an early attempt debunked. Than they purchased satellite images from a commercial provider and [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/06/12/july-17-imagery-mod-comparison/ claimed] that MoD were faked. <br />
:I do not have a strong view, could be inaccurately presented by MoD, or commercial photos are not accurately timed, or we see those images at different angles and image qualities, which appears as a mismatch. Since 'investigative' methods at bc are propaganda-driven, conclusion cannot be reached just on the basis of their presentation; there is no independent info available to me. <br />
::Zaroshesnkoe photos [http://archive.mid.ru/bdomp/brp_4.nsf/9f9f2a6497b5822f43256a2900463456/f6c3bbd89ac2532d44257d1d00203ccf/body/27.3E9C!OpenElement&FieldElemFormat=jpg Zaroshenskoe 17 July, 11:32] "A= two Buk M1 self-propelled missile launchers, B= one armored vehicle" [http://archive.mid.ru/bdomp/brp_4.nsf/9f9f2a6497b5822f43256a2900463456/f6c3bbd89ac2532d44257d1d00203ccf/body/30.3EC6!OpenElement&FieldElemFormat=jpg Zaroshenskoe 18 July, 11:39] (A, B gone)<br />
::Also [http://archive.mid.ru//brp_4.nsf/newsline/F6C3BBD89AC2532D44257D1D00203CCF Donetsk, Lugansk photos]<br />
:: I understand, Bellingcat disputes those from Donetsk<br />
:2. It was not a base really, some launchers parked there is all, can move easily. Loyalties -we do not know<br />
:3 I do not know (was not following really, as never had strong belief in Zaroshenskoe location. Maps can be found and may give some answers). Almaz-Antey was telling us, Buk was from Zaroshenskoe, and we do not know who was there at the time. Without more research, that would be state of play here. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 03:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
::[https://www.bellingcat.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Zaroshchenske_EN_1.pdf Another bc] on Zaroshenskoe-has a collection of maps at least and usual twisty stuff leading to the predetermined conclusion. I have not gone through all that and unsure whether will have time in the near future. But all this long winding stuff can be probably summarized as we do not really know. And no reason really to focus heavily on Torez and ignore anything else. <br />
<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPop2oSw6Xo MOD presentation]-Zaroshenkoe at about 10:00 mark<br />
<br />
[http://www.novayagazeta.ru/inquests/68728.html Novaia Gazeta], Grabovo, Zaroshenskoe and Snezhnoe interviews. None anywhere mentioned Buk contrail or seeing Buk; conflicting account on planes. About half reluctant to talk on camera or afraid. <br />
:[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRS64s4n-o4 Anatolii, Grabovo]. He says at the moment he looked up (he was swimming) he saw a fireball, which quickly disappeared into clouds. That was followed by the crash. His description does not match Buk contrail, could be a flare<br />
:Zaroshenskoe. Several interviews, mostly audio. Confused account seemingly agreeing that Zaroshenskoe was not controlled by either side; that nobody saw Buk itself or tracks, although some tried to find tracks; one woman said that there was another planes on that day (first interview), the other woman said she did not see herself so cannot tell; than the first one said she did not see it either but her husband saw it and told her<br />
:Pevomaika, Snezhnoe. Woman says there was another SU <br />
::Another interview, woman says it was a drone; and that she saw multiple white trails going up. She was afraid it is phosphor bomb, later thought it could be flares ;- but in another interview similar multiple white trails were attributed to opolchenie trying to shoot a plane--creating cloud of fragments in the sky (unsure here, - have not heard such description before; likely just an anti-aircraft gun? [http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/150418163107-yemen-anti-aircraft-fire-exlarge-169.jpg (like here)] or is this some sort of cluster type munition? ) <br />
:Diadia Serezha (uncle Serezha)-said that military planes were often hiding under civilian ones, and thought it could happen on the day; thought that Boeing could be shot with an anti-aircraft gun <br />
:Nikolai Ivanovich. Have not seen much apart from the crash itself. Confused/afraid account. (There was some sound but he did not see another plane, and did not claim there was one) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 07:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Just realised something that might compromise the primary Bellingcat witness - the one that supplied trail photo. The only photo till now. Here is his statement: "And at 16:20 we heard an explosion. The first explosion was not very heavy. 15 seconds later, something like that, there was a second explosion, which was louder and it made the windows shake.”<br />
Of course 15 seconds is impossible if Snezhnoe is the launch site, particularly location claimed by Bellingcat. Will not go into it right now as it can be argued that his 15 seconds is a perceived number and should not be taken literally (although why so accurate, could be just 20 sec). More importantly is a description of two explosions. First small and second very loud. Now, the first explosion is attributed to rocket launch. Second is rocket explosion. From first glance it is logical that second will be louder. But the second explosion happened 20 km ground distance from his location and 10 km in altitude, according to Bellingcat fairytale. At 10km air pressure is only 100 mbar. 10 times less than on the ground. It is low vacuum and sound will be strongly attenuated. He could probably hear it better if he was just under the hit point. At oblique angles the warmer air in lower parts of the atmosphere will make refractive index to change creating reflection interfaces that will further increase sound dissipation. His description, particularly with claimed time interval is just impossible. So, either it is a total fake or the missile hit the target at much lower altitude and very close to his location. From leaks in the media, his photo and testimony are also going to be center point of Dutch report. If true, shame on them. Let me know if my analysis has a flaw.--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 09:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
:Interesting thought. Two things, whether it helps and physics. I am skeptical on the first (missile launch wooshing sound vs a blast at a distance, both played by an ear and reported with a long delay--not very usable. Other witnesses described it in different ways but some were saying it was a blast or like something dropping of. <br />
Physics-wise, at this distance, it is no longer a shock wave and will propagate as sound. Therefore, pressure and velocity drop as 1/L , and intensity which is sort of P v dies as 1/L^2 . It is doable, though not immediate, to have an estimate of what those will be say with 70 kg TNT going off. This is without attenuation. Actually I do not know quickly how that will attenuate. Engineers will tell that attenuation is frequencey dependent, and this is low frequency which pretty much just 1/L^2 . --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 11:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
First of all he was not talking about whooshing sound but about explosion. But let's skip this point for now as it is relying on his 15 sec claim, which is easily brushed away. In terms of physics. The explosion at 10 km will be happening in low pressure environment. Intensity is defined as I=(ξω)^2cρ, where we have particle displacement, sound frequency, speed of sound and density. For the same blast we can assume displacement and frequency the same. Pressure is 10 times smaller so density is also 10 times smaller. Due to low temperature the speed of sound is also smaller,roughly 20%. So we get more than 10 times smaller initial intensity. Then we have a refraction index difference between upper and lower levels of atmosphere. That gives two effects: 1) sound is reflected from the boundary and thus lost to propagation towards the guy; 2) sound is refracted towards the Earth making the wave, actually reaching him, travel longer distance and thus, be more attenuated. Your formula only takes into account geometrical attenuation of spherical wave. We should also look at attenuation by moisture in the air. It was cloudy, so that part of attenuation will be quite high. Of course the actual value should be calculated but I'm quite confident that this will not get the overwhelming explosion that he describes. And it will definitely not shake the windows. --[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 13:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Unauthorized launch story ==<br />
Unauthorized launch story appeared early on, also quoting unnamed sources; we had this somewhere, in fall of 2014. Nothing more definite came out, so this seems to recycle old story, not a new information coming out now. Debunk link--could not see much said in there on the issue. Novaia Gazeta published Almaz Antey and than two competing versions, the last one 'there were no planes at all and our unnamed sources tell that Russians did it' . It ends with Petrovskii delivering Buk audio transcript. But Petrovskii recently denied involvement, on social media forum. And those unnamed sources said it both ways --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 02:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Official Facebook Reaction==<br />
MoD of Ukraine: no UAF flights in ATO area on 17 July, no UAF zenith anti-aircraft missile systems used, it is not true that UAF training accident caused MH17 crash.<br />
<br />
У день катастрофи літака Boing-777 авіація Повітряних Сил Збройних Сил України в районі проведення АТО польоти не виконувала, зенітні ракетні комплекси не застосовувалися<br />
<br />
Інформація про те, що можливою причиною катастрофи літака Boing-777 (рейс MAS-17) авіакомпанії “Малазійські авіалінії” 17 липня 2014 року у небі над Донеччиною може бути нештатна ситуація під час проведення тренування підрозділів ППО Повітряних Сил Збройних Сил України не відповідає дійсності та може бути розцінена як спроба вплинути на результати незалежного розслідування трагічної події. <br />
Про це сьогодні, 25 липня, повідомили у Командуванні Повітряних Сил Збройних Сил України у відповідь на поширену деякими російськими засобами масової інформації заяву з посиланням на так зване “джерело в одному з силових відомств України”.<br />
У день катастрофи літака Boing-777 польоти авіації Повітряних Сил Збройних Сил України в районі проведення АТО не виконувалися. Зенітні ракетні комплекси Збройних Сил України не застосовувалися, жодного пуску зенітних керованих ракет не проводилося.<br />
Довідково. 17 липня цивільний літак Boing-777 (рейс MAS-17) авіакомпанії “Малазійські авіалінії” виконував рейсовий політ за маршрутом Амстердам (Голландія) — Куала Лумпур (Малайзія) на висоті 10100 метрів.<br />
О 16.45 літак впав в 3 кілометрах на північний захід від населеного пункту Грабове, Шахтарського району Донецької області. [https://www.facebook.com/theministryofdefence.ua/photos/a.209841809078332.54058.207023122693534/739742792754895/?type=1&permPage=1 MoD of Ukraine facebook post (in Ukrainian) 25.7.15] [http://korrespondent.net/ukraine/3397381-ukraynskaia-armyia-ne-yspolzovala-zrk-y-avyatsyui-v-den-katastrofy-boynha korrespondent.net (in Russian) 25.7.15] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==International Tribunal==<br />
*Russia is [http://www.radiosvoboda.org/content/news/27155501.html set] to vote against establishing international tribunal at the UN vote on July 29. Russian [http://ria.ru/mh17/20150727/1150125332.html#ixzz3h7UgG0OU position] is that this is an isolated criminal case and not a threat to world security requiring special UN tribunal structure; and that setting the tribunal now before the official investigation is completed as unnecessary and divisive; has filed an alternative proposal (involving special representative, and more transparency -as they are now excluded from investigation). <br />
<br />
Commentary. It appears to me outcome of Yukos case tribunal may play a role here. Yukos matter is not as black and white as sides presented it; it was in legal grey area, with laws not sufficiently developed after collapse of the Soviet system; and there was unfairness at privatization and operation stages, as well as unfairness of selective prosecution of that. But all those subtleties were just thrown away on some 3 pages of the final judgement, and full market value of the company before the affair was awarded to claimants. This is a very long decision overall and I do not have command of all details and legal aspects, but from outside it appears as steamrolling the case really; replacing one injustice by another (the people are told to pay; but they have all but nothing to do with this and do not owe the awarded amount). Likewise here, once it is in legal rather than investigative field, all sort of legal steamrolling may show up. Tribunals are good only if they are fair, and seen as fair. (What are even the laws governing such tribunal, and who are lawyers practicing it? Where do they come from? ). It may be not by accident that [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Khodorkovsky Khodorkovskii] stated in July 2015 TV rain interview that he "is not interested" in Yukos legal process (still supporting [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonid_Nevzlin Leonid Nevzlin] and others handling this)<br />
:Also, former Yugoslavia tribunal was widely unpopular in Russia at the time and this feeling in Russia has sharpened since<br />
: Russian officials stated that other civilian aircraft were shot down, and special tribunals were not used in those cases. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 19:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*Russia vetoes UNSC MH17 tribunal resolution [http://tass.ru/mezhdunarodnaya-panorama/2152807 -TASS] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 00:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)</div>Antidyatelhttps://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17/Zaroshchenskoye&diff=23486Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Zaroshchenskoye2015-07-30T13:09:40Z<p>Antidyatel: /* Partial Answers */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Three questions? ==<br />
These three questions need to be answered. (Discuss each issue in a separate section below.)<br />
# Where there BUK launchers in Zaroshchenskoye in mid July 2014? What proof is there of their existence?<br />
# Were there Ukrainian soldiers in Zaroshchenskoye in mid July? Who were they loyal to? Or were they somehow trying to remain neutral?<br />
# When and how did NAF take over Zaroshchenskoye?<br />
-- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 03:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Partial Answers==<br />
I don't think we know for sure (and I do not see Zaroshenskoe as the only possibility, despite Almaz-Antei report; matching fragment damage to missile orientation being the tricky part)<br />
:1. Russian MoD gave us satellite photos. Bellingcat tried to disprove it, with an early attempt debunked. Than they purchased satellite images from a commercial provider and [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/06/12/july-17-imagery-mod-comparison/ claimed] that MoD were faked. <br />
:I do not have a strong view, could be inaccurately presented by MoD, or commercial photos are not accurately timed, or we see those images at different angles and image qualities, which appears as a mismatch. Since 'investigative' methods at bc are propaganda-driven, conclusion cannot be reached just on the basis of their presentation; there is no independent info available to me. <br />
::Zaroshesnkoe photos [http://archive.mid.ru/bdomp/brp_4.nsf/9f9f2a6497b5822f43256a2900463456/f6c3bbd89ac2532d44257d1d00203ccf/body/27.3E9C!OpenElement&FieldElemFormat=jpg Zaroshenskoe 17 July, 11:32] "A= two Buk M1 self-propelled missile launchers, B= one armored vehicle" [http://archive.mid.ru/bdomp/brp_4.nsf/9f9f2a6497b5822f43256a2900463456/f6c3bbd89ac2532d44257d1d00203ccf/body/30.3EC6!OpenElement&FieldElemFormat=jpg Zaroshenskoe 18 July, 11:39] (A, B gone)<br />
::Also [http://archive.mid.ru//brp_4.nsf/newsline/F6C3BBD89AC2532D44257D1D00203CCF Donetsk, Lugansk photos]<br />
:: I understand, Bellingcat disputes those from Donetsk<br />
:2. It was not a base really, some launchers parked there is all, can move easily. Loyalties -we do not know<br />
:3 I do not know (was not following really, as never had strong belief in Zaroshenskoe location. Maps can be found and may give some answers). Almaz-Antey was telling us, Buk was from Zaroshenskoe, and we do not know who was there at the time. Without more research, that would be state of play here. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 03:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
::[https://www.bellingcat.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Zaroshchenske_EN_1.pdf Another bc] on Zaroshenskoe-has a collection of maps at least and usual twisty stuff leading to the predetermined conclusion. I have not gone through all that and unsure whether will have time in the near future. But all this long winding stuff can be probably summarized as we do not really know. And no reason really to focus heavily on Torez and ignore anything else. <br />
<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPop2oSw6Xo MOD presentation]-Zaroshenkoe at about 10:00 mark<br />
<br />
[http://www.novayagazeta.ru/inquests/68728.html Novaia Gazeta], Grabovo, Zaroshenskoe and Snezhnoe interviews. None anywhere mentioned Buk contrail or seeing Buk; conflicting account on planes. About half reluctant to talk on camera or afraid. <br />
:[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRS64s4n-o4 Anatolii, Grabovo]. He says at the moment he looked up (he was swimming) he saw a fireball, which quickly disappeared into clouds. That was followed by the crash. His description does not match Buk contrail, could be a flare<br />
:Zaroshenskoe. Several interviews, mostly audio. Confused account seemingly agreeing that Zaroshenskoe was not controlled by either side; that nobody saw Buk itself or tracks, although some tried to find tracks; one woman said that there was another planes on that day (first interview), the other woman said she did not see herself so cannot tell; than the first one said she did not see it either but her husband saw it and told her<br />
:Pevomaika, Snezhnoe. Woman says there was another SU <br />
::Another interview, woman says it was a drone; and that she saw multiple white trails going up. She was afraid it is phosphor bomb, later thought it could be flares ;- but in another interview similar multiple white trails were attributed to opolchenie trying to shoot a plane--creating cloud of fragments in the sky (unsure here, - have not heard such description before; likely just an anti-aircraft gun? [http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/150418163107-yemen-anti-aircraft-fire-exlarge-169.jpg (like here)] or is this some sort of cluster type munition? ) <br />
:Diadia Serezha (uncle Serezha)-said that military planes were often hiding under civilian ones, and thought it could happen on the day; thought that Boeing could be shot with an anti-aircraft gun <br />
:Nikolai Ivanovich. Have not seen much apart from the crash itself. Confused/afraid account. (There was some sound but he did not see another plane, and did not claim there was one) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 07:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Just realised something that might compromise the primary Bellingcat witness - the one that supplied trail photo. The only photo till now. Here is his statement: "And at 16:20 we heard an explosion. The first explosion was not very heavy. 15 seconds later, something like that, there was a second explosion, which was louder and it made the windows shake.”<br />
Of course 15 seconds is impossible if Snezhnoe is the launch site, particularly location claimed by Bellingcat. Will not go into it right now as it can be argued that his 15 seconds is a perceived number and should not be taken literally (although why so accurate, could be just 20 sec). More importantly is a description of two explosions. First small and second very loud. Now, the first explosion is attributed to rocket launch. Second is rocket explosion. From first glance it is logical that second will be louder. But the second explosion happened 20 km ground distance from his location and 10 km in altitude, according to Bellingcat fairytale. At 10km air pressure is only 100 mbar. 10 times less than on the ground. It is low vacuum and sound will be strongly attenuated. He could probably hear it better if he was just under the hit point. At oblique angles the warmer air in lower parts of the atmosphere will make refractive index to change creating reflection interfaces that will further increase sound dissipation. His description, particularly with claimed time interval is just impossible. So, either it is a total fake or the missile hit the target at much lower altitude and very close to his location. From leaks in the media, his photo and testimony are also going to be center point of Dutch report. If true, shame on them. Let me know if my analysis has a flaw.--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 09:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
:Interesting thought. Two things, whether it helps and physics. I am skeptical on the first (missile launch wooshing sound vs a blast at a distance, both played by an ear and reported with a long delay--not very usable. Other witnesses described it in different ways but some were saying it was a blast or like something dropping of. <br />
Physics-wise, at this distance, it is no longer a shock wave and will propagate as sound. Therefore, pressure and velocity drop as 1/L , and intensity which is sort of P v dies as 1/L^2 . It is doable, though not immediate, to have an estimate of what those will be say with 70 kg TNT going off. This is without attenuation. Actually I do not know quickly how that will attenuate. Engineers will tell that attenuation is frequencey dependent, and this is low frequency which pretty much just 1/L^2 . --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 11:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
First of all he was not talking about whooshing sound but about explosion. But let's skip this point for now as it is relying on his 15 sec claim, which is easily brushed away. In terms of physics. The explosion at 10 km will be happening in low pressure environment. Intensity is defined as I=(ξω)^2cρ, where we have particle displacement, sound frequency, speed of sound and density. For the same blast we can assume displacement and frequency the same. Pressure is 10 times smaller so density is also 10 times smaller. Due to low temperature the speed of sound is also smaller,roughly 20%. So we get 10 times smaller initial intensity. Then we have a refraction index difference between upper and lower levels of atmosphere. That gives two effects: 1) sound is reflected from the boundary and thus lost to propagation towards the guy; 2) sound is refracted towards the Earth making, so the wave actually reaching him will have to travel longer distance and thus more attenuated. Your formula only takes into account geometrical attenuation of spherical wave. We should also look at attenuation by moisture in the air. It was cloudy, so that part of attenuation will be quite high. Of course the actual value should be calculated but I'm quite confident that this will not get the overwhelming explosion that he describes. And it will definitely not shake the windows. --[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 13:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Unauthorized launch story ==<br />
Unauthorized launch story appeared early on, also quoting unnamed sources; we had this somewhere, in fall of 2014. Nothing more definite came out, so this seems to recycle old story, not a new information coming out now. Debunk link--could not see much said in there on the issue. Novaia Gazeta published Almaz Antey and than two competing versions, the last one 'there were no planes at all and our unnamed sources tell that Russians did it' . It ends with Petrovskii delivering Buk audio transcript. But Petrovskii recently denied involvement, on social media forum. And those unnamed sources said it both ways --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 02:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Official Facebook Reaction==<br />
MoD of Ukraine: no UAF flights in ATO area on 17 July, no UAF zenith anti-aircraft missile systems used, it is not true that UAF training accident caused MH17 crash.<br />
<br />
У день катастрофи літака Boing-777 авіація Повітряних Сил Збройних Сил України в районі проведення АТО польоти не виконувала, зенітні ракетні комплекси не застосовувалися<br />
<br />
Інформація про те, що можливою причиною катастрофи літака Boing-777 (рейс MAS-17) авіакомпанії “Малазійські авіалінії” 17 липня 2014 року у небі над Донеччиною може бути нештатна ситуація під час проведення тренування підрозділів ППО Повітряних Сил Збройних Сил України не відповідає дійсності та може бути розцінена як спроба вплинути на результати незалежного розслідування трагічної події. <br />
Про це сьогодні, 25 липня, повідомили у Командуванні Повітряних Сил Збройних Сил України у відповідь на поширену деякими російськими засобами масової інформації заяву з посиланням на так зване “джерело в одному з силових відомств України”.<br />
У день катастрофи літака Boing-777 польоти авіації Повітряних Сил Збройних Сил України в районі проведення АТО не виконувалися. Зенітні ракетні комплекси Збройних Сил України не застосовувалися, жодного пуску зенітних керованих ракет не проводилося.<br />
Довідково. 17 липня цивільний літак Boing-777 (рейс MAS-17) авіакомпанії “Малазійські авіалінії” виконував рейсовий політ за маршрутом Амстердам (Голландія) — Куала Лумпур (Малайзія) на висоті 10100 метрів.<br />
О 16.45 літак впав в 3 кілометрах на північний захід від населеного пункту Грабове, Шахтарського району Донецької області. [https://www.facebook.com/theministryofdefence.ua/photos/a.209841809078332.54058.207023122693534/739742792754895/?type=1&permPage=1 MoD of Ukraine facebook post (in Ukrainian) 25.7.15] [http://korrespondent.net/ukraine/3397381-ukraynskaia-armyia-ne-yspolzovala-zrk-y-avyatsyui-v-den-katastrofy-boynha korrespondent.net (in Russian) 25.7.15] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==International Tribunal==<br />
*Russia is [http://www.radiosvoboda.org/content/news/27155501.html set] to vote against establishing international tribunal at the UN vote on July 29. Russian [http://ria.ru/mh17/20150727/1150125332.html#ixzz3h7UgG0OU position] is that this is an isolated criminal case and not a threat to world security requiring special UN tribunal structure; and that setting the tribunal now before the official investigation is completed as unnecessary and divisive; has filed an alternative proposal (involving special representative, and more transparency -as they are now excluded from investigation). <br />
<br />
Commentary. It appears to me outcome of Yukos case tribunal may play a role here. Yukos matter is not as black and white as sides presented it; it was in legal grey area, with laws not sufficiently developed after collapse of the Soviet system; and there was unfairness at privatization and operation stages, as well as unfairness of selective prosecution of that. But all those subtleties were just thrown away on some 3 pages of the final judgement, and full market value of the company before the affair was awarded to claimants. This is a very long decision overall and I do not have command of all details and legal aspects, but from outside it appears as steamrolling the case really; replacing one injustice by another (the people are told to pay; but they have all but nothing to do with this and do not owe the awarded amount). Likewise here, once it is in legal rather than investigative field, all sort of legal steamrolling may show up. Tribunals are good only if they are fair, and seen as fair. (What are even the laws governing such tribunal, and who are lawyers practicing it? Where do they come from? ). It may be not by accident that [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Khodorkovsky Khodorkovskii] stated in July 2015 TV rain interview that he "is not interested" in Yukos legal process (still supporting [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonid_Nevzlin Leonid Nevzlin] and others handling this)<br />
:Also, former Yugoslavia tribunal was widely unpopular in Russia at the time and this feeling in Russia has sharpened since<br />
: Russian officials stated that other civilian aircraft were shot down, and special tribunals were not used in those cases. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 19:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*Russia vetoes UNSC MH17 tribunal resolution [http://tass.ru/mezhdunarodnaya-panorama/2152807 -TASS] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 00:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)</div>Antidyatelhttps://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17/Zaroshchenskoye&diff=23485Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Zaroshchenskoye2015-07-30T13:07:49Z<p>Antidyatel: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Three questions? ==<br />
These three questions need to be answered. (Discuss each issue in a separate section below.)<br />
# Where there BUK launchers in Zaroshchenskoye in mid July 2014? What proof is there of their existence?<br />
# Were there Ukrainian soldiers in Zaroshchenskoye in mid July? Who were they loyal to? Or were they somehow trying to remain neutral?<br />
# When and how did NAF take over Zaroshchenskoye?<br />
-- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 03:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Partial Answers==<br />
I don't think we know for sure (and I do not see Zaroshenskoe as the only possibility, despite Almaz-Antei report; matching fragment damage to missile orientation being the tricky part)<br />
:1. Russian MoD gave us satellite photos. Bellingcat tried to disprove it, with an early attempt debunked. Than they purchased satellite images from a commercial provider and [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/06/12/july-17-imagery-mod-comparison/ claimed] that MoD were faked. <br />
:I do not have a strong view, could be inaccurately presented by MoD, or commercial photos are not accurately timed, or we see those images at different angles and image qualities, which appears as a mismatch. Since 'investigative' methods at bc are propaganda-driven, conclusion cannot be reached just on the basis of their presentation; there is no independent info available to me. <br />
::Zaroshesnkoe photos [http://archive.mid.ru/bdomp/brp_4.nsf/9f9f2a6497b5822f43256a2900463456/f6c3bbd89ac2532d44257d1d00203ccf/body/27.3E9C!OpenElement&FieldElemFormat=jpg Zaroshenskoe 17 July, 11:32] "A= two Buk M1 self-propelled missile launchers, B= one armored vehicle" [http://archive.mid.ru/bdomp/brp_4.nsf/9f9f2a6497b5822f43256a2900463456/f6c3bbd89ac2532d44257d1d00203ccf/body/30.3EC6!OpenElement&FieldElemFormat=jpg Zaroshenskoe 18 July, 11:39] (A, B gone)<br />
::Also [http://archive.mid.ru//brp_4.nsf/newsline/F6C3BBD89AC2532D44257D1D00203CCF Donetsk, Lugansk photos]<br />
:: I understand, Bellingcat disputes those from Donetsk<br />
:2. It was not a base really, some launchers parked there is all, can move easily. Loyalties -we do not know<br />
:3 I do not know (was not following really, as never had strong belief in Zaroshenskoe location. Maps can be found and may give some answers). Almaz-Antey was telling us, Buk was from Zaroshenskoe, and we do not know who was there at the time. Without more research, that would be state of play here. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 03:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
::[https://www.bellingcat.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Zaroshchenske_EN_1.pdf Another bc] on Zaroshenskoe-has a collection of maps at least and usual twisty stuff leading to the predetermined conclusion. I have not gone through all that and unsure whether will have time in the near future. But all this long winding stuff can be probably summarized as we do not really know. And no reason really to focus heavily on Torez and ignore anything else. <br />
<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPop2oSw6Xo MOD presentation]-Zaroshenkoe at about 10:00 mark<br />
<br />
[http://www.novayagazeta.ru/inquests/68728.html Novaia Gazeta], Grabovo, Zaroshenskoe and Snezhnoe interviews. None anywhere mentioned Buk contrail or seeing Buk; conflicting account on planes. About half reluctant to talk on camera or afraid. <br />
:[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRS64s4n-o4 Anatolii, Grabovo]. He says at the moment he looked up (he was swimming) he saw a fireball, which quickly disappeared into clouds. That was followed by the crash. His description does not match Buk contrail, could be a flare<br />
:Zaroshenskoe. Several interviews, mostly audio. Confused account seemingly agreeing that Zaroshenskoe was not controlled by either side; that nobody saw Buk itself or tracks, although some tried to find tracks; one woman said that there was another planes on that day (first interview), the other woman said she did not see herself so cannot tell; than the first one said she did not see it either but her husband saw it and told her<br />
:Pevomaika, Snezhnoe. Woman says there was another SU <br />
::Another interview, woman says it was a drone; and that she saw multiple white trails going up. She was afraid it is phosphor bomb, later thought it could be flares ;- but in another interview similar multiple white trails were attributed to opolchenie trying to shoot a plane--creating cloud of fragments in the sky (unsure here, - have not heard such description before; likely just an anti-aircraft gun? [http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/150418163107-yemen-anti-aircraft-fire-exlarge-169.jpg (like here)] or is this some sort of cluster type munition? ) <br />
:Diadia Serezha (uncle Serezha)-said that military planes were often hiding under civilian ones, and thought it could happen on the day; thought that Boeing could be shot with an anti-aircraft gun <br />
:Nikolai Ivanovich. Have not seen much apart from the crash itself. Confused/afraid account. (There was some sound but he did not see another plane, and did not claim there was one) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 07:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Just realised something that might compromise the primary Bellingcat witness - the one that supplied trail photo. The only photo till now. Here is his statement: "And at 16:20 we heard an explosion. The first explosion was not very heavy. 15 seconds later, something like that, there was a second explosion, which was louder and it made the windows shake.”<br />
Of course 15 seconds is impossible if Snezhnoe is the launch site, particularly location claimed by Bellingcat. Will not go into it right now as it can be argued that his 15 seconds is a perceived number and should not be taken literally (although why so accurate, could be just 20 sec). More importantly isothermal description of two explosion. First small and second very loud. Now, the first explosion is attributed to rocket launch. Second is rocket explosion. From first glance it is logical that second will be louder. But the second explosion happened 20 km ground distance from his location and 10 km in altitude, according to Bellingcat fairytale. At 10km air pressure is only 100 mbar. 10 times less than on the ground. It is low vacuum and sound will be strongly attenuated. He could probably hear it better if he was just under the hit point. At oblique angles the warmer air in lower parts of the atmosphere will make refractive index to change creating reflection interfaces that will further increase sound dissipation. His description, particularly with claimed time interval is just impossible. So, either it is a total fake or the missile hit the target at much lower altitude and very close to his location. From leaks in the media, his photo and testimony are also going to be center point of Dutch report. If true, shame on them. Let me know if my analysis has a flaw.--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 09:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
:Interesting thought. Two things, whether it helps and physics. I am skeptical on the first (missile launch wooshing sound vs a blast at a distance, both played by an ear and reported with a long delay--not very usable. Other witnesses described it in different ways but some were saying it was a blast or like something dropping of. <br />
Physics-wise, at this distance, it is no longer a shock wave and will propagate as sound. Therefore, pressure and velocity drop as 1/L , and intensity which is sort of P v dies as 1/L^2 . It is doable, though not immediate, to have an estimate of what those will be say with 70 kg TNT going off. This is without attenuation. Actually I do not know quickly how that will attenuate. Engineers will tell that attenuation is frequencey dependent, and this is low frequency which pretty much just 1/L^2 . --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 11:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
First of all he was not talking about whooshing sound but about explosion. But let's skip this point for now as it is relying on his 15 sec claim, which is easily brushed away. In terms of physics. The explosion at 10 km will be happening in low pressure environment. Intensity is defined as I=(ξω)^2cρ, where we have particle displacement, sound frequency, speed of sound and density. For the same blast we can assume displacement and frequency the same. Pressure is 10 times smaller so density is also 10 times smaller. Due to low temperature the speed of sound is also smaller,roughly 20%. So we get 10 times smaller initial intensity. Then we have a refraction index difference between upper and lower levels of atmosphere. That gives two effects: 1) sound is reflected from the boundary and thus lost to propagation towards the guy; 2) sound is refracted towards the Earth making, so the wave actually reaching him will have to travel longer distance and thus more attenuated. Your formula only takes into account geometrical attenuation of spherical wave. We should also look at attenuation by moisture in the air. It was cloudy, so that part of attenuation will be quite high. Of course the actual value should be calculated but I'm quite confident that this will not get the overwhelming explosion that he describes. And it will definitely not shake the windows. --[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 13:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Unauthorized launch story ==<br />
Unauthorized launch story appeared early on, also quoting unnamed sources; we had this somewhere, in fall of 2014. Nothing more definite came out, so this seems to recycle old story, not a new information coming out now. Debunk link--could not see much said in there on the issue. Novaia Gazeta published Almaz Antey and than two competing versions, the last one 'there were no planes at all and our unnamed sources tell that Russians did it' . It ends with Petrovskii delivering Buk audio transcript. But Petrovskii recently denied involvement, on social media forum. And those unnamed sources said it both ways --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 02:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Official Facebook Reaction==<br />
MoD of Ukraine: no UAF flights in ATO area on 17 July, no UAF zenith anti-aircraft missile systems used, it is not true that UAF training accident caused MH17 crash.<br />
<br />
У день катастрофи літака Boing-777 авіація Повітряних Сил Збройних Сил України в районі проведення АТО польоти не виконувала, зенітні ракетні комплекси не застосовувалися<br />
<br />
Інформація про те, що можливою причиною катастрофи літака Boing-777 (рейс MAS-17) авіакомпанії “Малазійські авіалінії” 17 липня 2014 року у небі над Донеччиною може бути нештатна ситуація під час проведення тренування підрозділів ППО Повітряних Сил Збройних Сил України не відповідає дійсності та може бути розцінена як спроба вплинути на результати незалежного розслідування трагічної події. <br />
Про це сьогодні, 25 липня, повідомили у Командуванні Повітряних Сил Збройних Сил України у відповідь на поширену деякими російськими засобами масової інформації заяву з посиланням на так зване “джерело в одному з силових відомств України”.<br />
У день катастрофи літака Boing-777 польоти авіації Повітряних Сил Збройних Сил України в районі проведення АТО не виконувалися. Зенітні ракетні комплекси Збройних Сил України не застосовувалися, жодного пуску зенітних керованих ракет не проводилося.<br />
Довідково. 17 липня цивільний літак Boing-777 (рейс MAS-17) авіакомпанії “Малазійські авіалінії” виконував рейсовий політ за маршрутом Амстердам (Голландія) — Куала Лумпур (Малайзія) на висоті 10100 метрів.<br />
О 16.45 літак впав в 3 кілометрах на північний захід від населеного пункту Грабове, Шахтарського району Донецької області. [https://www.facebook.com/theministryofdefence.ua/photos/a.209841809078332.54058.207023122693534/739742792754895/?type=1&permPage=1 MoD of Ukraine facebook post (in Ukrainian) 25.7.15] [http://korrespondent.net/ukraine/3397381-ukraynskaia-armyia-ne-yspolzovala-zrk-y-avyatsyui-v-den-katastrofy-boynha korrespondent.net (in Russian) 25.7.15] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==International Tribunal==<br />
*Russia is [http://www.radiosvoboda.org/content/news/27155501.html set] to vote against establishing international tribunal at the UN vote on July 29. Russian [http://ria.ru/mh17/20150727/1150125332.html#ixzz3h7UgG0OU position] is that this is an isolated criminal case and not a threat to world security requiring special UN tribunal structure; and that setting the tribunal now before the official investigation is completed as unnecessary and divisive; has filed an alternative proposal (involving special representative, and more transparency -as they are now excluded from investigation). <br />
<br />
Commentary. It appears to me outcome of Yukos case tribunal may play a role here. Yukos matter is not as black and white as sides presented it; it was in legal grey area, with laws not sufficiently developed after collapse of the Soviet system; and there was unfairness at privatization and operation stages, as well as unfairness of selective prosecution of that. But all those subtleties were just thrown away on some 3 pages of the final judgement, and full market value of the company before the affair was awarded to claimants. This is a very long decision overall and I do not have command of all details and legal aspects, but from outside it appears as steamrolling the case really; replacing one injustice by another (the people are told to pay; but they have all but nothing to do with this and do not owe the awarded amount). Likewise here, once it is in legal rather than investigative field, all sort of legal steamrolling may show up. Tribunals are good only if they are fair, and seen as fair. (What are even the laws governing such tribunal, and who are lawyers practicing it? Where do they come from? ). It may be not by accident that [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Khodorkovsky Khodorkovskii] stated in July 2015 TV rain interview that he "is not interested" in Yukos legal process (still supporting [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonid_Nevzlin Leonid Nevzlin] and others handling this)<br />
:Also, former Yugoslavia tribunal was widely unpopular in Russia at the time and this feeling in Russia has sharpened since<br />
: Russian officials stated that other civilian aircraft were shot down, and special tribunals were not used in those cases. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 19:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*Russia vetoes UNSC MH17 tribunal resolution [http://tass.ru/mezhdunarodnaya-panorama/2152807 -TASS] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 00:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)</div>Antidyatelhttps://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17/Zaroshchenskoye&diff=23484Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Zaroshchenskoye2015-07-30T12:43:33Z<p>Antidyatel: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Three questions? ==<br />
These three questions need to be answered. (Discuss each issue in a separate section below.)<br />
# Where there BUK launchers in Zaroshchenskoye in mid July 2014? What proof is there of their existence?<br />
# Were there Ukrainian soldiers in Zaroshchenskoye in mid July? Who were they loyal to? Or were they somehow trying to remain neutral?<br />
# When and how did NAF take over Zaroshchenskoye?<br />
-- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 03:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Partial Answers==<br />
I don't think we know for sure (and I do not see Zaroshenskoe as the only possibility, despite Almaz-Antei report; matching fragment damage to missile orientation being the tricky part)<br />
:1. Russian MoD gave us satellite photos. Bellingcat tried to disprove it, with an early attempt debunked. Than they purchased satellite images from a commercial provider and [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/06/12/july-17-imagery-mod-comparison/ claimed] that MoD were faked. <br />
:I do not have a strong view, could be inaccurately presented by MoD, or commercial photos are not accurately timed, or we see those images at different angles and image qualities, which appears as a mismatch. Since 'investigative' methods at bc are propaganda-driven, conclusion cannot be reached just on the basis of their presentation; there is no independent info available to me. <br />
::Zaroshesnkoe photos [http://archive.mid.ru/bdomp/brp_4.nsf/9f9f2a6497b5822f43256a2900463456/f6c3bbd89ac2532d44257d1d00203ccf/body/27.3E9C!OpenElement&FieldElemFormat=jpg Zaroshenskoe 17 July, 11:32] "A= two Buk M1 self-propelled missile launchers, B= one armored vehicle" [http://archive.mid.ru/bdomp/brp_4.nsf/9f9f2a6497b5822f43256a2900463456/f6c3bbd89ac2532d44257d1d00203ccf/body/30.3EC6!OpenElement&FieldElemFormat=jpg Zaroshenskoe 18 July, 11:39] (A, B gone)<br />
::Also [http://archive.mid.ru//brp_4.nsf/newsline/F6C3BBD89AC2532D44257D1D00203CCF Donetsk, Lugansk photos]<br />
:: I understand, Bellingcat disputes those from Donetsk<br />
:2. It was not a base really, some launchers parked there is all, can move easily. Loyalties -we do not know<br />
:3 I do not know (was not following really, as never had strong belief in Zaroshenskoe location. Maps can be found and may give some answers). Almaz-Antey was telling us, Buk was from Zaroshenskoe, and we do not know who was there at the time. Without more research, that would be state of play here. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 03:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
::[https://www.bellingcat.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Zaroshchenske_EN_1.pdf Another bc] on Zaroshenskoe-has a collection of maps at least and usual twisty stuff leading to the predetermined conclusion. I have not gone through all that and unsure whether will have time in the near future. But all this long winding stuff can be probably summarized as we do not really know. And no reason really to focus heavily on Torez and ignore anything else. <br />
<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPop2oSw6Xo MOD presentation]-Zaroshenkoe at about 10:00 mark<br />
<br />
[http://www.novayagazeta.ru/inquests/68728.html Novaia Gazeta], Grabovo, Zaroshenskoe and Snezhnoe interviews. None anywhere mentioned Buk contrail or seeing Buk; conflicting account on planes. About half reluctant to talk on camera or afraid. <br />
:[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRS64s4n-o4 Anatolii, Grabovo]. He says at the moment he looked up (he was swimming) he saw a fireball, which quickly disappeared into clouds. That was followed by the crash. His description does not match Buk contrail, could be a flare<br />
:Zaroshenskoe. Several interviews, mostly audio. Confused account seemingly agreeing that Zaroshenskoe was not controlled by either side; that nobody saw Buk itself or tracks, although some tried to find tracks; one woman said that there was another planes on that day (first interview), the other woman said she did not see herself so cannot tell; than the first one said she did not see it either but her husband saw it and told her<br />
:Pevomaika, Snezhnoe. Woman says there was another SU <br />
::Another interview, woman says it was a drone; and that she saw multiple white trails going up. She was afraid it is phosphor bomb, later thought it could be flares ;- but in another interview similar multiple white trails were attributed to opolchenie trying to shoot a plane--creating cloud of fragments in the sky (unsure here, - have not heard such description before; likely just an anti-aircraft gun? [http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/150418163107-yemen-anti-aircraft-fire-exlarge-169.jpg (like here)] or is this some sort of cluster type munition? ) <br />
:Diadia Serezha (uncle Serezha)-said that military planes were often hiding under civilian ones, and thought it could happen on the day; thought that Boeing could be shot with an anti-aircraft gun <br />
:Nikolai Ivanovich. Have not seen much apart from the crash itself. Confused/afraid account. (There was some sound but he did not see another plane, and did not claim there was one) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 07:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Just realised something that might compromise the primary Bellingcat witness - the one that supplied trail photo. The only photo till now. Here is his statement: "And at 16:20 we heard an explosion. The first explosion was not very heavy. 15 seconds later, something like that, there was a second explosion, which was louder and it made the windows shake.”<br />
Of course 15 seconds is impossible if Snezhnoe is the launch site, particularly location claimed by Bellingcat. Will not go into it right now as it can be argued that his 15 seconds is a perceived number and should not be taken literally (although why so accurate, could be just 20 sec). More importantly is a description of two explosions. First small and second very loud. Now, the first explosion is attributed to rocket launch. Second is rocket explosion. From first glance it is logical that second will be louder. But the second explosion happened 20 km ground distance from his location and 10 km in altitude, according to Bellingcat fairytale. At 10km air pressure is only 100 mbar. 10 times less than on the ground. It is low vacuum and sound will be strongly attenuated. He could probably hear it better if he was just under the hit point. At oblique angles the warmer air in lower parts of the atmosphere will make refractive index to change creating reflection interfaces that will further increase sound dissipation. His description, particularly with claimed time interval is just impossible. So, either it is a total fake or the missile hit the target at much lower altitude and very close to his location. From leaks in the media, his photo and testimony are also going to be center point of Dutch report. If true, shame on them. Let me know if my analysis has a flaw.--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 09:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Unauthorized launch story ==<br />
Unauthorized launch story appeared early on, also quoting unnamed sources; we had this somewhere, in fall of 2014. Nothing more definite came out, so this seems to recycle old story, not a new information coming out now. Debunk link--could not see much said in there on the issue. Novaia Gazeta published Almaz Antey and than two competing versions, the last one 'there were no planes at all and our unnamed sources tell that Russians did it' . It ends with Petrovskii delivering Buk audio transcript. But Petrovskii recently denied involvement, on social media forum. And those unnamed sources said it both ways --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 02:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Official Facebook Reaction==<br />
MoD of Ukraine: no UAF flights in ATO area on 17 July, no UAF zenith anti-aircraft missile systems used, it is not true that UAF training accident caused MH17 crash.<br />
<br />
У день катастрофи літака Boing-777 авіація Повітряних Сил Збройних Сил України в районі проведення АТО польоти не виконувала, зенітні ракетні комплекси не застосовувалися<br />
<br />
Інформація про те, що можливою причиною катастрофи літака Boing-777 (рейс MAS-17) авіакомпанії “Малазійські авіалінії” 17 липня 2014 року у небі над Донеччиною може бути нештатна ситуація під час проведення тренування підрозділів ППО Повітряних Сил Збройних Сил України не відповідає дійсності та може бути розцінена як спроба вплинути на результати незалежного розслідування трагічної події. <br />
Про це сьогодні, 25 липня, повідомили у Командуванні Повітряних Сил Збройних Сил України у відповідь на поширену деякими російськими засобами масової інформації заяву з посиланням на так зване “джерело в одному з силових відомств України”.<br />
У день катастрофи літака Boing-777 польоти авіації Повітряних Сил Збройних Сил України в районі проведення АТО не виконувалися. Зенітні ракетні комплекси Збройних Сил України не застосовувалися, жодного пуску зенітних керованих ракет не проводилося.<br />
Довідково. 17 липня цивільний літак Boing-777 (рейс MAS-17) авіакомпанії “Малазійські авіалінії” виконував рейсовий політ за маршрутом Амстердам (Голландія) — Куала Лумпур (Малайзія) на висоті 10100 метрів.<br />
О 16.45 літак впав в 3 кілометрах на північний захід від населеного пункту Грабове, Шахтарського району Донецької області. [https://www.facebook.com/theministryofdefence.ua/photos/a.209841809078332.54058.207023122693534/739742792754895/?type=1&permPage=1 MoD of Ukraine facebook post (in Ukrainian) 25.7.15] [http://korrespondent.net/ukraine/3397381-ukraynskaia-armyia-ne-yspolzovala-zrk-y-avyatsyui-v-den-katastrofy-boynha korrespondent.net (in Russian) 25.7.15] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==International Tribunal==<br />
*Russia is [http://www.radiosvoboda.org/content/news/27155501.html set] to vote against establishing international tribunal at the UN vote on July 29. Russian [http://ria.ru/mh17/20150727/1150125332.html#ixzz3h7UgG0OU position] is that this is an isolated criminal case and not a threat to world security requiring special UN tribunal structure; and that setting the tribunal now before the official investigation is completed as unnecessary and divisive; has filed an alternative proposal (involving special representative, and more transparency -as they are now excluded from investigation). <br />
<br />
Commentary. It appears to me outcome of Yukos case tribunal may play a role here. Yukos matter is not as black and white as sides presented it; it was in legal grey area, with laws not sufficiently developed after collapse of the Soviet system; and there was unfairness at privatization and operation stages, as well as unfairness of selective prosecution of that. But all those subtleties were just thrown away on some 3 pages of the final judgement, and full market value of the company before the affair was awarded to claimants. This is a very long decision overall and I do not have command of all details and legal aspects, but from outside it appears as steamrolling the case really; replacing one injustice by another (the people are told to pay; but they have all but nothing to do with this and do not owe the awarded amount). Likewise here, once it is in legal rather than investigative field, all sort of legal steamrolling may show up. Tribunals are good only if they are fair, and seen as fair. (What are even the laws governing such tribunal, and who are lawyers practicing it? Where do they come from? ). It may be not by accident that [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Khodorkovsky Khodorkovskii] stated in July 2015 TV rain interview that he "is not interested" in Yukos legal process (still supporting [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonid_Nevzlin Leonid Nevzlin] and others handling this)<br />
:Also, former Yugoslavia tribunal was widely unpopular in Russia at the time and this feeling in Russia has sharpened since<br />
: Russian officials stated that other civilian aircraft were shot down, and special tribunals were not used in those cases. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 19:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*Russia vetoes UNSC MH17 tribunal resolution [http://tass.ru/mezhdunarodnaya-panorama/2152807 -TASS] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 00:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)</div>Antidyatelhttps://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17/Zaroshchenskoye&diff=23475Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Zaroshchenskoye2015-07-30T09:21:39Z<p>Antidyatel: /* Partial Answers */ testimony of Buk trail photographer is likely a fake thanks to physics</p>
<hr />
<div>== Three questions? ==<br />
These three questions need to be answered. (Discuss each issue in a separate section below.)<br />
# Where there BUK launchers in Zaroshchenskoye in mid July 2014? What proof is there of their existence?<br />
# Were there Ukrainian soldiers in Zaroshchenskoye in mid July? Who were they loyal to? Or were they somehow trying to remain neutral?<br />
# When and how did NAF take over Zaroshchenskoye?<br />
-- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 03:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Partial Answers==<br />
I don't think we know for sure (and I do not see Zaroshenskoe as the only possibility, despite Almaz-Antei report; matching fragment damage to missile orientation being the tricky part)<br />
:1. Russian MoD gave us satellite photos. Bellingcat tried to disprove it, with an early attempt debunked. Than they purchased satellite images from a commercial provider and [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/06/12/july-17-imagery-mod-comparison/ claimed] that MoD were faked. <br />
:I do not have a strong view, could be inaccurately presented by MoD, or commercial photos are not accurately timed, or we see those images at different angles and image qualities, which appears as a mismatch. Since 'investigative' methods at bc are propaganda-driven, conclusion cannot be reached just on the basis of their presentation; there is no independent info available to me. <br />
::Zaroshesnkoe photos [http://archive.mid.ru/bdomp/brp_4.nsf/9f9f2a6497b5822f43256a2900463456/f6c3bbd89ac2532d44257d1d00203ccf/body/27.3E9C!OpenElement&FieldElemFormat=jpg Zaroshenskoe 17 July, 11:32] "A= two Buk M1 self-propelled missile launchers, B= one armored vehicle" [http://archive.mid.ru/bdomp/brp_4.nsf/9f9f2a6497b5822f43256a2900463456/f6c3bbd89ac2532d44257d1d00203ccf/body/30.3EC6!OpenElement&FieldElemFormat=jpg Zaroshenskoe 18 July, 11:39] (A, B gone)<br />
::Also [http://archive.mid.ru//brp_4.nsf/newsline/F6C3BBD89AC2532D44257D1D00203CCF Donetsk, Lugansk photos]<br />
:: I understand, Bellingcat disputes those from Donetsk<br />
:2. It was not a base really, some launchers parked there is all, can move easily. Loyalties -we do not know<br />
:3 I do not know (was not following really, as never had strong belief in Zaroshenskoe location. Maps can be found and may give some answers). Almaz-Antey was telling us, Buk was from Zaroshenskoe, and we do not know who was there at the time. Without more research, that would be state of play here. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 03:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
::[https://www.bellingcat.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Zaroshchenske_EN_1.pdf Another bc] on Zaroshenskoe-has a collection of maps at least and usual twisty stuff leading to the predetermined conclusion. I have not gone through all that and unsure whether will have time in the near future. But all this long winding stuff can be probably summarized as we do not really know. And no reason really to focus heavily on Torez and ignore anything else. <br />
<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPop2oSw6Xo MOD presentation]-Zaroshenkoe at about 10:00 mark<br />
<br />
[http://www.novayagazeta.ru/inquests/68728.html Novaia Gazeta], Grabovo, Zaroshenskoe and Snezhnoe interviews. None anywhere mentioned Buk contrail or seeing Buk; conflicting account on planes. About half reluctant to talk on camera or afraid. <br />
:[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRS64s4n-o4 Anatolii, Grabovo]. He says at the moment he looked up (he was swimming) he saw a fireball, which quickly disappeared into clouds. That was followed by the crash. His description does not match Buk contrail, could be a flare<br />
:Zaroshenskoe. Several interviews, mostly audio. Confused account seemingly agreeing that Zaroshenskoe was not controlled by either side; that nobody saw Buk itself or tracks, although some tried to find tracks; one woman said that there was another planes on that day (first interview), the other woman said she did not see herself so cannot tell; than the first one said she did not see it either but her husband saw it and told her<br />
:Pevomaika, Snezhnoe. Woman says there was another SU <br />
::Another interview, woman says it was a drone; and that she saw multiple white trails going up. She was afraid it is phosphor bomb, later thought it could be flares ;- but in another interview similar multiple white trails were attributed to opolchenie trying to shoot a plane--creating cloud of fragments in the sky (unsure here, - have not heard such description before; likely just an anti-aircraft gun? [http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/150418163107-yemen-anti-aircraft-fire-exlarge-169.jpg (like here)] or is this some sort of cluster type munition? ) <br />
:Diadia Serezha (uncle Serezha)-said that military planes were often hiding under civilian ones, and thought it could happen on the day; thought that Boeing could be shot with an anti-aircraft gun <br />
:Nikolai Ivanovich. Have not seen much apart from the crash itself. Confused/afraid account. (There was some sound but he did not see another plane, and did not claim there was one) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 07:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Just realised something that might compromise the primary Bellingcat witness - the one that supplied trail photo. The only photo till now. Here is his statement: "And at 16:20 we heard an explosion. The first explosion was not very heavy. 15 seconds later, something like that, there was a second explosion, which was louder and it made the windows shake.”<br />
Of course 15 seconds is impossible if Snezhnoe is the launch site, particularly location claimed by Bellingcat. Will not go into it right now as it can be argued that his 15 seconds is a perceived number and should not be taken literally (although why so accurate, could be just 20 sec). More importantly isothermal description of two explosion. First small and second very loud. Now, the first explosion is attributed to rocket launch. Second is rocket explosion. From first glance it is logical that second will be louder. But the second explosion happened 20 km ground distance from his location and 10 km in altitude, according to Bellingcat fairytale. At 10km air pressure is only 100 mbar. 10 times less than on the ground. It is low vacuum and sound will be strongly attenuated. He could probably hear it better if he was just under the hit point. At oblique angles the warmer air in lower parts of the atmosphere will make refractive index to change creating reflection interfaces that will further increase sound dissipation. His description, particularly with claimed time interval is just impossible. So, either it is a total fake or the missile hit the target at much lower altitude and very close to his location. From leaks in the media, his photo and testimony are also going to be center point of Dutch report. If true, shame on them. Let me know if my analysis has a flaw.--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 09:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Unauthorized launch story ==<br />
Unauthorized launch story appeared early on, also quoting unnamed sources; we had this somewhere, in fall of 2014. Nothing more definite came out, so this seems to recycle old story, not a new information coming out now. Debunk link--could not see much said in there on the issue. Novaia Gazeta published Almaz Antey and than two competing versions, the last one 'there were no planes at all and our unnamed sources tell that Russians did it' . It ends with Petrovskii delivering Buk audio transcript. But Petrovskii recently denied involvement, on social media forum. And those unnamed sources said it both ways --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 02:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Official Facebook Reaction==<br />
MoD of Ukraine: no UAF flights in ATO area on 17 July, no UAF zenith anti-aircraft missile systems used, it is not true that UAF training accident caused MH17 crash.<br />
<br />
У день катастрофи літака Boing-777 авіація Повітряних Сил Збройних Сил України в районі проведення АТО польоти не виконувала, зенітні ракетні комплекси не застосовувалися<br />
<br />
Інформація про те, що можливою причиною катастрофи літака Boing-777 (рейс MAS-17) авіакомпанії “Малазійські авіалінії” 17 липня 2014 року у небі над Донеччиною може бути нештатна ситуація під час проведення тренування підрозділів ППО Повітряних Сил Збройних Сил України не відповідає дійсності та може бути розцінена як спроба вплинути на результати незалежного розслідування трагічної події. <br />
Про це сьогодні, 25 липня, повідомили у Командуванні Повітряних Сил Збройних Сил України у відповідь на поширену деякими російськими засобами масової інформації заяву з посиланням на так зване “джерело в одному з силових відомств України”.<br />
У день катастрофи літака Boing-777 польоти авіації Повітряних Сил Збройних Сил України в районі проведення АТО не виконувалися. Зенітні ракетні комплекси Збройних Сил України не застосовувалися, жодного пуску зенітних керованих ракет не проводилося.<br />
Довідково. 17 липня цивільний літак Boing-777 (рейс MAS-17) авіакомпанії “Малазійські авіалінії” виконував рейсовий політ за маршрутом Амстердам (Голландія) — Куала Лумпур (Малайзія) на висоті 10100 метрів.<br />
О 16.45 літак впав в 3 кілометрах на північний захід від населеного пункту Грабове, Шахтарського району Донецької області. [https://www.facebook.com/theministryofdefence.ua/photos/a.209841809078332.54058.207023122693534/739742792754895/?type=1&permPage=1 MoD of Ukraine facebook post (in Ukrainian) 25.7.15] [http://korrespondent.net/ukraine/3397381-ukraynskaia-armyia-ne-yspolzovala-zrk-y-avyatsyui-v-den-katastrofy-boynha korrespondent.net (in Russian) 25.7.15] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==International Tribunal==<br />
*Russia is [http://www.radiosvoboda.org/content/news/27155501.html set] to vote against establishing international tribunal at the UN vote on July 29. Russian [http://ria.ru/mh17/20150727/1150125332.html#ixzz3h7UgG0OU position] is that this is an isolated criminal case and not a threat to world security requiring special UN tribunal structure; and that setting the tribunal now before the official investigation is completed as unnecessary and divisive; has filed an alternative proposal (involving special representative, and more transparency -as they are now excluded from investigation). <br />
<br />
Commentary. It appears to me outcome of Yukos case tribunal may play a role here. Yukos matter is not as black and white as sides presented it; it was in legal grey area, with laws not sufficiently developed after collapse of the Soviet system; and there was unfairness at privatization and operation stages, as well as unfairness of selective prosecution of that. But all those subtleties were just thrown away on some 3 pages of the final judgement, and full market value of the company before the affair was awarded to claimants. This is a very long decision overall and I do not have command of all details and legal aspects, but from outside it appears as steamrolling the case really; replacing one injustice by another (the people are told to pay; but they have all but nothing to do with this and do not owe the awarded amount). Likewise here, once it is in legal rather than investigative field, all sort of legal steamrolling may show up. Tribunals are good only if they are fair, and seen as fair. (What are even the laws governing such tribunal, and who are lawyers practicing it? Where do they come from? ). It may be not by accident that [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Khodorkovsky Khodorkovskii] stated in July 2015 TV rain interview that he "is not interested" in Yukos legal process (still supporting [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonid_Nevzlin Leonid Nevzlin] and others handling this)<br />
:Also, former Yugoslavia tribunal was widely unpopular in Russia at the time and this feeling in Russia has sharpened since<br />
: Russian officials stated that other civilian aircraft were shot down, and special tribunals were not used in those cases. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 19:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*Russia vetoes UNSC MH17 tribunal resolution [http://tass.ru/mezhdunarodnaya-panorama/2152807 -TASS] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 00:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)</div>Antidyatelhttps://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Antidyatel&diff=23213User talk:Antidyatel2015-07-16T02:54:38Z<p>Antidyatel: Engine timing for rocket</p>
<hr />
<div>Hi and welcome to ACLOS, Antidyatel! Please make yourself familiar with the basic formatting as described [http://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/wiki/A_Closer_Look_On_Syria:Community_portal#Editing here]. Thanks! (*clicks the button third from right above the edit window and gets*:) --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 09:45, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
:Thanks, CE, was about to. Antid, I hear it's a device limitation? Row of buttons visible above text box? If so, use! If not, type. If you can't get all symbols can you copy and paste? This <nowiki>--~~~~</nowiki> can be pasted for proper signature. Ext. links you get, etc. Glad to have you. Cheers --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:32, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
:Also at first I didn't know where the tilde ~ was - it's left of the 1 here, + shift --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:39, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Also I've just noticed some comments from you around (have been behind on MH-17, out of loop). Curious what your screen name means. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:32, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
Thank you all for welcoming and advices on how to leave the signature. Just added it to all of my comments. The limitation was not so much of the smart-phone problem but wrong use of signature. I would place to button and replace [[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 13:45, 6 June 2015 (UTC) with Antidyatel. Can't explain why I had to do it like this, but this is how I though it is logical at that moment.<br />
Dyatel is transliteration of russian word Woodpecker. Started long time ago. In a country side, after a drunkard night at 5 am a woodpecker set on the metallic lamp post. And for 30 minutes he was insisting on pecking it. Trust me not the best feeling. Also pecking in Russian has a meaning of annoying, usually based on rubbish talk. Multiple historical and current affairs issues are presented in a manner that qualifies under such talk. So Antidyatel becomes meaningful, for me at least.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 13:45, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Probably need to let all of you know that I was banned from commenting on Bellingcat and the Guardian. Don't think that there wasn't conspiracy topside truth. I did loose control several times. But to my defence the number of woodpeckers on the metallic lampposts was intolerable on those two platforms. Plus if case of Bellingcat I suggested to submit the case of Eliot Higgins to international court for crimes against humanity, siting chemical attack in Damascus episode as a primary evidence. Promise to behave ;))<br />
--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 14:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
On that 15 seconds thing: if this long 'fin' on old missiles is turning (unsure it does), it can create quite a lot of steering; while just short tail fin is probably not enough<br />
<br />
if drag is modeled by drag force F=1/2 rho v^2 C A, where rho air density (say 0.4 at 10 km ), v = velocity (1020 m/s), C drug coefficient (say 2 for the fin, and 1/4 for missile itself) , A is area say 2.5 m * 0.2 m * sin(angle) ,than 10 degrees turn of such fin is giving 5g acceleration per fin to this 700 kg weight missile; this is sort of acceptable, two fins or large turn can do what's needed. <br />
<br />
Not saying it definitely means short burning time, but it may be not fully out for those old types-long fins (of course it's better to just have it burning all the way) -<br />
: Actually, there is a manual -gives 19...23 secs engine run , linked [[Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17#Buk_properties|here]]---[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
Thanks for the manual. So 15 seconds is minimum time, with maximum around 23 seconds. Maximum distance traveled before engine shuts off, assuming that all the way the speed is 800 m/s (obviously optimistic assumption), is below 19 km. From Snijne to hit point on parabolic trajectory the rocket would have to travel more than 30 km. So 11 km it is flying like a thrown stone. Doesn't make sense. Steering with fins can be done button very small angles without the thrust. Otherwise the rocket will go into spin and collapse due to.search change in drag force, when larger surface area towards direction of original direction is exposed at turn. Something is wrong here. For manuvoring target the system becomes nearly useless. Your estimation on mass is incorrect. It is 430 kg with fuel and 100 kg without fuel (see the table in the manual). But in any case, even with 23 seconds the rocket will pass the field of view of the pilot, while engine is still on and ejects plume behind. So the pilot would see the trace and thus had to comment on it. Voice recorder doesn't have such comment (according to Dutch report). So it is unlikely that rocket came from in-front --[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 02:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC)</div>Antidyatelhttps://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17/BUK_Tracking&diff=23076Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/BUK Tracking2015-07-05T10:12:23Z<p>Antidyatel: /* Paris Match Photo */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:MH17]]<br />
==Who Has the BUK Launchers in Ukraine?==<br />
=== Kiev's Holdings ===<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3MomxNHnUA#t=288 Ukrainian Buk in ATO area], 16 July 2014. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 23:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC) <br />
*[http://sputniknews.com/europe/20150607/1023057320.html Twitter users found an announcement on the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense website detailing the transfer of a Buk-M1 system to the Ukrainian military over a month before the MH17 disaster]--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 18:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
*[https://twitter.com/wowihay/status/489814576452878336 wowihay] И они говорят у них нет #БУК'ов ? Еще 08.05.14 в #Краматорск=And they say they have no Buks? Already on 08.05.14 in [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1Oztlf4nYM #Краматорск]<br />
: google gdata no longer seems to work--what happened? but a user posted gdata earlier: Олег Гинзбург 10 months ago Опубликовано=published 2014-05-09T03:02:09.000Z (но деревья голые=but trees have no leafs) Обновлено=reposted 2014-07-19T12:29:10.000Z. Has Ukrainian style markup 121. <br />
и еще= [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGYfFeGRh90 and also]<br />
:Ukrainian-style markup 332, and one more Buk in his company --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:07, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CBQbFC9loc#t=350 Captured map] of 1 battalion of UAF 95 air-mobile brigade, dated beginning of July 2014, show location of 2 positions of Ukrainian Buks. Basurin points them on the map; but video resolution is insufficient to see those. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 05:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
:Maps can be faked, but still I'm curious what it shows. I imagine there might be a flat image of the map somewhere. Resup, could you maybe have a look? It's too slow for me to try an image search with translated words. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
::I have not seen the map in news reports mentioning the finding; and now I see it says explicitly that they are not going to make it public, [http://real-info.info/novorossiya/13429-vlasti-dnr-ne-budut-obnarodovat-karty-vsu-do-okonchaniya-rassledovaniya-krusheniya-mh17 until MH 17 investigation is completed]--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 23:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::Here is a press conference report--with video but not the map --[https://vk.com/strelkov_info?w=wall-57424472_57351 (Basurin press conference)]--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 23:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
It is possible to understand what it means when they say Ukr army controlled territory. But what is rebel controlled territory. Even if we take the maximum estimate for rebel numbers in July 2014 of 10,000 fighters, it gives a fraction of a rebel per square km, if we assume uniform distribution. In reality rebels very concentrated in Lughansk, Donetzk, Saur Mogila, 2 cauldrons. So everything else is free for all territory. When MSM declares rebel controlled territory, they just rely on Kiev's maps. Very reliable source. --[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 13:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)-- Antidyatel June 6<br />
:That's a good point that really came into play with the [[Mariupol market shelling]] incident - turns out all this eastern fire form rebel-held areas is from areas listed by Kiev as places they don't have full control over, that any crazy thing could happen from and it's prob'ly not them. Might even be a section on that here, if not, could be. There is an apparent pass right through a checkpoint, basically where the Pari Match "photo" was taken. That at least is a problem for a simple slip-in op, but it can be done and otherwise the theory could explain a lot (like, everything maybe) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC) <br />
<br />
<br />
==== BUK 312 and comrades ====<br />
[[File:Buk 312 sbu.jpg|thumb|left|BUK 312 on a trailer. Photo shown on SBU website and later removed. – ''[[:File:Buk 312 sbu.jpg|more...]]'']]<br />
Part of the material the Ukrainian SBU released to suggest that "rebels" shot down MH17 with a BUK, was photo material showing a BUK TELAR numbered 312 on a trailer, alleging it has been photographed on its way back to Russia. This was quickly shown to be extremely questionable as evidence surfaced showing number 312 in Ukrainian hands. The SBU then removed the photos from their website while other material like a suggestive photo showing a "plume" remained there. <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Buk 321.png|thumb|TELAR 321 as posted by @MOR2537 to illustrate what he alleges to have witnessed]]<br />
This was outlined (and a screenshot saved) in more detail [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/07/21/the-mh17-investigation-and-buk-312/ over at Human Rights Investigations]. A [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bj-VZB0ZdEA video embedded there] shows BUK 312 in Ukrainian hands back in March. The other two TELAR's seen in the video are numbers 323 and 321. BUK 321 [http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Ukrainian+government+forces+maneuver+antiaircraft+missile+launchers+they+transported+north+west+from+Slavyansk+eastern+Ukraine+Friday+July+2014+Photo+Dmitry+Lovetsky/10004193/story.html has been seen] in Ukrainian hands just two weeks before MH17 crashed, transported close to "liberated" Slavyansk. <br />
<br />
Interestingly enough, one of the tweets [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com/2014/07/reconstruction-of-whereabouts-of-buk.html spoon-fed by Ukrainian loyalists to imaginative Dutch blogger Ukraine@War] to suggest that there have been eyewitnesses for a "rebel" BUK, is then [https://twitter.com/MOR2537/status/489709431467171841 followed-up by the alleged eyewitness] with a picture of BUK 321 to illustrate what he has seen. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::yep, he is a conduit for Kiev but seems to have outside info, too. Like originals of photos he can get geolocations off (he says). But also has good collection of very early photos etc which have since become hard to find.Not sure I trust him though. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 15:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::I hadn't seen that before, thanks. I'll be considering... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 22:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: More photos: [http://www.armyrecognition.com/images/stories/east_europe/russia/missile_vehicle/sa-11_gadfly/pictures/sa-11_gadfly_anti-aircraft_missile_to_armoured_tracked_vehicle_Russian_army_russia_011.jpg 321] - [http://rt.com/files/news/2a/b1/40/00/640x480.jpg 312] - [http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1870560.1405614701!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_970/correction-ukraine.jpg 321] --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:Buk 312 in Lugansk.png|thumb|left|According to alleged former operator "A", this is BUK 312 after relocation sometime in Spring 2014 in Metallist settlement of Lugansk, with Yubileynaya mines in the background]]<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmI2KCOt_sA Anatolii Sharii] version of events, shows that Buk blamed on Russia has number 312 and was earlier photographed as part of Ukrainian convoy. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 20:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Sharii interviewed a Ukrainian soldier who served on Buk 312; this can be found on [http://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/1947657.html Cassad]. The guy does not know about MH17; but recalls SBU claiming it was this Buk 312 responsible. From this interview, meaning of 312: 3 is division number, 1 battery number, 2 unit number in a battery (there are loading and command vehicles, not just launchers). This UAF Buk is initially from Luhansk; than relocated to Kramatorsk; than places in a field. A serviceman took it on a ride with hand break on, leading to a small fire affecting electrics and requiring repairs. So it was traveling on a trailer at some point. It was than moved to Dnepropetrovsk, village of Novogrigorievka (apparently for repairs, and after trailer photo was taken, but exact date was not given). Buks from Luhansk which were not broken were moved by UAF elsewhere (and according to the soldier, were photographed in variaous places including Gorlovka; while 3 broken Buks remained in Luhansk) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: Interesting. I see that the "[http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Ukrainian+government+forces+maneuver+antiaircraft+missile+launchers+they+transported+north+west+from+Slavyansk+eastern+Ukraine+Friday+July+2014+Photo+Dmitry+Lovetsky/10004193/story.html has been seen]" link to the Montreal Gazette is dead by now. If anything I'm surprised that it lasted that long. Minitrue at work. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 04:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: [http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2014/12/17/shooting-down-mh-17-buk-312-story-false- Here] (and mirrored [http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2014/12/17/buk-312-crew-member-says-rebel-shoot-down-of-flight-mh17-story-is-false-transcript/ here]) is an English translation of the interview. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: And [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2rRCSNp33I here] is the video itself with English subtitles. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 20:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:What you said about the accident and the photo showing the damaged BUK on a trailer is about the very photo the SBU showed on their website as "evidence" and later removed. Also adding that he says friends in Lugansk saw "rebels" trying to repair the units they had left behind, but he knows that "whole equipment units" were lacking so the remaining stuff was "unusable". And that he says that he asked his ex-comrades still operating the BUK if they dunnit, and they said they didn't. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Good to see this section expand. Interesting additions from the alleged operator, and reasonable-sounding (the photo might show smoke stains to the back left side). But in the end, this issue might be not so relevant. I doubt it was Kiev's unit 312 that was used, and seeing how Kiev always was eyeing a supposedly Russian unit 3x2, maybe 312 ... In fact, if the middle number connotes unit number, and it's done the same, the launcher is always 1 and it would be 312 (or is that mixed-up?) So maybe all this really shows is how Kiev knew but didn't want to say all along, implausibly picking their own 312 to illustrate that knowledge with an embarrassing but harmless "error", while awaiting ... as it turns out, the independent Bellingcat investigation that finds 3x2 somehow in Russia... That tracked this ludicrous Buk field trip, as presented and followed on this page, which almost seems tailor-made for them, but Kiev wants us to know they they were secretly on the ball too from the start. (all thoughts in progress, a bit distracted too) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::::If SBU wanted to point out they knew the TELAR had number 312, why would they publish the photo in [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmI2KCOt_sA such a low resolution] that the number could not be read? -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 21:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: As Resup summarized, 1 is the battery number. The leading 3 means it's from the Lugansk division. If this is true, the fact that 312, 321 and 323 have been seen together on video in March perfectly fits with what the alleged operator said: That they were removing units in usable state from (all batteries of the division) Lugansk early on, leaving the crap behind. And the view that the SBU just published everything they could find to fit their tale that the "rebels" used a BUK to down the plane, including this photo, cut-together and taken out of context audio tapes and that ridiculous "plume" pic, and the 3x2 bellingcat nonsense from lately is meant to distract from these facts, is much simpler and straight forward than what you tried to come up with here on the fly. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::Ah, I see it now, not when I was typing, sorrys. Middle number could be anything, bust mostly we always see low numbers, so odds are good it was a "1". 3 means from Lugansk if that's true (presuming so) and it's Ukrainian. Diff. number paintjob though, as noted below. But I'm sure the Ukies just faked this exact 312 to a different style of 312 and then painted it out partly, and just let it slip with the one photo of how it looked before...? We'll have a hard time agreeing here, as the stuff you just dismiss as "nonsense" looks kind of like possible evidence with details I'm sort of trying to consider. I don't see how you can just ignore it as if it must be wrong somehow, and all made up to distract from ... this 312 disguised as 3x2 theory? Where it wasn't even at the end of that fake plume anyway and might be totally irrelevant or entirely fake? Or, what am I missing? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::Didn't you say that you haven't even watched the videos and checked the geolocation/origin yourself, if they really are from Russia etc.? Well, I certainly won't. Because I have no reason to believe that the sources are more truthful with the "evidence" than they have been before, and that track record is well established. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::::Yeah, which is why I'm neither in a good position to say they aren't wrong/fake, nor to go against my usual presumption it will be sound (has been so far, on this subject anyway) And by the supposed stills compare to supposed satellite imagery, it looked like a good match (I did skim the site once I could). I don't like the implication either, and I want it to be wrong. And it may well be, but I'll want to see how. And hey, there's a whole other section or two about this below... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
:::: I watched the video [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bj-VZB0ZdEA with the Ukie BUKs in March] again. There are actually more than the three I mentioned earlier. It starts with 323, which is not a TELAR. Followed by the two TELARs 321 and 312. Then comes what is also not a TELAR but what looks differently than 323: Number 301. Followed by two more TELARs, 331 and 332. So they could all be from the Lugansk division, parts of batteries 0 to 3. But one would suspect that the batteries are internal always numbered the same way. "A" says:<br />
::::: ''BUK is a complex of 4 specialized military vehicles: command post, mobile target detection and assignment station, loading and starting station, self-propelled fire installation.''<br />
::::So if 1 and 2 are TELARs, why are there two of them and why is 301 what could be the detection station with a radar? Is 323 a loading station? --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::::Too rusty, but good questions. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::: Ah, I think we can sort this out [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SA-11 thanks to wikipedia]:<br />
:::::''A standard Buk battalion consists of a command vehicle, target acquisition radar (TAR) vehicle, six transporter erector launcher and radar (TELAR) vehicles and three transporter erector launcher (TEL) vehicles. A Buk missile battery consists of two TELAR and one TEL vehicle.''<br />
:::: So our "A" didn't mean that a battery consists of 4 vehicles, but that the whole BUK consists of 4 different kinds of vehicles, some more than once. From this I deduce that "0" is for command and detection units (here our main radar 301) of the Lugansk division 3, and the batteries 1,2 and 3 each consist of two TELARs (numbered 1 and 2, here 312,321,331 and 332) and one TEL (numbered 3, the first vehicle in the video, 323). Makes sense? --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 13:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::Russia said Ukraine had 27 BUK launchers in the crash area, i.e. one brigade, or what ever comes in the hierarchy above battalion. If all units are numbered the same way, from 101 to 333, then one TELAR in 18 should be numbered 312. Maybe [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:9K37_Buk_of_the_Ukrainian_military,_Independence_Day_parade_in_Kiev.JPG not.] Russian numbers seem to reach higher. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 01:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::::Good find. The existence of 114 and 115 makes it more complicated. The [http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buk_M1 German Wikipedia article] says, contradicting the English one, that one battery consists of one command vehicle, one main radar, four TELARs and four TELs. But if that's true, there's no logical place for Radar 301, and why would one TEL be number 3 and the other three TELs numbers 6 to 8? --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 10:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
How to read BUK numbers<br />
This is how you decipher 312:<br />
<br />
3 stands for the third (Lugansk) division,<br />
1 stands for the battery number, ours was no. 1,<br />
2 stands for one of the 2. service units in each battery, ours was no.2<br />
<br />
according to a Ukrainian who explains it was "his" bUK (but not in his hands at the time)that shot down MH17. One of th many reports [http://www.opednews.com/articles/Shooting-Down-MH-17--BUK-by-Michael-Collins-Buk-312_False-Accusations-Of-Terrorism_False-Flag-Attacks_Mh17-Airline-Crash-141217-104.html about this interview] This claim is now superceded by the Capt Voloshin air-to-air claims. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 15:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
That solder knew nothing about who shot the Boeing. He was talking to Sharii, who previously made a video showing that Buk shown on SBU website is actually Ukrainian Buk 312. Later, the soldier emerged, saying that Buk 312 was his. (Claim of this one shooting Boeing is not his, it is SBU early claim) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 16:48, 26 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
While Voloshin story may be a play on destroyed by SBU evidence. There is supposed to be a log of flights, missiles fired, likely those logs no longer exist. Also before they claimed SU 25 were lost on 16 of July, but SBU denial of Voloshin story had SU 25 shot on 17 of July. And that Dnepropetrovsk airport traffic control lady vanished without a trace. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 16:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Supposed 321 belonging to KIEV<br />
::video shows three BUk sets [http://eurazya.today/2015/04/11/about-the-buk-312-who-allegedly-shot-down-mh17/ from 0.31 mark] but I can't really pick the number, they say it is 321. at Gorlovka in March. One on a white lowloader. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 12:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== Russian claims ====<br />
As part of their July 21 presentation of evidence, the Russian Ministry of Defense published satellite images allegedly showing Ukrainian BUK positions around Donetzk ([http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ RT report]). It's no secret the Ukrainian military maintains a base with anti-aircraft units. The facility shown in the Russian presentation (best seen [http://rt.com/files/news/2a/9a/00/00/4.jpg here]) I located - it's south of Avdeyevka, 3 km north of the airport, about 5 km north of Donetsk like they say. Visual match first, then noticed the label could have found it for me ... [http://wikimapia.org/#lat=48.0999781&lon=37.7578908&z=16&l=0&m=b&show=/16956839/ru/Зенитно-ракетный-дивизион-в-ч-А-1428&search=Donetsk on Wikimapia]. Labels, translated: Anti-aircraft missile battalion (in / h A-1428) One of the three anti-aircraft missile battalions ("Buk-M1"), located in Avdeyevka, Mariupol and Lugansk." BUK-type launcher photos included. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The counter-arguments to this at least sometimes fail. [http://www.interpretermag.com/mh17-and-moscows-magical-mystery-jets/ Interpreter rag] decided "the presence of Ukrainian government air defense systems is something of a red herring, not least given the clear evidence that the separatists had deployed at least one Buk system in the area." The side with a ''motive'' and clear, moving and likely operating units of the things on that day (see below) is irrelevant and shouldn't be considered because there's apparently also proof the presumed bad guys also had the units they needed to be so presumed. The very fact that separatists aren't ruled out means the other side should be free of any danger of being ruled in, and the separatists should ruled in just as automatically as they were ''before'' this social-media verification came in. This is clearly an irresponsible suggestion. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC) and --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Kiev's Buks Shuffled?===<br />
<br />
* From Russia's military press conference: [http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ RT, 10 Questions] - [http://www.ruaviation.com/docs/1/2014/7/22/83/ in more detail]<br />
:''3. Why was a large group of air defense systems deployed to the militia-held area if the self-defense forces have no planes?''<br />
:“As far as we know, the Ukrainian military had three or four air defense battalions equipped with Buk-M1 SAM systems deployed in the vicinity of Donetsk on the day of the crash. This system is capable of hitting targets within the range of 35 km at the altitude of up to 22 km.”'' <br />
:''4. Why did Kiev deploy BUK missile systems on the edge of militia-controlled zones directly before the tragedy?''<br />
:''“We have satellite photos of the places where Ukraine had its air defense units deployed in the southeastern parts of the country. The first three photos were made on July 14. The first photo shows Buk launchers 8 km northwest of Lugansk. You can clearly see a TELAR and two TELs. The second photo shows radars 5 km north of Donetsk. You can see two TARs along with other equipment and technical structures. The third photo shows air defense systems north of Donetsk. You can clearly see a TELAR launcher and about 60 military and auxiliary vehicles, tents for vehicles and other structures.''<br />
<br />
:''“Here’s a photo of the same area made on July 17. Please note that the launcher has disappeared. The fifth photo shows a battery of Buk missiles at the village of Zaroshchenskoye 50 km east of Donetsk and 8 km south of Shakhtyorsk on the morning of the same day. The sixth photo shows the same area on July 18. As you can see, the battery has left.”''<br />
<br />
Note: the <s>latter</s> fourth photo of July 17 has substantial cloud cover, but unless they happened to hide the launchers in those areas (or Russia's satellites waited until the area was covered) it appears the noted vehicles have left to go do something - on/by the 17th, where they say launchers appear and then disappear in a town closer to the crash on the 17th. Zaroshchenskoye [http://maps.yandex.com/?text=Ukraine%2C%20Donets'ka%20region%2C%20Shakhtars'kyi%20district%2C%20Zaroshchens'ke%20ville&sll=38.446008%2C47.98844&ll=38.517419%2C48.048098&spn=0.810242%2C0.300187&z=11&l=map on Yandex maps] - 13 miles SSW of the crash sitel, 9 miles W-SW of Torez..--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
On July 30, Vitalyi Naida, head of Ukrainian Security Service SBU’s counter-intelligence, came up with a series of slides ([http://euromaidanpress.com/2014/07/30/russia-fakes-mh17-crash-site-satellite-images-says-sbu/ short article], [http://www.sbu.gov.ua/sbu/control/en/publish/article?art_id=129610&cat_id=35317 announcement on SBU website] with link to [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ut1JExQKV-0 youtube-video showing the slides (presumably Ukrainian language)]) allegedly showing that the Russian material was "faked". He points to a patch of trees, claiming they had been cut down shortly before the 17th, while Russia's images show the trees intact. On August 1, the Russian Ministry of Defense published [http://eng.mil.ru/en/analytics.htm a rebuttal] advising that<br />
:''Instead of presenting hastily doctored evidence to the international community, the SBU could do with better control over all the mercenary units in the areas around Donetsk and Lugansk organized by Kolomoisky, Lyashko, Yarosh and others, who shell Ukrainian territory without any control from those in charge of the anti-terrorist operation.''<br />
<br />
The trees probably are cut down by now, but we'll have to wait for the true details of just when they were and when the image showing that was taken, or if the image shown is even of any one day and not a composite - "doctored" as Russia says. Other clues suggest launchers moving out of this area at that time: The [[#Paris Match Photo]] - ostensibly from the morning of the 17th - shows the infamous launcher-loaded truck seen in Lugansk, or one just like it, being carried on a truck belonging to a company just south of the missile base in northern Donetsk. That was seen carrying the launcher east out of town at 11:15 AM, purportedly on July 17 (and with the location completely fudged to say Snizhne, when it was only headed there).--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Zaro redeploy.png|left|600px]]The Russian military press conference said "The fifth photo shows a battery of Buk missiles at the village of Zaroshchenskoye 50 km east of Donetsk and 8 km south of Shakhtyorsk on the morning of the same day. The sixth photo shows the same area on July 18. As you can see, the battery has left." (#5 inset) The Ukraine@War blog's analysis decided this image as well was fake. That's mentioned [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com/2014/08/ukrainian-sbu-comes-with-conspiracy.html here] if not elsewhere. The reason: "the shadows of these BUKs have a different direction for all three of them. It means these were pasted into the image." I have to admit, it looks a bit like that. The trees have consistent shadows to the west, in a morning image. The furthest vehicle to the left has a visible shadow about like that. The other two don't seem to, and the one furthest right seems to have a shadow on the wrong side (looks like early PM). I wracked my brain just a little thinking of other explanations aside from just low resolution. Nothing much came up. Anyone else? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br /><br /><br />
<br />
<br />
: '''New video proves UKIE BUKS ACTIVE'''<br />
: video has surfaced, posted to Youtube on July 16, taken a few days before, showing a Ukie BUK radar [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3MomxNHnUA being rotated]. The reporter is taken somewhere in a helicopter and proudly shown the BUK. Segment starts around 4.17 in the chopper, BUK shown briefly at 4.45. Label does not say where exactly, just reads "Officers of Ukrainian Armed Forces patrolling in the ATO zone". <br />
: This ties in with claims that they were doing anti-aircraft exercises, probably in response to claims/fears the Antonovs were brought down not by the rebs but by aircraft from Russia. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 10:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::Thanks! We had this July 16 video [[Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17/BUK_Tracking#Kiev.27s_Holdings| elsewhere]], but here is a good place... The other video, from March, was not seen. There were few more early sightings of Ukrainian Buks, uncertain locations, with those 3** numbers; maybe should get a good place to keep them all --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::: Location of sighting is unclear. But according to some reports ([http://lifenews.ru/news/136731 LifeNews]), on July 16 UAF SU 25 was shot down from a height of 6 km by opolchenie MANPADs. That was near Russian border, --reports say the plane actually crossed into Russia, not far from Marinovka. It could be suspected by Ukraine that a Russian plane was involved, so it will be plausible to have Ukrainian coverage of the accident area by BUKS. On July 14, it was reported that [http://m.rosbalt.ru/ukraina/2014/07/16/1292690.html AN 26 was shot down in Luhansk] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
There is strange twist of Logic in Bellingcat's report about satellite photos. The photo with Buks in the field is claimed to be manipulated.They found that July 17 image was manipulated but only in the region of clouds. They don't say that BUK was removed by software (there are 4 more vehicles missing). But on all Google earth photos BUK never moved (and those 4 vehicles). So did it move ever or not? Manipulation of Google earth photos or likely their source is not new.[http://www.imediaethics.org/News/130/Exclusive__google_investigating_photoshopped_gogle_map_image_.php]<br />
<br />
Surprising Google earth have more updated photos on the BUK base location and nearly nothing for the location where Russians seen BUKS. There is something strange about RUSSIAN supposed fakery. Doesn't make sense to me.--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 13:33, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Separatist Holdings===<br />
While much certainty has been shown it was a separatist BUK system responsible, everyone seems to acknowledge that ordinarily, they didn't have any, that were known of. Fresh sighting of them in the field, supposed admissions, and existing presumptions remain the strongest evidence. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;June 29 Seizure?<br />
The Open Newsroom team have latched onto a June 29 message from a Twitter account associated with the Donetsk People’s Republic, @DNRpress claiming separatist forces had conquered a base with anti-air BUK missiles. This is apparently the A-1402 base, as an Itar-Tass report specified. That report noted ... It seems to just cite the tweet which, it was found, used a dated photo online since mid-2013. In essence, there's no good evidence they ever did seize this place. But it was referred to by some as "Deleted DNR tweet confirming Russian rebels indeed have a BUK-M1." The crew at large seems a bit vague on the status of this base:<br />
:'' It appears that the A-1402 military unit was moved into the Donetsk region in 2007 from Odessa, and reports note that the unit was based near Donetsk airport. Local reports from June 29 cited ATO spokesman Alexei Dmitrashkivsky as stating that separatists had attacked the military unit.'' <ref name="Story1" /><br />
As we just found with geo-location, it's 3 km north of Donetsk airport, and it's the same place Russia believes is firmly government-held. It's the place they say at least one BUK-type launcher was removed from on July 17 for some reason, by Kiev's forces who run it. If [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Donetsk_Airport this basic Wikipedia article on the battle for the airport] is correct and/or in line with [[Attack on Donetsk Airport|our page on it]], the airport and anything military-related north of it would probably be government-held continuously to the present time. It's possible some launchers could have been lost during a brief seizure of the base, but this too seems doubtful. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
:Social media published many photos of the "liberated" Buk missiles. I searched for them on Google Image Search; all were old photos from more peaceful times. I have no idea what really happened. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 23:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Thanks. I hadn't looked into it myself, but recycled images made sense given the other clues that they never did take that base, or at least get anything out of it. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 00:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Something in English [https://www.facebook.com/TruthfromUkraine/photos/pb.1452285018328179.-2207520000.1409095455./1515506872005993/ on Facebook,] with links to Russian souces. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 23:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Your geolocation is wrong. The former [http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-SAM-Site-Configs-A.html SA-2 launch site] to the north of the runway is called A-1428, at least according to the [[:File:Donetsk Airport battles 5 Oct 2014.jpg|map by Komsomolskaya Pravda]]. The site was rebuilt sometime between 2002 and 2009 with new garages covering part of the SAM ring. Tactical maps say today it is still held by Ukraine, but may have been in NAF hands earlier. Base A-1402 is located south of the new terminal building along Stratonavtiv Street.<br />
<br />
When looking at the latest airport battles I noticed that Military Maps already shows structural damaged to the new terminal building. I did not expect Google to provide any relevant satelite data. In Libya we had almost daily satellite images of Tripoli, but in Syria we have seen no new photos of the battle-effected areas.<br />
<br />
I opened Google Earth to see what has changed during the war. It seems that the war has had no effect on either base. There is still a lot of military hardware parked on both bases. Most of the trucks and whatever are parked just where they were last year, or on many cases in 2007. I did not see anything that I could identify as a BUK launcher. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 02:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;Held by July 14?<br />
The US embassy in Kiev said in [http://ukraine.usembassy.gov/statements/asmt-07192014.html a press statement of July 19]:<br />
:''Intercepts of separatist communications posted on YouTube by the Ukrainian government indicate the separatists were in possession of a SA-11 system as early as Monday July 14th. In the intercepts, the separatists made repeated references to having and repositioning Buk (SA-11) systems.'' (also quoted [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/20/malaysia-airlines-mh17-videos-missile-launcher-torez-snizhne at the Guardian])<br />
As "Corporal Frisk" [http://corporalfrisk.wordpress.com/2014/07/21/comment-on-the-us-assessment-of-the-downing-of-flight-mh17/ aptly responded:]<br />
:''Having perhaps the world’s best intelligence network, and then using easily faked videos of separatist communications posted on YouTube as evidence sure has a degree of ridicule attached to it, but is also an inidcation that US intelligence believes at least some of these transcripts are real.''<br />
That's totally apt if one suspends the usual definition of "believe" (to include "wants to appear to believe," etc.) In the same piece, the author apparently gives more "credibility to the charges that the Buk-M1 is indeed Russian supplied (and possibly crewed), as opposed to stemming from captured Ukrainian stocks." As covered below, this I can agree with if we suspend the usual definition of "Russian" (to include "allegedly Russian villains," "the Ukrainian version of [http://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2011/07/african-mercenaries.html Libya's African Mercenaries] and [http://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/wiki/The_Shabiha:_Ghost_Stories%3F Syria's Shabiha]," etc.) this would be spot-on. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:54, 10 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
(more allegations to cover?)<br />
<br />
;The One That Matters<br />
Whatever the evidence rebels had Buk systems by the 14th, Kiev also has suggested, and many have accepted, that ''the one that mattered'' at least - the launcher unit that shot down MH17 on the 17th - wasn't theirs at all, but brought in and operated by Russians for the day only. If only for that reason, all the above is likely moot. See next section. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Russian Buk Field Trip? ===<br />
The Kiev regime's narrative also suggests separatists had no BUK systems of their own. Rather, someone else brought one in to their area, took it on some kind of tour through several towns thought accessible only to rebels and allies, and got it seen in each place. Then these people '''shot the airliner down themselves on the separatists' behalf.''' That party is the Russians, they say. This is perhaps best encapsulated by "counter-terrorism" chief Vitaly Nayda's early assessment. AP's July 25 report summarized it, saying "the account was based on information from intercepts, spies and resident tips."<br />
:''Nayda laid the blame fully on Russia: He said the missile launcher came from Russia and was operated by Russians. ... According to Nayda, at 1 a.m. on July 17 the launcher rolled into Ukraine across the Russian border aboard a flatbed truck. He cited communications intercepts that he would not share with the AP. By 9 a.m., he said, the launcher had reached Donetsk, the main rebel stronghold 125 miles (200 kilometers) from the border. In Donetsk it is presumed to have been off-loaded from the flatbed and started to move in a convoy on its own.''<br />
:''Nayda said the Buk turned back east toward Snizhne. Townspeople who spoke to the AP said it rolled into Snizhne around lunchtime.''<br />
:''...As for the Buk, Nayda said, intelligence suggests it went back on the move shortly after the attack. That very night, he said, it crossed the border, back into Russia.''<br />
<br />
This is full of details that don't line up with the emerging record, but the gist including a grand-circuit tour including both separatist stronghold/capitols Donestk and Lugansk plus the disaster zone, seems about right. But the evil they allowed came from and returned to Russia.<br />
<br />
This does however jibe with the Kiev allegation (I learned of through [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/07/25/snizhne-mh17-and-rebel-held-territory/ this excellent and relevant HRI article] that '''Russian jets''' violated Ukrainian airspace to '''bomb an apartment building in Snizneh on July 15th, killing 11 civilians.''' This all makes a bit of sense in context; that false flag attack was blamed by locals on Kiev'a noble Air Force - almost understandably! It "created the conditions" by which people ''might'' accept apparent a team of apparent Russians with a Buk launcher in their town two days later. The best guess for any single firing location is a field just southeast of that town (see [[#Possible Launch Sites|below]]). The locals might smile at, and later even cover for, this poisonous gift. But a trojan horse is a trojan horse, of course. They should have looked it in the mouth better, and been more aggressive with their questions. Because Russia has it in for the separatists, Kiev implies, using its skilled and well-documented team to murder 298 people in a horrific way on the separatists' behalf. This is not an accident, Kiev must know, but proof that Russia and its "inhuman" terrorists they must hate (and who do not seem to have any Buk launchers of their own, BTW) are the new global menace du jour. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Markings and the Mystery Launcher ===<br />
[[File:MH17 Buk 321 Parismatch comp.png|right]]A serial number on the launcher's side is apparently standard in Ukraine's arsenal (see [[#BUK 312 and comrades|above]]). Inset, an image comparing the side of the unit seen in [[#Paris Match Photo]], the one blamed for the shoot-down on the 17th, to TELAR unit 321. The side panels are easy enough to correlate and see the unit in the photo lacks a number, but does have a sliver of white paint (or similar) in one corner. Whoever was moving this painted it it out before this, so there is some attempt at concealment. Is this color of paint only available in Russia? The white sliver here could be part of the number, if it were painted higher up/larger than Ukraine usually does. I can't say yet how they do it. I did a Dogpile Photo search, lots of pictures, context unclear, different vehicles from different sides, mainly Vitaly Kuzmin photos so app. Russian military parades and such: --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
* Number shown, diff. vehicle: [http://military-vehicle-photos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/9881.jpg #1(loader?)] - [http://pix.avaxnews.com/avaxnews/8a/6f/00006f8a_medium.jpeg #2 same?] <br />
* Launchers with no visible numbers: [http://77rus.smugmug.com/Military/May-5th-Parade-rehearsal-2014/i-t7RjrzP/0/M/5may14-33-M.jpg #1] - [http://77rus.smugmug.com/Military/12-April-Parade-2013-rehearsal/i-KHVD3Tv/0/M/12aprilrehearsal_33-M.jpg #2] - [http://livedoor.blogimg.jp/gunzichannel/imgs/b/e/be60ae58.jpg #3] - [http://military-vehicle-photos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/9880.jpg #4] - [http://77rus.smugmug.com/Military/13th-April-rehearsal-Alabino/i-fKQdjW4/0/M/13April-Rehersal-Alabino-26-M.jpg #5] <br />
* Same vehicle, Buk TELAR launcher with numbers: not found. <br />
<br />
At the moment, the lack of a number almost makes it look Russian. The next panel over seems to have smaller numbers, or characters anyway. Nothing yet tells me the Russians add a smaller number on the panel behind that, with or without special stencils available only in Russia. Is that even a number, or does it say return to Putin? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== Bellingcat and 3x2 ====<br />
:''moved from [[#Paris Match Photo]]''<br />
<br />
Adam: somebody's favorite Bellingcat is now saying, I understand, that he is capable to read off the number of this Buk from this blurry low resolution Paris Match photo, using unspecified colored magic and some expertly fitted proprietary boxes. Well actually this is so proprietary that he can ONLY read the first number 3, and the last number 2, but is completely unable to read the middle one. Because, he does not want this to be this Ukrainian [http://uainforg.livejournal.com/1811500.html Buk 312] , nah, noway. He rather want it to be the Russian Buk 3 X 2, where X stand for Russian, and for secret, as somebody is said to unearth this dirty monster in Russia, as he says (I guess). This looks too much baloney as far as I am concerned; you can read any number you set in advance from this blurry photo, and fit there any other crap, boxed-shaped or wiggly, all essentially at will. Just recording this latest saga page in case somebody has more enthusiasm to chase it than myself. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 00:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
:No, you didn't quite understand, but thanks for the tip. An interesting twist I wish I'd caught sooner. First, this helps the West at large get in synch finally with Kiev - it was Russia, not the separatists, who owned and perhaps ran that unit. Second, it seems to me the match is at least as good as they say, but there's at least one aspect of it I think is hilarious and I wouldn't be surprised if they managed to miss it. I'll be back - this one deserves a quick blog post. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: I agree with Resup, this stinks of baloney designed to divert attention from the [[#BUK_312_and_comrades]] story. The worst thing about Brown Noses and cohorts is the amount of coordinated promo they get in pre$$titute media. SPIEGEL today [http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/jan-fleischhauer-ueber-wladimir-putin-und-mh17-abschuss-kolumne-a-1004898.html has a op-ed piece by a particularly douchebaggy example] on those independent genius investigators as well. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::I need to brush up on what that 312 story is... because it looks like this used to say 312. Ultimately I suspect its some kind of baloney, but just where it breaks down I don't know. It is amazing how they get such praise for investigating the right things (never did get back to the Houla Massacre) and finding the right truth... Daily Fail says "The authors said that 'our investigation was made possible by the examination of open source material overlooked by other organisations'." Oh goodness, that technique they must have invested ... maybe if we started doing that we'd get praises too! --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/11/08/origin-of-the-separatists-buk-a-bellingcat-investigation/<br />
The report and whole site was not coming up when I tried (might be a problem on my end), so I don't even know what's behind their pay-wall. In the interim I checked around. [http://thetruthserumblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/an-open-and-transparent-investigation.html Here's a critical blog article I like] that mentions another article praising the report. But what was useful was [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2827853/Russian-military-supplied-missiles-ahead-MH17-shooting-says-new-independent-report-evidence-points-Russian-separatists-responsible.html the Daily Mail's Australian promo article] with the cover and a few images from the report as well as a summary. The 3x2 ... This lets me quickly see what 3x2 refers to. And actually, it looks like a good description and even a good match. The number is not from Paris Match photo but from footage I haven't noticed, they say from inside Russia - presumably a Russian unit then - seen conspicuously moving towards Ukraine in late June. (the source of these images and details might be worth checking into) ... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 3x2 Comp.png|right]]Bottom is Paris Match, skewed to match. Top is the new (to me) Bellingcat June 23 image As I just put together [http://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2014/11/how-russians-covered-up-truth-partly.html here,] they seem to be onto something here. It's something silly. But it's something strongly suggested by real paint in recognizable patterns.<br />
<br />
Implied: Russians wanted to hide this thing's identity, maybe because they were about to do something secret with it. So first they painted out the number in the middle - I think it was a one. Except they left one little corner of white visible. Just got tired. It's identifiable (in both images). <br />
<br />
Then before it appeared in Ukraine, it was rendered totally unidentifiable: they boldly blacked out the 3, and perhaps at the same time even, the 2 - except for a larger identifiable sliver. Just got tired. It's next to the other dot. <br />
<br />
Haha, no way to connect these now! Also a light patch next to the small number (and the number, as far as we can see) matches, as does a light patch along the lip below that. My guess: this is the same suspect vehicle seen gettin' hauled all over on the "stolen" truck with the phone number left on. Was it actually in Russian territory as well as near so many rebel checkpoints around dawn? For how long was it there? Bellingcat cannot confirm that Russian unit 3x2 ever returned to its base in Russia ... nor, I guess, that it ever actually left, or was ever Russian, or didn't have its truncated paint job simulated and expanded on another vehicle... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
::He got some photos of an actual [http://www.kavicom.ru/news-view-12861.html convoy], almost certainly in Russia, fairly hi-res photos, no 3*2 there. Than out-of-a-blue-or-elsewhere, he gives photos from convoy made by 'local residents', now with discolored 3*2 photo(s) there; I could not spot details where this photo is now coming from. He claims it "shows on 8 out of 16 videos", but I do not know where is a single one. He also compares tank track and plate above profiles for these 2 photos; details are blurred (and also those profiles change from use), can't say how much they match each other by eye; don't trust his fitted lines, or his conclusion accepting those, but did not try matching myself (no tools to do it quickly; or enough photo resolution to feel strongly motivated). This is doable but doing it tool-free takes time; and not knowing that second photo is definitely in Russia, I am not convinced spending a lot of time is worthwhile. This is clearly a well-supported operation, so the burden of proving their own version is on them; and they did not bother even linking the videos, no clue where are those. His report downloads without problems at this time. <br />
::Also details such as dirty rear skirt and a bend there likely are common; dirt is because exhaust is through the opening above; skirt likely is bent when there is servicing, or example changing tracks or doing something else, like maybe servicing engine. Buk 321 above on this page has dirt and bend, for example. This bend is something which can be easily produced, same goes with the painting job, both things together can be done in well under 1/2 hour. If they had an example of how something in Russia looks like, not difficult to do it for a blurry photo. Clearly, with phone well-displayed, etc, the purpose of all this is a demo job. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Here is a publication [http://censor.net.ua/video_news/274823/ukraina_zaschischaet_donetsk_ot_napadeniya_rossii_zenitnoraketnye_kompleksy_buk_zanimayut_pozitsii_fotovideo Ukraine defends Donesk from Russiam attack, missile complex Buk takes positions], with photo, video of Ukrainian BUks, numbers 323, 321, 312, 301, 331,332. (Some of them have dirty skirts, e.g. 301 looks dirty and bent...). Ukrainian radio is playing on the video. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 21:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Thanks, and I get the lack of motivation, and the ambiguity. That #312 I'll compare later ... looks like a different number style (thinner) with vehicle color less clear ... I guess this could be innocent dirt instead of black paint, but it's some thick dirt, and by the end almost totally covering the numbers on this particular unit ... or two that can seem the same. (?) So it still seems most likely paint, that is deliberate obfuscation - that was also comically slow and incomplete (with clean edges to the white parts and no visible parts of gray half-covered numbers) . It must be a problem with my system (updating soon) but I still can't connect to the site or get the report. I'm not mad motivated myself, but will want to check the alleged video source and geolocation eventually. Before I was seeing this as a Kiev unit simply snuck across the internal line. So the big wrinkle of course is it being in Russia. Options if the geolocation of June 23 is right: <br />
* it wasn't there (faked match-up - As you say, all matching features ''could'' be faked, not just the paint) <br />
* or Ukraine snuck theirs across (with a whole convoy?) just to get it seen there <br />
* or they snuck over and stole this one while it was near the border <br />
* or Russia willingly sent it over, with or without a subsequent theft by people intent on misusing it on the separatists' behalf. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
There is actually a 3*2 Buk in Russia, he put links to videos on his [https://www.mapbox.com/labs/bellingcat/index.html map], I looked at 06/23 Troitskiy (Odnoklassniki) goroskop odnoklassniki ru/video/14723648043?fromTime=25 . But I doubt it can be concluded that Paris Match is a match (number itself can't be read, this is just bogus). For example, that dot in the Russian version appears to be a bit further to the right (60 % of total panel length) , while Paris Match is closer to 50 (I got 52 %). Also, in Russian version, it is almost level with protruding to the right part of number 2; in Donetsk photo, I'd say it's a bit lower (but blurriness creates problems to measure) . Panel to the left of number panel appear to look very different; in Russian case, clear horizontal line above the main bottom line; not so in Donetsk, a messy lower line. As for the skirt, it it dirty but actually does not look broken in the Russian version, just some frames create such impression. In Donetsk, hard to know (to blurry to tell crack from dirt) but there is serious change in angle there somehow; (could be the windshield playing some tricks). (Also, in Donetsk, it is dirty windshield, not actually certain what makes the dot; but it is roughly where expected, so I can go with this being paint assumption). <br />
:No point for the rebels to display it prominently in Donetsk (not far from UAF BUK base), than go towards Snizhne; this just has no point at all. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 00:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
:I'm the one, ironically, claiming to see things in that griny mess. I'd never do it unless I saw t spot well whiter than the others AND seen in another view ... didn't even notice until then. To note, your descriptions are of the first version of the graphic, now updated. Becuase of overall problems, I cut what seemed just the number panel (including shadowed edge) and put it on top of where it should be. Same proportions, within a pixel or two, "find edges" to mark the white patches, and it remains lining up. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 3x2 comp 2.png|right|420px]]At right: it can't be the embarrassingly misrepresented Ukrainian 312 they're hiding, unless that was painted over before this other one .... FWIW, the middle dot would still line up with the serif on that "1." As the updated blog article notes, if "the Russians" were smart, they would have painted this slender 312, or other recognizable number and style, on there. Instead, this nonsense.... <br />
<br />
I suppose that Ukraine ''might'' have known about this 3x2 video and match in advance (and never mentioned it?) and that's why they found a photo of ''a Buk 312''' (not checking what it actually showed, and just claimed they knew was en route to escape into Russia, after parking for yet another photo?) No, that doesn't make much sense. But I sense a link. Maybe that's because I'm seeing 312 when maybe it's 872, for all we really know. Maybe instead of partly painted out it was just left never fully painted in. Too many unknowns and now I'm unenthusiastic about it. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Whatever one thinks of this graphic comparison and interpretation, the strange and suspect thinking it implies is consistent with what else we know about how this "secret" operation was carried out. If true, it would fit this broader pattern (real or reported clues left by whoever, all open to interpretation, and here couched in the terms of allegations by Kiev and supporters):<br />
<br />
* Recalling that this whole weapon itself would have no normal business in the area and would be denied later, it should have been kept secret. Instead, it was driven around in broad daylight on the same day as the crime, just partly covered with a tarp but revealing all clues needed to identify it, its hidden ID number, and its full rack of missiles.<br />
* The truck it was so displayed on was stolen in Donetsk, and kept with the huge sign on its side with the apparent owner's phone number on it. When the media called that number, little surprise, the owner told them pro-Russian "fighters from Slaviansk" who took over his whole trucking company on July 8 (see [[#The Truck Owner's Story|here]]) Put lightly, this is a stupid way to secure a rig one intends to use for a secret operation like this was supposed to be.<br />
* They loaded the truck in Donetsk, likely at the commandeered site in the north of Donetsk, near the Ukrainian base with Buk launchers, in a coincidence. This truck then got seen leaving Donetsk on the 17th, parked pointing east at the east outskirts, then seen driving in convoy (a couple civilian cars with the operational crew moved with the truck) past Zuhres and then through Torez to the east. They were seen arriving in Snizhne around noon, then the Buk unit seen off the truck and driving in stand-alone, and it was then seen again driving south out of Snizneh, towards the apparent launch location.<br />
* The people running the convoy made sure AP journalists saw them in Snizhne just before the shoot-down from a bit south of there. The convoy stopped, and a man in unusual uniform "approached the journalists. The man wanted to make sure they had not recorded any images of the missile launcher. Satisfied that they hadn’t" filmed that secret missile launcher there, but had noticed it, and their intention to remain sooper seekrit "the convoy moved on." All this was made quite clear to the media and apparently published even before the news that MH17 was shot down. ([http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/what-happened-the-day-flight-17-was-downed/2014/07/25/716c36e4-142b-11e4-ac56-773e54a65906_story.html AP Via Washington Post]) <br />
* After the disastrous attempt to secretly provoke a Russian invasion, with utmost discretion the operators put the smoking gun, its rack of one-less missiles left uncovered, back on the same truck and drove it and the phone number back to Russia - by a strange detour on a long route towards the other easily-recognizable smoking gun rebel capitol, Lugansk ... when government ATO forces had just battled their way to the edge of Lugansk ... and got seen there passing at dawn on the main highway south, apparently having come from the center of town, and then presumably drove to Krasnodon (rebel-held) and to Russia....<br />
<br />
The fail delivery here is almost flawless, with no mistake left unmade and hardly any reasonable gaps to call for deduction. Letting multiple camera views on both sides of the porous border capture and track the gradual move to this stealth mode seems pretty consistent to me.--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Note: the implications of this contested finding, and the visual basis for it as well, is continued below under [[#If Buk 3x2 Was in Russia]] --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
I think one point is still not discussed here. Look at this video from 26 June 2014. You might have seen it before. But what is striking, all the Buks shown do not have numbers painted on them. Not only it will allow to paint new numbers or any clumsy painting on the side, using video of a known BUK, it also means that those BUKS were not accounted for when Ukrs presented evidence, if they ever presented, about the location of all the existing and operational BUKS <br />
[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BBEYZHOT0bQ]--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 13:29, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== General Observations === <br />
*It is clear that pro-Kiev side produced early and persistent stream of fakes, misrepresentations, or selective half-truths, all aimed to place the blame on Russia and/or "separatists" as a part of well organised and supported information warfare. This information warfare did not establish an objective to prove the blame of Russia or "separatists", as any of those media creations will not survive a rigorous scrutiny, and there is nothing to bring to court in particular. However it successfully altered Western perceptions in early days past the catastrophe, and helped to impose sanctions and other 'increased costs' on Russia, bringing the world on the brink of another cold war. It brought situation in Ukraine closer to perpetual chaos, and kept closely related people to continue killing each other every day. Although those fakes and misrepresentations were later realized to be such, those costs and calamities were not reversed. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*After moving equipment close to border, why would Russia send just a single TELAR to Ukraine in a highly visible manner as it was alleged? For meaningful operation of Buk, one would send at least 1 TELAR, 1 TEL (to be able to load missiles), and 1 command vehicle (as radar on TELAR gives only poor basic operation)? There are also lots of support vehicles seen, in case of something meaningful all that is needed. So moving single TELAR is all but pointless from military standpoint. Single TELAR is mostly for a show of sort. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Reported SIghtings == <br />
(consider along with the visual sightings below) <br />
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/what-happened-the-day-flight-17-was-downed/2014/07/25/716c36e4-142b-11e4-ac56-773e54a65906_story.html AP via Washington Post] <br />
shows the separatists strategy to not be seen as they rolled the murder weapon around:<br />
:''Even before the plane was downed, the AP had reported on the presence of the missile launcher in the town July 17. Here is what that dispatch said:''<br />
:''“An Associated Press reporter on Thursday saw seven rebel-owned tanks parked at a gas station outside the eastern Ukrainian town of Snizhne. In the town, he also observed a Buk missile system, which can fire missiles up to an altitude of 22,000 meters (72,000 feet).''<br />
:''AP journalists saw the Buk moving through town at 1:05 p.m. The vehicle, which carried four 18-foot (5.5-meter) missiles, was in a convoy with two civilian cars.''<br />
:''The convoy stopped. A man in sand-colored camouflage without identifying insignia — different from the green camouflage the rebels normally wear — approached the journalists. The man wanted to make sure they had not recorded any images of the missile launcher. Satisfied that they hadn’t, the convoy moved on.''<br />
<br />
That kind of pro-Russian sooper-seekrisy aimed at the media in front of the media should stop them being seen, right? No, oddly, it didn't. See below. The clumsy bastards could hardly have implicated themselves any more thoroughly than they did that day. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
One interesting post at the Ukraine@War blog mentions two tweets, both from July 17 and before the crash, mentioning this BUK launcher on a trailer at places consistent with the video record. [https://twitter.com/MOR2537/status/489702736766586880 One of them] (translated) sounds perhaps ''too'' informed, and says "Was driven missile system on the tractor cover + two cars after Thorez (Torez) in snowy (Sniznoyeh) in 12-10 (at 12:10? Too early...)." [https://twitter.com/_StradivariuS_/status/489704260045910016 The other one] says "(someone this) morning wrote that (the truck) stood (parked for some time) on b.Shahtostroiteley not intersection with Ilchicha, aside (heading towards) Makeevki. waiting to see (to be seen?) If that's an intersection named, it's a different parking spot identified as being [https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=48.002515,37.854917&spn=0.010222,0.02444&t=h&z=16 here on Google Maps,] one km west of the spot it was parked for the "Paris Match" photo. Otherwise, it refers only to the same place. The contributor noted "Another interesting detail in that tweet is that “it was standing” and “they were waiting”. My understanding of that phrasing is that the #Buk was actually parked there for some time. Meaning there might be witnesses." <ref name="UWD">[http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com/2014/07/reconstruction-of-whereabouts-of-buk.html CONFIRMED the BUK that shot down MH17 has indeed been in Donetsk] P. Martin, Ukraine@War, July 23, 2014</ref> There was a witness with a camera, and a photo sent to the Western media. That almost seems to have been the idea - to get witnessed like that. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== SBU Wiretap Clues ==<br />
I just had a look at the SBU wiretap transcripts, ones released July 19. In it is a segment tying in with the above stop or stops in Donetsk, the exact spot of the [[#Paris Match Photo]], and the general orders to drive east with the launcher. I'm not up on the wiretap stuff - if this is the same material said to be corroborated by the US as the real people talking. But briefly, know that parking spot in just past a roundabout, by a motel and a bus station, well short of a crossing Hornostaivska street halfway to Makiivka. Important clue to why it was here this thing had to get seen and talked about: one source claims this roundabout at the edge of town is "a big separatist checkpoint established on Jun 3 at the road circle." <ref name="UWD" /> This is supposed to all be pretty damning, and I must say it's at least looking like a pretty slick plan may be going on here, with pre-scripted parts that come into play later, etc. From Kiev mouthpiece UaToday, parts of a transcript they ran with the video and other allegations, on the 19th - How credible is this evidence?<br />
:''Khmuryi: Sergei Nikolaevich Petrovskiy, year of birth 1964, officer of Main Intelligence Directorate of Russian Federation, Deputy Chief of Ihor Girkin on Intelligence, at the time of the interception he was in Donetsk.''<br />
:''“Buryat” – militant of terrorist organization “DNR” (to be indentified).''<br />
:''Buryat: – Where should we load this beauty, Nikolaievich?''<br />
:''Khmuryi: Which one? This one?''<br />
:''B: Yes, the one I’ve brought. I’m already in Donetsk.''<br />
:''K: Is it the one I’m thinking about? “B…,”M” one?''<br />
:''B: Yes, yes, yes. “BUK”,”BUK”.''<br />
:''K: Is it on a tractor?''<br />
:''B: Yes, it’s on it. We need to unload it somewhere, '''in order to hide.'''''<br />
:''K: Is it with a crew?''<br />
:''B: Yes, with the crew.''<br />
:''K: '''Don’t hide it anywhere.''' She’ll go there now.''<br />
:...<br />
:''Khmuryi: – Tell me, have you brought me one or two?<br />
:''Buryat: One, one. Because they had a misunderstanding there. They didn’t give us a tug. We loaded it and went at their own pace.''<br />
:''K: Did it go on her own or on a tug?''<br />
:''B: It crossed the line (border).''<br />
:''H: And now have you brought it on a tug? Don’t put in anywhere… I’ll tell now where it should go, it will go together with “Vostok” tanks.''<br />
:...<br />
:''K: Sanych, the point is that my “BUK–M” (modified Russian SAM system) will go with yours, it is on a tug. Where should I drive it to put in a column?''<br />
:''Sanych: There, behind “Motel”, not reaching Hornostaevka.''<br />
:''K: Just after the Motel, right?''<br />
:''Khmuryi: Listen to me carefully, behind the circle near “Motel” there will be you know what. Call to “Bibliotekar” (Librarian).'' <br />
The next part, to me, suggests that as far back as the 19th or earlier, people talking on tape were seeding, or working by, the SBU-proposed Aeroloft plot with the town mix-up. In that light:<br />
:''...Bring inside only those, who just came back, only as much as you need for the convoy. Leave everyone else here. Not far away '''there is Pervomaiskoe, look at the map.'''''<br />
:''DNR militant: I got it.'' (Or did he not quite get it?) <br />
:''Khmuryi: Settle somewhere in that area, bring there those who are left. Your task is reserve, plus protection of this piece (BUK–M), which you will drive now. “Giyrza” will come there too. If anything, I’m on line.'' <ref name="Trans">[http://www.uatoday.info/?p=2579&lang=en SBU releases more conversations implicating Russia in shooting down Malaysia Airlines flight (VIDEO, TRANSCRIPT)] UAToday, July 19, 2014</ref><br />
--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The veracity of that recording needs challenged well now ... the day too early claim [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17#SBU wiretap video|did not pan out,]] so it won't be that easy. Has anyone really done a good analysis tearing it apart some other way? Could it even be half-legit, with some local rebels tricked by some undercover (wire-wearing, not wire-tapping) supposed defector delivering it "with a team" coming "from Russia" (meaning Parubiy et al.)? Who knows? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Imagery Mapping ==<br />
[[File:MH17 Storyful video mapping.png|right|330px]]There have been quite a number now of photos and videos showing BUK launchers ostensibly in separatist strongholds, on July 17. The geo-location of these in such towns by social media networks has been the subject of some recent media commentary. These purported placements are worth collecting and considering here. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
One somewhat comprehensive and updated/evolving page: [http://blog.storyful.com/2014/07/19/how-social-sleuthing-uncovered-evidence-of-anti-aircraft-missile-system-in-eastern-ukraine/#.U9oY_Ua3498 How Social Sleuthing Uncovered Evidence of Surface-to-Air Missile Systems in Eastern Ukraine] Inset is a small preview of the interactive map they made of all placed images (as it stands at the end of July - [https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=200399683004956931329.0004feca5d1fbab0a1d25&msa=0&ie=UTF8&t=h&source=embed&ll=48.206371,38.968506&spn=1.281328,2.334595&z=8 full-size presentation with links, on Google Maps]) <ref name="Story1" /> <s>Note that one of them is way up in Lugansk - which one is a little unclear at the moment - the site may be wrong</s>) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;List of Scenes, placed or not<br />
* Billboard Video: released by Interior Ministry, filmed in Krasnodon before dawn, the Interior Minister says. Russian military analysis places it in Krasnoarmeysk, and the Open Newsroom crew contradicts both and decided "collaborative geo-location was able to place the footage in southwestern Luhansk.'' <ref name="Story1">[http://blog.storyful.com/2014/07/19/how-social-sleuthing-uncovered-evidence-of-anti-aircraft-missile-system-in-eastern-ukraine/#.U9oY_Ua3498 How Social Sleuthing Uncovered Evidence of Surface-to-Air Missile Systems in Eastern Ukraine] Storyful blog, July 19, 2014 and onward (updated)</ref> <br />
* Surveillance Video: located to Snizhne by Eliot Higgins, date unclear. <ref name="Story1" /><br />
* Zuhres video: Pre-geo-located by the uploader [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=48%C2%B0+1'1.38%22N++38%C2%B018'6.04%22E&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=48.034019,38.391724&spn=0.629958,1.564178&gbv=2&hnear=H21,+Zuhres,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&gl=us&t=h&z=10 here in Zuhres.] Higgins confirms, 100% sure, and others concur. Driving east. <ref name="Story1" /><br />
* Torez square photo - located by an associate of Higgins - filmed app. 11:40 AM in central Torez. See below. <br />
* Another photo placed: Snizneh, nearest the shoot-down area (f/c)<br />
* [http://www.parismatch.com/Actu/International/EXCLU-MATCH-Un-camion-vole-pour-transporter-le-systeme-lance-missiles-577289 Paris Match photo] - allegedly Snizhne, reportedly placed '''in northern Donetsk city.''' See below. <br />
<br />
===Billboard Video===<br />
(to be condensed) <br />
A video released by the Ukrainian Interior Ministry is highly dubious and worth some analysis. It shows what seems to be a BUK launcher loaded on a truck driving some direction in some town at what seems to be early twilight (or pre-dawn, depending). The [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4HJmev5xg0 original posting] (with almost 2 million views already) gives no details: "Militants take out missile system "Buk" to the border with Russiam" the title translates. "No description available," it says below, and no comments allowed.<br />
From what I've seen no one knows where this is filmed. Daily Mail says it's a "separatist stronghold," unnamed, and headed south, back towards Russia. "Ukrainian spies reportedly filmed the launcher used in the attack being smuggled to Russia - with two missiles missing." Eliot Higgins was cited by [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/20/malaysia-airlines-mh17-videos-missile-launcher-torez-snizhne the Guardian] with his new team of fundraistigators as geolocating some video and photo but not, apparently, this one. As explained at [https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1278239551/bellingcat/posts/919158 the kickstarter link] they give, Higgins writes:<br />
:''In the above video, posted by the Ukranian Ministry for Interior claiming to show the Buk missile launcher being driven towards Russia it was possible to match the transporter in the video to the transporter in Torez, details of which... (you have to subsidize their operation to see)'' --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== Avakov's Placement: Krasnodon or Lugansk ====<br />
Interior Minister Arsen Avakov said in [https://www.facebook.com/arsen.avakov.1/posts/670837696339673 a Facebook post of July 18] Google-translated: <br />
:''Covert surveillance units of MIA of Ukraine today July 18 at 4.50 am was recorded caterpillar tractor loaded with missile complex, moving in the direction through Krasnodon, toward the border with the Russian Federation. The video can be seen uncovered missiles. Two missiles in place - the average is not visible. ''<br />
:''There is an analysis of this and other information gathered. Presumably this is the missile system "Buk" that made a last shot at a civilian plane from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur .. ''<br />
:''Criminals try to hide the traces of this heinous crime. Not succeed. Security Service and Interior Ministry of Ukraine has collected and collects more irrefutable facts and evidence, the author points out the tragedy of the terrorist organization DNI / LC and its Russian backers Putin.'' <br />
:''The investigation of events MIA issue a comprehensive report on the information. This fragment consider it necessary to publish immediately.''<br />
<br />
By the 22nd, "online sleuths" had placed it in Lugansk (see below). Avakov then confirmed this - he was wrong the first time. One article makes it sound like he wasn't just echoing the sleuths:<br />
:''On July 22, Ukraine's Minister of Internal Affairs, Arsen Avakov, gave the exact coordinates of the video’s location: separatist-held Luhansk, about a 45-minute drive from Krasnodon. Locals quickly verified this claim by photographing the scene, which perfectly matches the landmarks seen in the video.'' ([http://globalvoicesonline.org/2014/07/29/russia-ukraine-mh17-conspiracy-buk/# article by one of the sleuths])<br />
<br />
====Krasnoarmeysk====<br />
One source venturing a guess is [http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ the Russian government and RT witrh their 10 intriguing questions:]<br />
:''“For example, media circulated a video supposedly showing a Buk system being moved from Ukraine to Russia. This is clearly a fabrication. This video was made in the town of Krasnoarmeisk, as evidenced by the billboard you see in the background, advertising a car dealership at 34 Dnepropetrovsk Street. Krasnoarmeysk has been controlled by the Ukrainian military since May 11.”''<br />
[[File:MH17 Billboard Vid Russian Analysis.png|right|250px]]There is a sign, but I cannot make it out just yet, if ever. Can they really? Even if that's so, surrounding towns might be good places for a dealership in Krasnoarmeysk to advertise. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
At right now is a still from a video claiming to show this, I still don't see it. They seem to think the gray span says that, perhaps from seeing a clearer view of this ubiquitous sign elsewhere. Opps. There's no reason to say a dealership in one town can only have billboards in that town. This alone fails. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 14:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Krasnoarmiis'k,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&hl=en&ll=48.323387,37.919312&spn=1.252829,3.128357&sll=48.226502,37.386475&sspn=0.627601,1.564178&oq=Krasnoarm&t=h&doflg=ptk&hnear=Krasnoarmiis'k,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&z=9 on Google Maps as Krasnoarmiis'k] - ''not'' to be confused with the Krasnoarmeisk not far away in Russia. Distance: about 100 km almost due west of the crash site. Panorama, possiblt location, directions/implications forthcoming. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Dnepropetrovsk Street is the main street of Krasnoarmeisk, leading northwest to Dnepropetrovsk. It tried matching this to the street corner where the car dealership is located. Yandex Maps did not provide a street view. It could be there, but too few details to make a positive match. Whatever this is, it is not evidence for anything. The least the SBU could have done is provide the location and some corroborating photographs.<br />
:The same applies to all so called "evidence" provided by Ukraine and the US State Department. As far as I can tell it is only cut-and-paste of unrelated footage to ''illustrate'' the claims made. A perfect example of this illusion is the "satellite photos" of Russian artillery shelling Ukraine released on Sunday morning. A photo of Russian GRADs on some unidentifiable field was placed next to a satellite image with an arrow pointing "Here Be Monsters!" Purely illustrative and no proof. There is a difference between legerdemain Hocus Pocus and outright forgery. The Russian video presentation displayed screen capture recording from the ATC radar, usually stored for two weeks. For this to be a hoax, Russia would need to create a forged tape of the radar data. Highly unlikely, as the the claim of authenticity had support of the full authority and prestige of the Russian Armed Forces. If the US presentation turns out to be hoax, State Department will claim the photos were never meant to be evidence. Some internee was told to prepare a presentation using stock images for some facts they ''knew'' to be true – trust us! -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 14:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: You must have missed [https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BtZSVQrIMAARzKr.jpg:large this], Petri! ;oP --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 18:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
::: That is an awesomely perfect picture for this sorry episode so far. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 14:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
::It would be neat though if we could show where this is and thus which way its's headed. The Kiev authorities, I think, know what happened. They say it was this exact launcher missing two missiles. It could be. Where is it at filming time and where headed? If it's true this same one was in Torez (dubious but possible) we'd have a direction traveled until that point also, and a rough time, 8:30 or so. [http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jul/27/mh17-storyful-social-media-twitter-youtube The Guardian again] citing Storyful's open-source investigation: <br />
::::''“There are now four pieces of content – three pieces of video and one image – which, in the case of three, conclusively show a Buk [surface-to-air] missile within rebel-held territory and in the case of the fourth, almost definitely in their territory,” says Storyful executive editor David Clinch. “Of those four pieces, individual groups or companies probably verified in or around the same time one or another of them.”''<br />
:''Open Newsroom verified three pieces of content and is investigating the fourth, thanks to its 900-strong network of journalists and experts. ''''<br />
:The fourth is this video. Wouldn't it be a coup if we were the first to place it? Force that intern excuse and then laugh at it. That said, it's not the most likely to place but you, Petri, especially, might be able to. I think I might. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 22:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* [https://plus.google.com/118234537318646233652/posts/LZV1XZD854E James Miller Google + July 21] "Was a Buk sighted in Krasnoarmeysk or Krasnodon (continued analysis)? We've taken a new look at this video which has been debated since it was posted days ago. We're fairly confident, though not 100% confident, in this geoanalysis, but we're making significant progress. Any more information would be extremely helpful. " Cited: [http://www.interpretermag.com/russia-this-week-lurid-anti-ukraine-propaganda-broadcast-on-state-tv/#1753 Russia This Week: Defense Ministry Claim on Buk in Billboard Video Doesn’t Add Up]<br />
:''...As we reported on our Ukraine Liveblog, the Buk was spotted before the shoot-down of the Malaysian airplane and ultimately geolocated to the town of Torez, near the location of the crash in Grabovo. Then the video, taken early the next morning on 18 July, showed a scene in Krasnodon,... <br />
--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Google Earth has one photo [http://www.panoramio.com/photo/55329278 from ул. Днепропетровская.] The street has about the same width. The streetlights are not quite the same. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 14:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
::That image doesn't help a match, especially since by now it looks like Lugansk. For the record, there was a go by pro-rebel social media people at identifying a spot in town to explain the video scene, but it didn't do that either. [http://wikimapia.org/#lat=48.276196&lon=37.176087&z=18&l=0&m=b this spot on Wikimapia] is what they pointed to - filmed from the marked building, they say, looking southwest to the mall. No matching anything. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 02:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== Placed in Lugansk! ====<br />
[[File:MH17 Billboard Vid-Lugansk Match.png|right|800px]]Storyful's rundown states of this video:<br />
:''The footage is not the original, however we believe that the first instance of this footage was removed by the uploader and the version below is the earliest we can find. Ukrainian Interior Minister, Arsen Avakov, made early claims that the video was filmed in the Ukrainian town of Krasnodon near the Russian border, however collaborative geo-location was able to place the footage in southwestern Luhansk.'' <ref name="Story1" /> <br />
It links to "Bellingcat," which you have to pay to see much of. [https://plus.google.com/118234537318646233652/posts/bMdeBzY8yty James Miller] passes on that it's "Mystery SOLVED: Video released by Ukraine's Interior Ministry does in fact show a Buk, possibly missing several missiles, in Lugansk headed east from the MH17 crash site and in the direction of Russia." The spot they think matches the video (better panorama coming) is [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=48%C2%B032'44.7%22N+39%C2%B015'52.6%22E&ie=UTF8&ll=48.545926,39.265147&spn=0.002436,0.00611&t=h&cid=0&z=18 here on Google Maps]. Was that a highway? Where's the cross-street? I see elsewhere they have a high view showing the same basic billboard there, but that's going to be true of several spots in this area. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
My impression of the scene - based on the panoramic view below - is far from matching with this. That does not look like a highway, and it just seems like a small town. However, I finally saw some of the supporting images (see [http://news.bigmir.net/ukraine/827864-V-Lygansk-vehala-kolonna-voennoi-tehniki--SMI here] and [https://twitter.com/djp3tros/status/491651820188860416/photo/1 here] - source of the inset image.) It seems a likely match after all. I won't say I confirm it with any certainty, but I don't think I'll be challenging it like I was preparing to do. Note the different billboard in the right spot, and the matching one over there. There are other images, apparently more current, showing that that they moved the one sign over to the right spot They don't point to the pinkish roofed building beyond the red-roofed one, but that adds to the match (compare to below). Whenever this video was made and whatever it really means, it seems quite likely it was at this spot in Lugansk shortly before dawn. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
There is another video from June 2014 showing the same billboard with the same car ad:<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ez8cZ3nqjCs Луганск 02 07 14]<br />
The video shows a column of BMPs with one 9K35 Strela-10 short-range surface to air missile system passing the intersection in Lugansk. I suspect they came from Russia, as [https://www.facebook.com/groups/IOUCO/permalink/584402078339517/ I specifically asked] for Putin to send in the Russian tanks that morning. They passed exactly when I expected them to, at 6 minutes past 4 am. (I estimated it would take 2 hours 6 minutes from the border.) -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 17:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== ACLOS Review ====<br />
As noted above, my review agrees with the placement agreed by the others. For what it's worth, the huge panorama I made (the middle is full-resolution) and starting notes from before I realized no work was needed. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 03:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
[[File:MH17 Billboard Video Pan.png|center|880px]]<br />
It seems to be filmed near the edge of town, or edge of a hill anyway, with a clear view ahead, two vague homes/buildings seen down the slope. Otherwise, very non-descript. The angle of intersection will be one of the better clues - it looks to me not 90 degrees ( |- ), but with the road the truck is on either slanting or curving somewhat towards the camera ( /- ). One important observation: '''there's no logical reason he should have been just happening to film this area''' unless he knew something interesting would drive by at just this odd time. That's clarified by how he zooms in just before it enters frame - he was waiting for that truck. How did he know about it? Informants on the other side of town phoning ahead makes enough sense, I suppose. <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 launcher truck composite.png|left|480px]]Another issue: If this is dusk (sunset 8:20 PM local), isn't this facing roughly northwest? If so, this vehicle is driving roughly north, not south. And we might start looking on the west edge of town. There's a highway out to the northwest, back towards Kiev. This street is too narrow and unmarked to be the highway, obviously, but it might be driving that way, for example. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
:Or, alternately, he's facing towards the sun about to rise, early on the 18th, as alleged by the Interior Ministry) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
::That he happened to be filming just before dawn is even less likely than dusk. He clearly knew this was coming, whatever that means. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 03:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Above is the composite scene without truck. At left is the truck without background. Besides lightening the scene, it seemed worth getting the clearest details from different frames into a composite view of the truck and its load. This helps compare to the launchers seen in other areas and different times. So far, they all seem to look the same and perhaps be the same. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 03:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br /><br />
<br />
==== HRI ====<br />
Pretty good points [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/08/05/mh17-the-lugansk-buk-video/ from Human Rights Investigations]:<br />
:''To sum up, the statement of Avakov, the film and its location suggest the Ukrainian authorities had advance knowledge of this BUK and trailer’s movements or control over it. It is also extremely strange that this BUK, allegedly after shooting down MH17, is supposedly filmed by a Ukrainian surveillance team in ostensibly rebel territory, with its covering missing, as if to show the world a missile is missing.''<br />
--[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Paris Match Photo ===<br />
[[File:MH17 Paris Match.png|770px]]<br /><br />
* [http://www.parismatch.com/Actu/International/EXCLU-MATCH-Un-camion-vole-pour-transporter-le-systeme-lance-missiles-577289 Originally published by Paris Match] on July 25, with the claim the picture was taken by their own reporting team near Snizhne at mid-day on the 17th. Note the prominent, apparent, telephone number prominently centered in the picture - (050) 471-41-80. The truck and launcher, as far as can be seen, are quite similar to or the same as the one seen in the billboard video anyways. How many of its missiles the unit has at this moment is unclear. <br />
<br />
* [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/07/28/why-is-paris-match-on-the-location-of-a-buk/ Human Rights Investigations:] "it turns out to have been taken in Donetsk, 75km away" (citing someone else's geo-location - [https://www.google.com/maps/@48.004592,37.87265,3a,75y,63.38h,82.21t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sRGnHwZ5YZnuGO-n_VvruWg!2e0 site link given.] <br />
:''We know this because the phone number on the truck panel (050 471 4180) leads straight to this hire place (photo):<br />
:''According to Paris-Match, the proprietor of this establishment claimed “rebels” had stolen a number of his vehicles earlier in the month. If we go from here to towards Snizhne we find the location of the Paris-Match photo, near a car dealership on Makiivske Highway on the outskirts of Donetsk:''<br />
:''After informing Paris-Match of the mistake regarding the video location, the author of the article Alfred De Montesquiou has now got back and explained:''<br />
:''Hello, indeed, it appears there was a mixup in caption : the picture was taken leaving Donetsk on road to Snijne, not in actual Snijne'' <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Donestk Buk Map.png|thumb|right|480px|Map: this truck location, the company's apparent headquarters ([https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Molodykh+Shakhtariv+St,+19,+Donetsk,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&ll=48.044923,37.783184&spn=0.079187,0.195522&hnear=Molodykh+Shakhtariv+St,+19,+Donetsk,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&t=h&z=13 GM link]), and the A-1402 missile base relative to each other.]]<br />
<br />
'''Questions:''' Was it a caption mix-up, or did their team really not know where it was taken, and just believed the real source when he said Snizneh? Who is the true photographer who knew to catch this picture near the company's base, apparently at the outset of a rather epic journey? Why did the rebel thieves leave the prominent phone number on the stolen truck used for such an important task? It wound up leading to man who pointed right to the rebel thieves, and prove yet again separatists, not Kiev allies, were the ones driving BUKs around. Was that so hard to foresee? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''To Do:''' Verify the geo-location - set a time, presuming July 17, by sunlight and that location - establish which way it's traveling relative to the government-run anti-aircraft base just a few km north of here and relative to the other places and times this truck and others were spotted rolling around prominently and getting filmed a lot by the right kind of people, in areas presumed to be impenetrable to any such frame-up operation - look into this company, etc. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''Location:''' I can't confirm it with certainty, but it's extremely consistent. Two standard but distinct pole types that close together on the right with a pull-over lane ending at the blue one, and consistent-scale foliage behind. Proceding on the location as likely enough to warrant the work. The stretch of highway identified runs northeast, heading 33 degrees. The truck is most likely not driving at the moment, as it's in the pull-over lane. But it's pointed as if ready to leave Donetsk as soon as they finish doing something in theis spot. All we can see they're doing is getting filmed, and maybe that's just what they're waiting for. Ahead would be the an industrial area, the eastern suburb of Makiivka, then Khartsyzk, etc. and further east Torez and Snizhne (driving times unsure, date also unsure. Russia claims the one launcher left the northern base sometime between in August 14 and 17 images. <ref name="RT10">[http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ 10 more questions Russian military pose to Ukraine, US over MH17 crash] RT. July 21, 2014</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
There is more to consider about this truck, its company, its owner, and his story. But other than this photo's extra-clear view of the phone number and apparent proximity to headquarters, those are better covered in the section below [[#The Truck Owner's Story]].<br />
<br />
==== Time? ====<br />
[[File:MH17 Paris Match elev.png|right|220px]]'''Time:''' I'm not sure how exactly to set this up, but the shadows appear to stretch almost right across the highway, with only a slight northern shift. The azimuth thus appears to be fairly close to to 140˚ (reached at 11:09 AM). As for solar altitude, trying to line up the launcher's corner with its shadow gives a reading of app. 56˚ (= 10:50 AM, with azimuth 133˚) or perhaps 59˚ (= 11:18, az 143.5). The graphic shows both readings. Which is better? I used [http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/solcalc/ NOAA solar calculator], with coordinates: lat 48.017102 long:37.9037626 time=GMT+2, DST +1 --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Bellingcat was originally claiming that photo was taken at 9 am. [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/09/08/images-show-the-buk-that-downed-flight-mh17-inside-russia-controlled-by-russian-troops/] <br />
<br />
Then they were claiming 11 am as an obvious time without retracting previous 9am claim. [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/11/08/origin-of-the-separatists-buk-a-bellingcat-investigation/] <br />
<br />
Seems like 9am was more comfortable for them to match to photos from Zuhres and Torez. <br />
<br />
Sorry, using smartphone. Not very easy to comment --[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 01:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:<small>Looks like you put the same link twice, -it says 11 a.m.--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)</small><br />
::Antidyatel, welcome! Resup, thanks! I'd like to see any 9 am citation. But otherwise they agree on it being around 11? Good. The significance below is if the Zuhres square photo was taken at 11:40 AM as they say, it's basically impossible these images are from the same day as alleged - 69 km, 1 hour 14 mins drive between the spots, when there's only 20-40 minutes between the images. However, fudging it - let's say this is 10:50 and the other is 12:00 as I read it - that's 1:10 between, almost a perfect match. So maybe this isn't a great lead (I was never convinced it was). But 9:00 is way off and suggests they were fudging it to fit at that point. Would be good to document. BTW, on talk pages you can sign with <nowiki>--~~~~</nowiki> or the sign/scribble button. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: [https://web.archive.org/web/20141109132514/https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/11/08/origin-of-the-separatists-buk-a-bellingcat-investigation/ First archive.org snapshot] from the day after publishing (edit: a good three months after you called it :o)) says 11 am already. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 10:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: Okay, the links were fixed once or twice and [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/11/08/origin-of-the-separatists-buk-a-bellingcat-investigation/ the November report] says 11 am, not citing an azimuth or anything, just Paris Match saying it was "about 11 am," which doesn't count much for verification. The [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/09/08/images-show-the-buk-that-downed-flight-mh17-inside-russia-controlled-by-russian-troops/ earlier report from Sptember] might be based on something else when it mentions "a well known image from Paris Match, which shows a Buk in Donetsk at 9am on July the 17th." Neither one sounds like a firm final version. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== Screenshot from dashcam video? ====<br />
[[File:Paris Match on dashcam 1.jpg|right|400px]]<br />
[[File:Paris Match on dashcam 2.jpg|right|400px]]<br />
It it possible to identify if the photo was made by dashboard camera, smartphone, or other type of camera. Paris Match claimed that they made the photo. There are no date markings on the photo, which is strange. Position of the camera is such that it was either dashboard camera or the driver was making a photo (front and left side of the car). Paris Match was also implying in their report that it was a group of people in the car. "A sytem BUK missile launcher is photopgraphie by the team of Paris-Match in the suburbs of Donetsk, on the road to Snizhne the morning of July 17, hours before the flight Malaysia Airlines MH17 crash."[http://m.parismatch.com/Actu/International/EXCLU-MATCH-Un-camion-vole-pour-transporter-le-systeme-lance-missiles-577289]<br />
<br />
Why would they ask driver to make a photo? Dangerous or uncomfortable - illogical. If it was a dashboard camera, why not to release a video? And most importantly it would have a time stamp. <br />
<br />
Also in this report [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/01/17/new-images-of-the-mh17-buk-missile-launcher-in-ukraine-and-russia/] gives a new, a bit extended photo. Surprisingly the back of the BUK is nicely in focus, same as the truck cabin. While middle of the BUK is defocused. No wonder Paris Match cropped it. Bellingcat, that likes being so strict about photos, totally ignores this part. <br />
-- [[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 23:55,, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Yes, I agree. The two photos are crops from screenshots from a dashcam video. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 00:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
::Those must be two different shots at close-by time --look at position of street lamppost with respect to the truck cabin, one has it over black pipe, and the other more to the right from there. Can't think of a natural way for camera to focus on two different distances (maybe dirty and curvy windshield can be blamed but on tricky side here)-- FWIW. Usually dashboards have short focal length so that anything appear to be in focus; don't know why not the case here --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
RESUP, you are right. Those are two different shots. There is cable reflection from the windshield. Probably the cable is another indication of the dashboard camera.--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 13:35, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::I heard somewhere that it was a dashcam still, and I thought probably so. We all agree on that. As for the two images, I didn't know, will compare. Might compare. Why no video is a good question with at least o-ne true answer. Keep an eye out for possible ones. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:53, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Look at the link name for the Paris-Match photo https://wp4553-flywheel.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/PM2-BUK-Snijne17072014.jpeg<br />
Why would they name this photo from Donetsk using the name Snijne? What is PM2? Was it some folder that only consistent the storyline with focus on Snijne? Did Bellingcat have other options to fall back after they can’t defend it anylonger<br />
<br />
Funny thing about Bellingcat’s questionable standards of research. So much effort of looking for manipulation in Russian MOD photos. Let’s do the same trick with Paris-Match photo. Here http://fotoforensics.com/analysis.php?id=17a82272d17dbbb2abb0b784f10b3c64d5870562.186081<br />
BUK is very distinct from other objects in the ELA picture. Does it prove that photo is fake or photoshoped. Don’t know and don’t care. Just enjoy exposing Bellingcat hypocrisy. Why weren’t they interested to do the same if they are so confident in that tool and that picture is so critical for their story<br />
--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 10:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Torez Square Photo ===<br />
[[File:MH17 Torez Buk Analysis.png|left]]This is another image geo-located by the Brown Moses network (ally Aric Toller) to central Torez, [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Donetsk&hl=en&ll=48.023472,38.614014&spn=0.004923,0.01222&hnear=Donetsk,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&t=h&z=17 here on Google Maps.] Like others, it was initially stated as in another locale - Snizhne - and that had to be corrected. I can agree the location pointed to is either the photo's site or one strangely like it. [http://mashable.com/2014/07/23/citizen-journalists-mh17-spies/ Mashable noted] "Toler and Higgins were able to establish that the photograph was shot around 11:40 a.m. local time." I tried a quick azimuth measure, eyeballed relative only to the blue car, and got 165 degrees (yellow line, read backwards). This equates to a time of almost exactly 12:00 noon (about 30 minutes before solar noon, and 20 minutes later than their estimate). Seeing they're close to right, I'll presume they're closer than me and defer to 11:40. <br />
<br />
If this photo is taken at 11:40 AM, and it's the same truck seen leaving Donetsk around 11-11:20 AM, it's impossible these images are from the same day as alleged (Gmaps says it's 68.8 km, 1 hour 14 mins drive, when there's only 20-40 minutes between the images). That would mean multiple mobile launchers with multiple "Titan" trucks, or just one but with some date fudging. The company says a number of its trucks were stolen, so matching multiples are entirely likely. But so is date fudging, multiples or not. If that's so, I suspect the Donetsk photo was from July 15 or 16, and this one more likely from the day of the crime. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 04:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br /><br /><br /><br />
=== Zuhres Video ===<br />
[[File:Buk Zuhres Vid.png|right|480px]]Again, a truck of that same type loaded with the same apparent weapon is briefly seen driving east (detail at right). This one was never reported wrong and was in fact pre-geo-located by the uploader [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=48%C2%B0+1'1.38%22N++38%C2%B018'6.04%22E&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=48.034019,38.391724&spn=0.629958,1.564178&gbv=2&hnear=H21,+Zuhres,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&gl=us&t=h&z=10 here in Zuhres.] Higgins confirms, 100% sure, and others concur. <ref name="Story1" /> Zuhres location: on highway H21 halfway between Donetsk and the general disaster zone - 36 km east by road from the position of the truck in the Paris Match photo. I agree with the location, refined below as I lined up in the still used here - the blue line runs between the blue thing and the building corner (footprint, not roofline) to the front of the truck as it passes. <br />
<br />
The sky is fairly overcast, so solar angles can't be measured precisely; the differences in facet lighting are clear but not massive. A broad and inclusive azimuth range of 167˚ to 214˚ (rounded) is shown by the yellow arrows below. This yields a range (to the nearest minute) of 12:09 PM and 1:45 PM. The best middle is a bit early - 185 degrees. That would be 12:44 PM. Altitude, at solar noon, helps little. 12:09, 12:44, and all times between round off to 63˚. if that simply looks too high, we're forced to the later end of the time frame. - 57˚ at 1:45. My super broad-estimate: 12:45 +/- 50 minutes. Weather at this time on whatever day - as noted, it partly overcast, and it's windy. The clouds are moving fast, with slight lighting changes visible in just these few seconds. Winds by the swaying trees are from the southeast, perhaps, blowing northwest - at least at the building with a face running that way.<br />
[[File:Buk Zuhres analysis.png|center|680px]]<br />
<br />
==The Truck Owner's Story==<br />
The apparent owner of the white truck so important to the MH17 operation was of course tracked down via the giant phone number for his compant on its side. Interviewed at least twice now, first by Paris Match, then by Lithuanian agency Alfa, this businessman has been anonymized as Vassili (then Vasilijus). Thorough summary of the related, alleged facts, from each (translated) report:<br />
* [http://www.parismatch.com/Actu/International/EXCLU-MATCH-Un-camion-vole-pour-transporter-le-systeme-lance-missiles-577289 Paris Match, July 25:]<br />
:''Photographs of Paris Match showed that the rebels had failed to remove the billboard on the truck they had stolen. Thus we joined the owner of the vehicle. Vassili said the rebels occupied warehouses on the outskirts of Donetsk since July 8. "They are fighters Slaviansk. They landed and told me they loved my premises and we had to escape. They shipped me a dozen large vehicles, including the white truck. I do not know what happened to them, "admitted Vassili, distraught.'' (that was actually just what they published, aside from context material) <br />
<br />
* [http://www.alfa.lt/straipsnis/472203/alfa-lt-isskirtinis-interviu-su-raketas-buk-kuriomis-buvo-numustas-malaizijos-avialiniju-lektuvas-gabenusio-vilkiko-savininku?p=1#.U-GIxeOSyuZ Alfa.lt, July 29:]<br />
:''This person's testimony is crucial. After it becomes indisputably known that anti-missile system, which shot down a passenger plane was precisely the Kremlin-sponsored terrorist hands. ''<br />
Here, separatists are throughout called "terrorists" (Bezler is "the "People's Republic of Donetsk" terrorist gangs ringleader"). Vassili says these took over and occupied his company premises on July 8, taking the white truck - they said because it was needed He says they stayed in control of his facility for 8 days, apparently departing on the 9th day - July 17. Becuase of this, he and his staff - especially his drivers - were unable to do anything that whole time. He's entirely certain it's his truck in the videos (the phone number says so) as it's the only one of its type in that part of Donetsk (Žinoma, ji – vienintelė tokia Donecko srityje, tokios kitos nėra. Tokios „Volvo“ su tokia kabina). He says he still hasn't seen it since.<br />
:''...more and more irrefutable evidence that Russia supported the terrorists shot down over the temporary control of the territory in the east of Ukraine aboard passenger "Malaysia Airlines plane, and later sought to hide evidence.''<br />
But as Paris Match noted, they couldn't be bothered to detach the phone number to the guy with the whole dang story. <br />
:''Alfa.lt knowledge of the personal data, company name, knows his responsibilities and phone numbers (one is (050) 471-41-80), but because of '''the danger to his life''' that can not be published. "Stop saying my name, and I already have enough problems," said new horrific crime witness Vasilijus.'' <br />
This is valid; of course his best defense would have been to simply ''not'' implicate the separatists mostly running Donetsk, but it's too late now. DPR authorities might want him for questioning. And especially now that he's been publicized as a "crucial witness," others will want him to '''appear to have been brutally murdered by them''' (he will have served his main purpose by now, perhaps). I hope someone's able to arrange protective custody quickly enough, or that he can arrange his own vacation, or convince his friends (he'll know the ones) of his continuing usefulness to them alive. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Titan Gate blurry.png|left|380px]]Further bits on the business: Wikimapia has labels. One for the front building is generic. In English writing: [http://wikimapia.org/#lat=48.0399571&lon=37.794637&z=16&l=0&m=b&show=/24479492/Ochakivska-vulytsia-19 Ochakivska vulytsia, 19]. Beneath: Category: safety, '''private security company.''' Around this, a bigger labeled area including the back building and surrounding lot. Label: Территория службы охраны "Титан" Translated, it says "Territory protection service "Titan" (Donetsk)." Beneath it: "Category: '''Do not display name''', fenced area." (не отображать название, огороженная территория) Below, their gate area as it appears in Human Rights Investigation's still, and three versions I've seen randomly changing over the last day or so with different parts that could be the name blurred out (most recently back to not blurred). Is that unusual? I predict further twists in this, with the truck found somewhere bolstering the Kiev story, and with the company's "outing" being manipulated somehow. Feels a little spooky. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
;Assessing "Vassili's" Story<br />
<br />
There are a number of problems with and interesting questions about this witness' story and how it meshes with other allegation (details forthcoming).<br />
<br />
In Vassili's defense, I'll say the world needs to hear more. What happened in these eight days? Were Russian officers coming and going? Poring over air charts in the side room, before closing the door with an annoyed look? A lot could have happened - this could be a gold mine of direct evidence for war crimes trials of these terrorist gang's leaders (as understood). --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
[[File:MH17 Vassili's Truck August 1c.png|right|400px]]<br />
An apparent support: as HRI found, [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/08/07/new-sighting-of-volvo-linked-to-buk/ New sighting of Volvo linked to BUK?] August 7 - One of those provocatively deleted tweets, quite recent with a supposedly same-day (dawn or sunset) photo from somewhere in Donetsk - outskirtsy, like where <s>rebel</s> I mean Kiev junta forces proudly claim to almost be. this photo (saved by HRI) shows "a truck" carrying a tank, driving behind another tank. The posted thought it was for a new roadblack/barricade (concrete slabs were also being hauled). It appears to be the same truck Vassili says he lost, or one just like it. And this does look like the type of thing seaparatists would do if they had seized it, and still didn't realize how famous it had become. This thing likes to drive at dawn, doesn't it? How are checkpoints then, a little sleepy maybe? Hmmm... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::(added later: inset image - from the photo, color-corrected and cropped on just the truck - for full view see the article or below) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: FTR I took up HRI's challenge to identify the truck on that picture and did so with almost 100% certainty. It's a Volvo FH second generation (2001-2013) with low cabin. Like [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Volvo_LKW_Fahrerhaus.JPG this one] which has a higher cabin but other than that is quite a match. Also FTR, I noticed that the twitter account has "Donbass Bandera" as location, which can but must not mean anything. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: Bandera might mean something, in context, but no time to puzzle too much. Good ID work there. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Vassili's Truck August 1 Loc.png|left|380px]]The article passes on a geo-location I can confirm: [https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Makiivka,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine/@48.04073,37.967479,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m5!1e2!3m3!1s78165143!2e1!3e10!4m2!3m1!1s0x40e08e984a0db9a9:0xe4e52efde2e0641c Here on Google Maps,] photo taken, as described, from "opposite the Vostochno-evroppeyskiy restaurant & lounge “Atrium” in Makiivka on the H-21." A site photo of the "Atrium" is included. The graphic I made at left shows the approximate view, including the stairwell (to a subway station?), though the billboard is less clear. The view is roughly towards the rising sun northeast - a rough azimuth measure suggests the sun is shining from about <s>66</s> 71 degrees from north, for a time of around <s>5:24</s> 5:52 AM (elevation: <s>1.8</s> 6 degrees). --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC) and corrections --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
FWIW, I went over to militaryphotos.net and scanned [http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?236005-Situation-in-the-Ukraine-Crimea-*Photos-Videos*-ONLY/page200 the thread about Ukraine starting on page 200] in very early July, up until page 225 when all the known truck/BUK info and disinfo was posted. Watched countless military convoys, including a whole bunch from Donetsk in the time between. Not a sign of the truck in question. If it was in "rebel" hands since July 8 like the alleged owner claims, they used it only for "special ops", alone in the early morning or so, not in their larger relocation operations. Two things remotely interesting: in an operation [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0JdcC324Ek reactivating a WWII tank from a war museum in Donetsk], a similar trailer is used, but the truck is a different one. And in [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2eGNPJlkMo this video from July 5] but without given location, the Ukie army does some operations and two BUK TELARs are seen. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Possible Launch Sites ==<br />
*Launch site discussion here is based on a photo of disputed provenance, said to be made '''near [[Category_talk:Ukraine#Torez|Torez]]''', showing a plume of smoke (see on the right and below). Exact date is disputed, but it was posted shortly after the accident. A late update or second version of the photo emerged in December 2014; this is further discussed in the [[File_talk:MH17_Launch_Plume.png|talk page for the photo]]. A different launch location in '''Artemovsk''', based on Bezler account, is discussed elsewhere [[Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17#Bezler_Account|(link).]] . <br />
<br />
===What do we know? ===<br />
Questions about the photo, --if it is genuine-- include:<br />
<br />
*What is shown on the photo? (Likely a missile launch, but can be MANPAD, or some other launch; raising fire smoke not excluded though less likely) <br />
*When was the photo made? (Claimed to be couple of minutes after the MH 17 shootdown launch; but could be made on earlier days)<br />
*Where was the photographer, and where is than the 'launch site" Photograph claimed to be made in Torez (4 microdistrict?) . Claimed launch sites locations are [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/launch-location-detected-of-missile.html SE] or [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2107 NE] from the photographer. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
A site, or maybe a couple of locations, have now been forwarded, based on compelling evidence, as likely SAM launch sites of July 17 or thereabouts. This is worth careful consideration here. To start:<br />
<br />
* [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10984530/MH17-the-clues-which-may-lead-to-missile-launch-site.html UK Telegraph, July 22] This report with some detail and a photo visits a few areas where signs of possible BUK launcher movement and firing occurred recently. Caterpillar tracks, mostly light, signs of burning, various debris left behind, all or mostly "in the area of the town of Snizhnoye." These details might suggest whoever did this had multiple launchers set up in different areas that left as soon as the operation/accident was done. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
::So far, signs are saying it was just the one. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Below: The site shown on video, stitched panoramic view (with confusing curve). This helps get the fullest set of geo-location clues. I may even check if this is the same spot identified by Ukraine@War, below. It should be, or we might have two firing locations pretty near each other, which would be odd. The firing direction from here would be northwest, almost directly along MH17's flight path. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
[[File:MH17 Telegraph site.png|center|940px]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Launch Plume.png|right|340px]]Ukraine@War: [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/launch-location-detected-of-missile.html Launch location detected of missile that brought down MH17] The photo at right, cited by Kiev as proof of a BUK launch in the right area, July 17. The anlysis here looks good on first blush and lines the filming to northern Torez, plume on a line including a supposed patch of cat tracks just revelaed by fresh Google/GeoEye images of some fields [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Donetsk&hl=en&ll=47.989347,38.773155&spn=0.078813,0.195522&t=h&hnear=Donetsk,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&z=13 here] by Snizhne. As traced, the tracks look realistic to me. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: There is (a disappeared) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUvK5m2vxro BBC video ] suggesting that smoke is from a direction of Saur-Mogila (= constant fighting) and a coal mine. <br />
::Thus smoke may be unrelated to the launch. Also timing of photo is unclear. <br />
:: Buk trail from unrelated launch videos appears considerably [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDXScnEKaP0 more impressive than on the photo] , and traces well visible trajectory, likely attracting attention of many people . But there appears to be no witness reports. <br />
::Buk appears to use [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_navigation proportional navigation method], and if so, its navigation control will try to guide it on a straight path to impact.<br />
::Unless it was doing something else (but can it??? the answer requires expert knowledge), it was most likely on a straight line trajectory which can be deduced from the impact direction.<br />
--[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 00:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Yes, an odd video. I'm not certain they even picked the right view, but it looks about right - I think she and Oliphant (Telegraph) point to the same monument as a landmark - a place of fighting. Seems like they got close, but didn't have a specific spot like U@W picked, and didn't find anything. As for angle, I think it can maneuver around, but would prefer to fly straight (not an expert, don't know what "prefer" means here). And if it was hit head-on like the impact marks suggest, then it probably did fly just about straight into the jet. Obviously if it came over the wing, and was fired from here, it would have to curl around, but I don't think that's the case. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
<br />
The satellite images cited at Ukraine@War are available if you have Google Earth. As explained [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/satellite-images-reveal-how-buk-has.html here,] there's a .kmz package you can download [https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxEeOqcjSE5uQXlkWkxKeVhDaEk/edit here] that loads on Google Earth new, murky images from July 20 (but the display still says August, 2013). The tracks he highlights are visible, faintly. There are a couple sets perhaps connecting - some could be local paths - there's no recent enough images to say there weren't there July 16. One important missing thing is a patch of burnt grass it seems should show up up differently - it's not identified there, and not evident right around these tracks. From this, it's not a great fit, except that line of sight pointing here. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Plastic Debris 1.png|left|280px]]So is the Telegraph site and the Ukraine@War site the same thing? Well, the Telegraph article says they went to the spot identified on a blog, but found, as the image suggests: Two possible launch sites – a rundown collective farm and a nearby wheat field – showed some track marks but no sign of any rocket launch whatsoever." It was a farmer plowing his fields there who pointed them to ''a field nearby'' that burned the other day, and that 's the unclear site they show. "The location of the fire lies on the supposed flight path of the rocket, and track marks – though indistinct – are present. Some unidentifiable bits of green plastic littered the site of the fire." There were also discarded bottles (type unclear) and apparently this oddity, shown in a photo but not mentioned - soft bakelite-type plastic ... thing, with years in the 1980s and 1990s stamped in it. It's all near enough to the rebel town, the Russian border, and concealed rebel positions that they think only rebels could operate there. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
First, let's note that author "P. Martin" connects these possibly relevant tracks with the surveillance video showing the Buk launcher driving south The Telegraph spot, from the burnt grass, must the spot the exhaust pushed off from, and the burn line should probably be to the northwest. There's no sign of that alongside these track marks found on that visual line. That's a problem, as the exhaust never said a luncher was driving around thataway, but rather launching from thataway. <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Telegraph Spot Mapped.png|right|380px]][[File:MH17 Telegraph Spot Cleared.png|right|320px]]Rather, it's the nearby "Telegraph spot" - not quite on his line but close - that [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com/2014/07/exact-location-pinpointed-of-mh17.html Martin thinks is the EXACT location] That, he thinks, is in the next field south. It should be visible in the updated imagery, but it turns out this is just off the edge of the area they provided, so it can't be verified or ruled out based on that. The inset graphic shows this cut-off line, his previous possible firing locations (track-based, seemingly un-burnt, in yellow) The spot yields a best placement with coordinates already noted by Petri in a section [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Map#Buk locations and flight paths|here.]] (I picked out the spot myself, best guess, and got the same but 3 seconds east) It can't be checked like that for the telltale stripe to the northwest, but it looks pretty likely to me. The main view down the tracks (left half of the panorama above) would be looking south, and the near line of trees on the right running west. The pretty obvious tracks he identifies as likely launcher tracks, and they do seem to curve in where it stopped. Otherwise, to me, this has more the look of a pre-travelles semi-road on the line between fields. Either way, it probably drove that way, and fired from here, and not from the un-burnt spots north. All the tracks he notes, none certain in themselves, are supported in their possible relevance by this being what's at the end of the trail. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC) and [[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Added in November, the image below that. I noticed Google Maps had new post-crash imagery up, and re-checked the spot for burn marks, since it was just off the grid before. This replacement - overlayed with translucence - seems too late. The strip most likely to show the signs has apparently been harvested/cleared before this image Some will say that constitutes a coverup. And it might, but probably just out of stupid reflexive nervousness. I just wanted to measure its angle and stuff. There is a nice track right up to the spot, likely pre-existing and just unclear before, and what they used to get there. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Location Challenged ===<br />
<br />
The above stuff, as of now and as I've been running it mainly, seems to bear out the vaunted "social media sleuths" placing the launcher and probably the launch in "separatist-held territory." I agree with all locations provided, and times too. Everyone acknowledges date is less sure. There are compelling clues pointing to concrete firing spot, that seems to be lined up the hit the jet head-on, as it's starting to seem the airliner was hit. In this narrative, the questions people should be asking is who was really running that. But readings differ, and some differing views can be considered here. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* [https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByibNV3SiUoobnpCVDduaHVORHM/edit?usp=sharing MH17 Analysis] – CDN <br />
<br />
Petri posted this to the front page, a 25-page report with many graphics and explained reasoning. One of its conclusions, based on range to impact, mainly, meant that "the missile that downed MH17 was not fired from Snizhne." At the moment, I disagree. Petri, who is CDN, and are they soliciting feedback? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::The anonymous PDF was published via Saker's blog: [http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/08/detailed-expert-analysis-of-mh17-downing.html Detailed expert analysis of the MH17 downing] "CDN" has [http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/08/detailed-expert-analysis-of-mh17-downing.html?showComment=1407347983141#c8862773971299986141 responded] [http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/08/detailed-expert-analysis-of-mh17-downing.html?showComment=1407350196815#c7564049628743605813 twice] in the comments. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 00:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
I think these might be part of what threw the author(s) off:<br />
# the heading seems to be off, too southerly to trace back like that. At the end, maybe close enough<br />
# possibly too-wide debris field starting too early - final breakup likely E-NE of their spot (ie closer to in range)<br />
# Wrong presumed angle of impact <br />
# Lack of knowledge, specified on page 23, of this contrail image or, obviously, the supporting clues pointing to what might be "the Telegraph site" excluded here. "Why are there no images of the rebel missile and its impressive launch contrail?" Oops, there is and it point there. <br />
--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: I just skimmed it before coming here. It was posted [http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.de/2014/08/detailed-expert-analysis-of-mh17-downing.html over here] where you can join the discussion (which I haven't read yet just saw that Petri is there chiming in in comment 2 of currently 93). I think it's first valuable in presenting the known capabilities of the Buk etc. If your stuff above is true and it is one single truck with one single TELAR that was seen in the different locations, then it shows quite conclusively that the Telegraph position can not be the launching point, because even if the Ukie claim of disappearance from Radar 50km from the Russian border is not true, due to the position of the debris it could only be further away, not closer, which adds to the argument. My 2 cents for the moment. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
: Oh, not directly related to the critique, but driving around with a huge phone number that leads to a Titan security of all places is more than a bit suspicious, I'd say. ;o) --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: "the Telegraph position can not be the launching point" if my "stuff above is true and it is one single truck with one single TELAR that was seen in the different locations" - how? "because even if the Ukie claim of disappearance from Radar 50km from the Russian border is not true, due to the position of the debris it could only be further away, not closer, which adds to the argument." Huh? I think the field is placed really vaguely in that report, and that's what sets the impact point - it looks maybe kilometers off, to the west. Placed right, the implied impact point is further east, ie closer to the launcher. It is a valuable report, but that point should be re-checked more carefully before I could be convinced to write off all the other evidence pointing there. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::: Take a careful look at pages 9 and 10 of the PDF. Place the spot to where you think it's "right". Think how that would change the picture. The argument is based on the empirical location of the debris and unless I've missed some serious flaw in the numbers and basic calculations made on the pages leading to that, I think it's by rule of thumb a very sound argument. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 13:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::: I'll do my own soon - I can say it would end further east, relative to the border there, and probably start further east too, but maybe I'm unaware of some outlying debris - but first a though on the debris field I just had, even more relevant than size and placement - what does it actually say re: the plane? He presumes it would follow the trajectory east. Not much, really. With only so much momentum and breaking up, with five miles to fall, the main factor will be wind. Even a breeze has five miles to act on it. That was so with PA 103 - the wind was about perpendicular to the path, and that determined just where stuff scattered on a line across the borders area right to the north sea - only the cockpit and a few things were off much from that line. Here, if it blewa along the flight path, the reasoning would work fine. If it blew back, to the west, the plane was probably shot further east than the field suggests. Ie, closer yet to in range. The Zuhres video above shows wind apparently to the northwest, and pretty strong. Worth a review and re-think in that light. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 14:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::: With an initial speed of 907 km/h I see no reason to take wind into serious account. I see no reason at all for going into more detail in this rule of thumb argument, not on the debris, not on the alleged launching point. But I'm as always looking forward to what you can come up with. ;o) --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::: btw there's no exact calculation of the traveled distance of the falling pieces, it's just found plausible resulting from other data. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::::: There's good reason. [http://martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/PA103_debris.gif past precedent.] I did read it wrong - the blue oval is about right, I thought the scale by it, which is way off. That's the 20 km drift - if the wind was blowing due east at the right speed... to the near edge of the oval and 30 km to the far edge... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 15:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 four last points.png|center]]<br />
<br />
Debris fields as shown in MH17 WSJ data combined.jpg. The two tracks, 118 per Flightradar24 and other sources, and 111 from a Russian graphic (see label C), just in case. They cross at point E just to look cool - superimpose wherever to visualize a track-back on these or any line between. <br />
<br />
The four red "last points", eyeballed onto the map as shown in the various graphics used here (all pretty approximate): <br />
<br />
A: last return, flightradar 24 (erred, I think, way too far along - I suspect some inherent offset...)<br />
<br />
B: Russian ATC last return, '50 km' from the border (vague description, likely close to accurate)<br />
<br />
C: end of 111 track shown in MH17 radar 1.png (maybe arbitrary, lower resolution)<br />
<br />
D: report, deduced point of impact (presuming 20-30 km flight due east after impact, wind app. not considered at all)<br />
<br />
E: My guess for breakup point, where the damaged front came apart (should maybe be further east, right over the south part of the first orange blob). Actual impact point, an unclear distance back. probably not very far - downward flight could start anytime after that, decreasing the lateral distance traveled) . <br />
<br />
The cockpit, aerodynamic, shows the most like forward trajectory of this, relatively minimal wind complication. The heavy forward parts had more drag, wound up NW of there. A bit further NW, the light, high-drag, punctured upper fuselage. That these parts aren't spread further out suggests the jet managed to descend some ways before the front totally fell apart, and/or that the wind was fairly light. From there, most of the plane remained together, kept more momentum and little wind effect, and crashed kilometers east. The last part of this plummet, about one minute seen on video, it was nose-free and essentially nose-diving. A slight north trend, perhaps curtailed eastward progress, largely just down, leaves it all hitting together by Hrabove, scattering woth the fireball trajectory and wind deciding where these bits landed. That it only got so far from the forward parts again suggests this breakup was fairly low in the fall - maybe just before the start of the one video. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I'd say forget point D, it is way too far west, this plane was not going to fly 25km once hit. On debris, I'd put breakup where the "f" is in your word "forward" and impact not very far NW of that, lifting the whole 118 line a little northwards. You can't bring breakup below impact and count on wind pushing wreckage "uphill" because that first group of wreckage included 37 bodies, which would not "sail". The impact would be enough to knock the course slightly south, to drop the cockpit at Rozspyne, where it turned NE to end up at Grabovo. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 03:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Thanks. D is the presumed point used to rule out this launch location, the original point of this sub-section. That dot fails by a good margin. My E and your guess are both north of the flight path, along which all the red dots are (this graphic is confusing, needs updating, if I didn't flatten it). I was thinking a NNW wind did the north and west spreading, but the records say the wind was flat "east" (to the west). I'm left suspecting now the plane banked hard left just before it started breaking up. Actual impact, just before that. The "C" label is pretty arbitrary, but it keeps seeming about right. On the imagined red line 1t 117-118, I dunno, maybe 20-30 pixels back. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::Winds are described as 'from' not 'to. So a wind blowing to the NNW is reported as a SSE wind.<br />
::::A slip - I'm trying to say it that way now. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::Getting on to the wind. The actual breeze direction is usually a function of altitude - veering or backing from ground level observation. It can easily be 90 degrees out from ground level. You need to look at the vertical profile used in aeronautical soundings to see where debris will in the main blow to. --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 11:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::Sounds like a real headache to map. There's also changes over time, where east at 5:00 may change briefly ten minutes later, or 10,000 feet up. All that seems can be counted on is easterly winds in general - no exception to that. And generally, even if they measure it at the airport, it must extend up to the clouds, which can be seen swirling east over the area. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::No it doesn't extend to the clouds except by accident. Major direction change can happen in hundreds of metres altitude especially at night. Examples of wind shift between ground level and 700 millibars (9800 ft) in day time can show a direction change of 90 degrees - e.g. North to West. This is significant with MH17 where the breakups occurred between 33,000 feet and probably a few thousand feet for the final disintegrations. --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 11:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::FYI Here is all about [http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/48/ Veering and Backing] --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 11:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::As for the spread issue, I'm re-thinking it. As for the bodies, it depends on a few things but I take your point - bodies are dense. And I didn't know that detail - worth considering. Also a sad side-note: most bodies would be alive and aware, from what I learned looking at Lockerbie. Lack of O2 would black them all out at first, but gravity makes it so there's enough in that final stretch those not dead already (the lucky few) would probably "wake up" in time to both feel their injuries and their fall, and to see the "separatist-held" fields rushing up to kill them. :( ---[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::: My indications are they were all dead when they hit the ground. That's not to say some didn't suffer from the first blast up there. Using my (very long ago) rescue triage training, I examined all the body photos for type of injury. The main findings were (a) almost no blood (as the separatist intercepted call rightly claimed) (b)a lot of legs at angles suggesting hip/pelvic fracture (a very common injury in air crashes to people wearing seat belts) and (c) all the bodies appear swollen (in first-day photos). We are thinking of what happened as a decompression, a low-pressure event. But that was preceded by the blast detonation of the missile just outside... a high-pressure event. The very high pressure shock wave compresses the blood vessels and severely damages the lungs. Blood pressure and heart rate go sky high trying to compensate. In 1/2 a second the blast wave is gone and they are in decompression.The heart can't adjust fast enough. The lack of blood flow makes the brain and liver swell up, too, so normal blood circulation cannot be re-established even if the heart recovers. The Lockerbie bomb, and various exploding fuel tank cases, were lower pressure explosions; sadly many would have survived those until ground/water impact.[[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 20:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::So there is evidence of blast wave, not _just_ decompression alone? But no shrapnel wounds? --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 21:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::(cut my comment - I had misread - taken to [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Debunked topics#Bloodless bodies – fake Facebook profiles?|bloodless bodies spot]] FWIW - but I disagree with both the lack of blood and the validity of many "separatist" communications, but if we're not arguing a planeload of corpses being shot down, I won't argue it much.) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
More to the point, leaving the above graphic aside, would be this newer one I should finally add. Basic straight path, 118 and placed as agreed by most sources. Alleged launch location, measures app. My best guess is a 2 km range from 22.75 to 24.75, weighted to the center. Or most likely about 23.75 km out (irrespective of actual projectile flight path, that's where it made contact, but this helps visualize how the alleged launch site might line up with [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Forensics#Direction of projectiles?|the directional forensics]]). --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
[[File:MH17 missile intercept distances.png]]<br />
::Straight line from launch is okay. But impact has to be further north, ie before the most westerly debris. You've used the map which assumes that debris to be blown back by wind. That can't be right, as it included bodies (too dense to blow back) and witnesses saw them and plane sections falling straight down. This only makes about 1 mile difference to the missile range, so does nothing to exclude that launch location. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 01:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::The map of spread is only app., some orange area I made. The pink dot and lines are from a map, Russian analysis, as you say apparently presuming a SSE wind. Debris including people ''would'' be blown back to some degree, all of it, varyingly; trajectory can only do so much when you have five miles of falling, with the breezes acting the whole time, and the lightest parts will be back a bit, whatever direction and as mentioned above, a SSE winds at some time or altitude still isn't ruled out at all). Do we know just where in that area those passengers landed, and what types of things are its far end? ? <br />
(<br />
:::I mean, you could be right and it's a bit further back, maybe with a continuation due east from there and no real wind effect except slightly back. It was only 9-12 mph, and maybe it fell halfway before starting to fall apart, which means less spread. I'm thinking about a possible left turn to explain the north aspect, or it could be wind, or being further back (more north, as well as west), or a combination. The turn has to be a certain size, the wind direction is not certain aside from east prevailin, ... whatever point best explains whatever happened ... we're down to a shrinking agreed range, and as you say, it's all within range of the one spot, so it's not ruled out after all. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 04:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
At this stay of play, I feel it will be helpful to have displayed prominently an overall map reflecting best guess on impact location as well as already flagged suspected launch sites, that is the two launch sites we have been discussing (near Snezhny ; near Chernukhino) , PLUS launch locations flagged and TIMED by released satellite data (currently only Russian data is available). I would be generous with the range here, we can find range suggested by public sources but presumably actual range depends on a number of things (height, radar range, trajectory, wind), and may exceed the "official" range. Another useful graphics piece info would be indicating the front lines, if there is a way to have those known. '''I would be extremely cautious with displaying graphics reflecting just one way of thinking (whether "worst", "best", or "middle of the way"), for the reason that any graphics is easy for human brain to absorb, more than words spread out on all our numerous pages, and ''no graphics at all'' is better than displayed ''skewed'' graphics.''' One-sided graphics may be '''inviting''' even more noise releases "supporting" some already skewed scenarios, and I feel that was already happening way too often. I feel that most helpful stance at this point would be as neutral as it gets. (Regarding trajectories, a default guess is a straight line, anything else requires an explanation. Straight line is implied so no strong need to actually display it, especially if it ends up curling in suggestive funny ways on graphics). --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 09:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::I've been doing a lot of graphics, so not all fired up for more. But if you are, I wouldn't mind making another if it helps. Maybe this is best taken to [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Map#Interception Location]] (a lot of this is redundant, and I might move it, but at least I can say let's stop piling intercept stuff here as well as there). Up to picking a certain spot around Chernukino? Some outskirts area, on a major road, it'll be a guess. A couple guesses could be mapped. Also, if it seems worth it, I can do updates and upload the new version as needed. Any timed satellite launches, let me know. Front lines, not known and IMO misleading in this case. Those who would know would try - and maybe manage - to sneak this thing behind them... the caution about leading labels, I can leave to you - you could just tell me what to put. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
:::::Would take me forever, may try later on, but not immediately; some cleanup/re-arrangement seems the easiest option. (If there are tools for collaborative mapping, may be good to start using those; but not aware of any) --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 11:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The preliminary [[Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Dutch preliminary report|Dutch report]] says the flight recorders were suddenly lost at 13:20:04 UTC at a point that almost exactly matches the 22.6 km mark. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 22:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Plume Location Re-challenged ===<br />
There is another video, essentially giving a bellingcat in voice-altered Russian. We discussed all that essentially; but he seems at least to end up with a claim for geolocation for the plume photo. Seems to be a new one (or I forgot the old one already by now). The claim is based on [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2055 unrelated panoramic photo] somebody took nearby, and [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2025 claimed to be geolocated by presenter]. Here it is on <br />
[http://maps.yandex.ru/-/CVG0nLo~ yandex map] ; it is taken from a terricon located at Lutuginskii bugor(=hill). There is a cableway from there to TsOF (remember, Khuevyi Torez tells about cableway from Lutugino to TsOF, so here they are); [http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=48.012722&lon=38.665695&z=14&m=b&show=/10590043/ru/ЦОФ-им-Киселёва TsOF is central enrichment plant]; photos from TSOF do show a similar [http://photos.wikimapia.org/p/00/00/62/81/85_big.jpg cableway] . So based on that and an audio of locals of unknown provenance and authenticity, discussing a missile-looking trail in the direction of [http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=48.041767&lon=38.741055&z=14&m=b&show=/18687650/ru/Химмаш Khimmash], our presenter [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2107 ends up] with this [http://maps.yandex.ru/-/CVG0rMnO claimed plume location] , somewhere near this Mochalino village. And apart from this, his contribution to the topic is the claim of a white spot on the other side of 3'2 Buk which he claims to match on the way out. I do not believe all those Buk sightings were taken on the same day, and so do not believe in the overall glue-up of the story, but geolocating the plume, no matter what the plume is, remains legitimate. This author gives his answer to that question. Is this geolocation correct? I do not know, it is not tight, there are lots of cableways out there I presume, and some posts nearby are not too unusual. I do not see a tight fit between Lutuginski bugor photo and the plume photo--some elements do match, but those are obviously not identical places. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 02:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Excellent. Let's keep the title. But I guess you just forgot the previous location. This is the same view. The plume could be added, but I doubt it, and it's to that view at a consistent time on a consistent day. I'm not convinced ''all'' Buk sightings are same day, but most of them being so is a good fit with this plume that way, and a plane down with damage that seems consistent to me. (I hate this case) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::Are you sure it's the same? This new one is NNE from Torez, I thought it was placed SE from Torez by [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/launch-location-detected-of-missile.html U@W ]--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::Going back to check, this is a different filming location proposed. Line of sight isn't included, but it seems to be the same line over the same area to the same place. Even before he could see the distinctive mound, Petros (U@W) had [http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-cfSqhRb2dKo/U80x2OxK1XI/AAAAAAAATNk/r42WpH-Bf-Q/s1600/missile+trail+9.jpg this lineup], which includes this spot. Right where Petros pic says "trees" is what this guy decided were the foreground trees where it was filmed. I wondered when checking but decided on the further version. And seems to be the same result either way. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::I don't think this is accurate, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2107 video at this timestamp] gives 'место пуска ракеты' (launch location) near [http://maps.yandex.ru/-/CVGgVPJN Molchalino]. I have not seen this elsewhere, I only seen the one claimed to be SE of Torez. He does not discuss filming location, but shows it on video and assumes it is in Torez near the terricon, which is close to what other sources assume. He does show the line of site on the video; it is nearly perpendicular to U@W. Lots of terricons, coalmines (so likely cableways), and power lines leading there in this area, so location now seems uncertain. As I understand, no solid evidence for either of these two being the correct geolocation (those cableways seems to be quite common) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::::I am/was confused then. I thought it showed a SW view, just from closer to the mound. Now I see at 33:45 a view from right by it, looking NE? Can't explain the other one you see in the distance in the fuller view (right ?) That's kind of towards Molchalino, but that won't explain anything I suspect. (and what a bad fake or odd coincidence to have a plume up there and a the Buk tracking imagery lead to south of Snizhne, oops!) We'll see south and west faces of buildings if looking NE, so sun will be shining from well east of south, but also quite high, like mid-day in the early AM - or maybe just earlier mid-day, like 11 am. That would be another sloppy mistake. I doubt the details will line up. BUT a couple minor things didn't quite seem to the other way, so maybe worth a try (later). --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I will send this comment also to<br />
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/01/27/is-this-the-launch-site-of-the-missile-that-shot-down-flight-mh17<br />
The US map launch location can best best and almost exactly located from the last magnified picture:<br />
https://wp4553-flywheel.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/32.jpg<br />
That location is here:<br />
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.9571993,38.7466343,488m/data=!3m1!1e3<br />
The triangulation result in the last 3 pictures of the article introduces unnecessary error and clearly does not match the magnified picture.<br />
There is a structure that looks similar to an airfield and it is just south of Chervony Zhovten (=Oktyabr), matching with a witness observation in that place ("it was flying as if from Saurivka", though not matching 2 other witnesses in the zello audio, indicating it came from government held positions further south, [2:00] "Well, it appears everybody saw where the missile has flown from." [2:04] "Well, where you are, everybody saw it, but the Ukrainian media, as usual, will say, will say that that were us.")<br />
It would be outside the range of the plume picture geolocation bounds, which may be either an error given the long distance, or, the plume picture was taken the day before from the reported grad missile launch (as well as the burned field). (The photographer gave his camera to the SBU after twittering the first picture, so later pictures and dates can not be taken for sure).<br />
http://7mei.nl/not-buk-m1-new-video-proof/--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 19:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:(1) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkCcCmYlMZc That audio], as it turns out, was posted by Torezinfo on 24 July, and updated on 1 February. Torezinfo is a favorite posting place of Khuevyi Torez(=KT), who posted a very [https://twitter.com/WowihaY/status/489914266439671808 similar location map on 17 July already]. KT mentions zello recordings on 25 July in the follow-up, so shortly after it gets on torezinfo. With all that stuff linked to this KT poster, I would not put much trust that any of that is genuine. (Or that this KT poster is not acting as a medium for SBU). (2)[http://fr1.sidcdn.net/maps/nsdc/2014/07/large/map-nsdc-2014-07-17-uk-w3000.jpg Ukrainian map] does give us some Ukrainian held area somewhere to the South, but from that map it is hard to tell where exactly opolchenie ends and UAF begins--(I would not know) (3) Actually, going from there, not likely to hit on the left side--so having it from Artemovsk (as Bezler told, indeed) seems most probable --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 21:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:: Here is another map http://liveuamap.com/e/2014/16-of-july-saurivka-is-bombarded-over-and-over-by-rus-grad?ll=47.907137219641115;38.75392913818363&zoom=8<br />
::And here is an article which says that both Marinovka and Tarany were held by National guard. http://www.interpretermag.com/ukraine-liveblog-day-149-russian-tanks-and-artillery-reach-donetsk/#3353<br />
::I just opened bellingcat https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/01/27/is-this-the-launch-site-of-the-missile-that-shot-down-flight-mh17 and see that large parts of the article disappeared, I think they are working on it. That location given by the US photo does not really match well with the plume direction anymore, lets see what they come up with--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 21:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::I believe Marinovka was [http://lifenews.ru/news/136715 taken by opolchenie on 16 July] (lifenews report). Tarany--do not know, perhaps still Ukraine, but not totally sure. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 21:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::: other sources say attack was repelled and forced them to retreat to Stepanivka http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_in_Shakhtarsk_Raion http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/213817.html--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 22:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::: That US photo launch location differs by an angle of about 11 (?) degrees from the brown line in the bellingcat plot (measured from the photographer's location). https://wp4553-flywheel.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/101.jpg (launch location is just visible below the letter 'p' of 'the word 'suspected'). I think this a lot and puts the 'plume' into question. But then there is only the US photo, which itself could be a production based on social media (or worse).--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 22:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Well some believed this is for real, then they got a case to answer [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/22/mh17-us-intelligence-russia-separatists-report Guardian: Photograph: US intelligence community] [https://twitter.com/barbarastarrcnn/status/491559153559932928/photo/1 @barbarastarrcnn] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
In the following, I assume that most of the social media pieces and leaked audio tapes are correct and connect the dots in a different way:<br />
<br />
1. On July 14, an Ukrainian Antonow 26 airplane was shot down by a missile near the Russian border town of Donetsk.<br />
http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/what-weapon-was-used-to-shot-down-ukraine-air-force-antonov-26-at-july-14/<br />
The video in above link showed the missile flying for 39 seconds until it hit. Only a BUK can fly that long, a manpad or Pantsir, also claimed to have been used, not (see first comment in link).<br />
<br />
2. According to a recorded audio tape published by the Ukrainian Secret Service SBU, rebels possessed a BUK ('BUK3x2') in the Donetsk area at least since July 14 ('we already have BUK'). At that date it may have been either on Russian or already rebel held territory.<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVAOTWPmMM4<br />
<br />
3. A social media search discovered only one other system in the area, capable of shooting down AN26 - a Pantsir. However, a Pantsir can't fly for 39 seconds. Based on a max.speed of 780m/s and max range of 20km, it can only fly for about 25s.<br />
http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.co.nz/2014/11/unnoticed-video-of-26-downing-confirms.html<br />
Therefore and because of the crew's intent to engage in the civil war, it is likely that AN26 was shot down by BUK3x2. Afterwards BUK3x2 had only 3 missiles left.<br />
<br />
4. On July 16, Ukrainian and rebel statements both confirmed the shoot down of a SU-25 plane near the "Marinivka border crossing", which is only a few kilometers south-south east of Pervomaiske, the destination of BUK3x2. Ukraine's defence ministry said: "It is likely that [the hit] was carried out by air-to-air rockets from the Russian air force which were patrolling the border in a pair." <br />
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-28345039<br />
This may have been another reason to install a BUK system in this area on the next day, leaving room for an accidental Ukrainian shoot down, apart from an accidental rebel shoot down and a willful Ukrainian false flag shoot down.<br />
<br />
5. On July 16, rebels fired grad missiles from a location near Pervomaiske. The plume may have been photographed as well by an SBU informant in Torez and twittered on the next day, claiming to show the launch of the missile hitting MH17.<br />
http://7mei.nl/not-buk-m1-new-video-proof/<br />
<br />
6. On July 17, BUK3x2 was seen in rebel territory on its way to Pervomaiske, south of Torez. Ukrainian SBU knew about the arrival latest since July 14 and about its destination latest July 17 morning, allowing a false flag operation from positions held nearby.<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVAOTWPmMM4<br />
<br />
7. There was an ongoing battle in the region with "fluent" contact lines. Marinivka and Tarany, about 8 kilometers south-east and south of Pervomaiske, were controlled by Ukrainian National Guard as well as all of the border region. Marinivka would match well with the direction of the Torez plume photo.<br />
http://liveuamap.com/e/2014/16-of-july-saurivka-is-bombarded-over-and-over-by-rus-grad?ll=47.907137219641115;38.75392913818363&zoom=8<br />
http://www.interpretermag.com/ukraine-liveblog-day-149-russian-tanks-and-artillery-reach-donetsk/#3353<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_in_Shakhtarsk_Raion<br />
<br />
8. The Russian Defense ministry claimed in a news conference, that on July 17, Ukraine installed several BUK system near rebel held areas.<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bNPInuSqfs#t=1567<br />
<br />
9. In a popular 'zello' audio recording, witnesses in the area were talking about the launch of the missile hitting MH17. A witness from "Oktyabr" (Chervony Zhovten) claimed "it was flying as if from Saurivka". <br />
Two other witnesses said:<br />
[2:00] "Well, it appears everybody saw where the missile has flown from."<br />
[2:04] "Well, where you are, everybody saw it, but the Ukrainian media, as usual, will say, will say that that were us."<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkCcCmYlMZc<br />
<br />
10. A Reuter's witness also claimed that the missile was fired from Kiev held territory. Reuters, however, said, "off camera, he said that it was launched from a nearby rebel site. Asked why originally he said the opposite he said it was because he was afraid of the rebels."<br />
In a new interview this witness claims that "off camera comments were just made up by the [Reuters] journalist".<br />
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=497_1427729491<br />
<br />
11. BUK3x2 was again photographed in Lugansk with its 3 missiles, no missile fired since July 14.<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4HJmev5xg0<br />
<br />
12. The US presented a very low resolution satellite photo with the track of a missile added. The launch location does not match well with the direction geolocated with the Torez plume photo, it deviates by about 11 degrees in angle, hence either or both appear to be incorrect.<br />
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/01/27/is-this-the-launch-site-of-the-missile-that-shot-down-flight-mh17/#comment-12493<br />
<br />
13. Award winning investigative journalist Robert Parry reported about leaked US intelligence "that U.S. intelligence agencies do have detailed satellite images of the likely missile battery that launched the fateful missile, but the battery appears to have been under the control of Ukrainian government troops dressed in what look like Ukrainian uniforms."<br />
https://consortiumnews.com/2014/07/20/what-did-us-spy-satellites-see-in-ukraine/<br />
And later Parry wrote: "But I’m now told that U.S. intelligence analysts ... are concentrating on the scenario of a willful Ukrainian shoot-down of the plane, albeit possibly not knowing its actual identity."<br />
https://consortiumnews.com/2014/08/03/flight-17-shoot-down-scenario-shifts/<br />
<br />
14. During the coming months BUK shrapnel may have been collected from the AN26 wreckage and planted in the MH17 wreckage.--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 00:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Photographer Statement===<br />
[http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com.au/2014/12/interview-with-eyewitness-who-made.html Reported to say] : "That day did not foretell anything special would happen. In the morning I woke up and went to my work. At four ó clock in the afternoon I arrived home. And at 16:20 we heard an explosion. The first explosion was not very heavy. 15 seconds later, something like that, there was a second explosion, which was louder and it made the windows shake."<br />
: Did not foretell --an ass, --is this lawyer-written? 'We heard". --Took till December to polish up ? --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 16:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:: Agreed. 'I did not know in advance this would happen.' Uh, who said you might? And 15 seconds must be rocket travel. Did he hear the firing from there? Could be, not that far. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Time delay consideration ===<br />
Photographer reported two sound booms td=15 seconds apart; an interpretation may be launch and impact sounds arriving to him in Torez. If P=(0,0,0) is photographer cordinates, I=(d,0, h) is impact, with d ground distance between Torez and Rozypnoe, h is the height of flight at 10 km , and L =(x,y,0) is launch location, dist(A,B) is Euclidean distance between A and B, c is peed of sound, and n (about 2.5) is missile speed in Machs, then<br />
<br />
(1). dist (P,L) = dist(L,I)/n + dist (I,P) - td*c <br />
<br />
(2). dist (P,L) >= h/n + dist (I,P) - td*c <br />
<br />
(1) is a biquadratic equation for y given x (square enough times for square root to disappear); plotting that gives a closed 'ellipse-like' curve on (x,y) plane; once on that curve, time delay is exactly td seconds (doing this involves solving quadratic equations and removing spurious solutions not satisfying (1) ) . That curve is at distance about 13 km in NW direction from photographer in Torez, and about 22 km in SE direction from him on the Southern ( Saur Mogila side). <br />
<br />
(2) gives a simple estimate that distance between photographer and launcher is greater than the known right hand side; that distance is more than something like 13 km<br />
<br />
(3) Requiring launch withing the range, --launch is not more than 20 km horizontally from the impact-- selects a NW arc of the curve described in (1) ; that arc is to the NW from Torez, and goes slightly NW from the impact point (meaning its ground projection). <br />
<br />
Conclusion, based on the above, is that launch is too far from the photographer, to match the photo. <br />
<br />
(Knowing exact time delay can tighten the argument. With what's actually known, and objection can be raised that whatever actual time delay was, it appeared to be 15 seconds to the photographer. Graphics of the curve may be supplied if needed). --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Ooh. That kind of math could really come in handy with recorded audio cues, for example. But based on '15 seconds, something like that,' from memory months later, I wouldn't put any weight on it. If that turns out correct and pretty exact, there's a good point. Otherwise, the photo and other stuff is more solid, and says it's just about where it should be, as far as I've seen anyway. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Contrail ==<br />
This is what an "impressive launch contrail" of a big missile might look like.<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3lLwP1y0w8 АТО. Запуск двух ТРК Точка-У. Артемовск.] (ATO. The launch of two TRK Tochka-U. Artemivs'k.) – August 28, 2014<br />
-- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 22:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Something happens in the sky. This is the people's reaction:<br />
* ''20/09/2014 Over many parts of the DPR and LPR were seen circles in the sky.'' [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7310 1,] [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7311 2,] [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7312 3,] [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7313 4,] [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7314 5]<br />
-- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 03:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
Tochka U missile is single stage solid fuel, which is a mixture of ammonium perchlorate with rubber and aluminum powder (Russian [http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/tochka/9ch151.shtml "ДАП–15В" fuel] ).<br />
I could not find information on Buk with a comparable level of detail. Buk missile is single stage, solid fuel of some type, "dual-mode solid propellant (total work time - about 15 seconds)" [http://www.webcitation.org/67kZeZxeh] , [http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-9K37-Buk.html]<br />
Earlier "Куб" ("Cube") missile used [http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/kub/kub.shtml 'ballist' fuel,] [https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%85#.D0.91.D0.B0.D0.BB.D0.BB.D0.B8.D1.81.D1.82.D0.B8.D1.82.D0.BD.D1.8B.D0.B5 gunpowder] + plasticiser type (Russian "ВИК-2") at the start, followed by some sort of ramjet ("direct flow rocket engine") at final stage. It is not clear, but possible, that fuels and contrails of Tochka U and Buk are different. Here are some videos with Buk launch: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDXScnEKaP0] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EAtNpsXrgWs], and [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSXMhaFntrU a longer with stupid music version]. Those videos appear to be shot from a closer distance than Tochka U video; and a contrail on them does look quite impressive. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 10:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:The amount of smoke is highly dependant om Alumin(i)um loading. In general more aluminum is more 'oomph' and also more smoke.<br />
:On the other hand, it's common to alter the loading for other reasons. I refer to the Syrian Volcano (122mm variety) that started out as high Al-load and quite smokey but recent versions have low Al load but perhaps similar characteristics? --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 10:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Here is something that might be a BUK: Ukrainian AN-26 shot down from Russian border area on July 14th. Ukraine@war claims it as a BUK. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 10:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
* [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.fi/2014/11/unnoticed-video-of-26-downing-confirms.html Unnoticed video of AN-26 downing confirms shot down from Russian territory] – Ukraine@war, November 27, 2014<br />
** Video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoS4kgHxPnE Ukrainian Military Aircraft Su-25 Downed After Russian Attack Near Izvarino, July 16]<br />
:::Does not look like Buk, short contrail, --not all the way to the ground like on Buk video launches. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::It was a BUK. It flew 39 seconds in the video, a Pantsyr can't do this, see also first comment in this link http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/what-weapon-was-used-to-shot-down-ukraine-air-force-antonov-26-at-july-14/. Easy maths - at Mach 3 (1020m/s) it can fly for about 42 seconds (range 42 km, bit more because initially it is slower). According to the audio tape, BUK 3x2 was in the area on that day! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVAOTWPmMM4 Ukraine@war needed 5 months to find something else in the area, but the Pantsyr can't fly that long. This is how BUK 3x2 likely lost a missile.--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 21:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::::Well, yes, it does takes 42 seconds to fly 42 km at 1000 m/s , but that does not mean what we see '''must be''' a Buk. They start discussing that plane caught fire at 0:03 on the video already. We do not see what on hell is going on until some 30 s later. This plane likely was brought down by Igla or similar modern MANPAD. Possibly two hits, at 0:03 and another at around 0:30. Or it got on fire at the start of the video and than eventually went down (It is unlikely to have SU 25 pilot bailing out after Buk strike; or particularly likely catching fire as it's not aiming at the engine; contrail is weak for a Buk, too). Pantsir claims are much later from what I have seen,--- and no need for Pantsir to shoot SU 25. ---If something is there on SBU audio and some murky photo, does not mean it's all for real, and that what we do actually see all have to be linked to all that murky SBU stuff. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 22:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::::There may be some confusion here, just a recapture<br />
::::::First video https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xTT6BDRA8_k<br />
::::::0:03-0:11 buring object <br />
::::::0:17-0:33 contrail making a half looping<br />
::::::Second video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoS4kgHxPnE<br />
::::::0:29-0:39 contrail making a half looping + detonation.<br />
::::::ukraine@war http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/11/unnoticed-video-of-26-downing-confirms.html<br />
::::::says both videos show AN26 shoot down on July 14 (second video with wrong label SU-25)<br />
::::::says 2nd video impact at 0:39, claims missile has been burning for at least 39 seconds--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 06:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::::::After reconsideration, I would say ukraine@war is right, both videos show AN26 shoot down, but wrong, people were initially watching AN26 with engine burning and a second missile was fired. That missile was seen burning about 16 seconds in first video, and time has to be added to reach that altitude/location, so likely over 20 seconds. That would exclude man-pad, Pantsir (?), likely BUK, R73 air-to-air, ...--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 06:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Actually, it is interesting to know how contrail of Buk on a long haul launch looks like. It is said that it fires engine for some 15 seconds only (and unknown will it do less, if it can do away with less). That 15 seconds need to put it at a spot where it can reach the target with little, if any, engine work and doing turns only. It is not very clear how much targeting happens in the first 15 seconds, likely it does some; and it is self-guided and doing proportional navigation later on. Knowing details here allows to find exact trajectory, short of that thinking it goes straight to the collision point is a sensible idea. In any case, heavy contrail '''raising from the ground''', perhaps higher than the target is. Contrail is white, and stays put for a while. Seriously heavier than the stuff we see on social media. There are youtube videos of Buk launches giving an idea --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:These 15 seconds are wrong. Here is a video (start at 2:00) showing a SA-11 burn fuel for 35 seconds until its too far to distinguish. It is detonating at 42 seconds. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBlU2hHYJMg (I just copied the comment from here http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/what-weapon-was-used-to-shot-down-ukraine-air-force-antonov-26-at-july-14/ )--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 23:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::That video probably shows a modern version ('over horizon' capability was mentioned somewhere regarding modern developments; this one seems to be showing us something like that). 15 sec is coming from Russian sources [http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/buk/buk.shtml Зенитная ракета 9М38 выполнена с применением двухрежимного твердотопливного двигателя (общее время работы - около 15 секунд)]. Older versions also had shorter listed range. 22-25-35-42 km range, going through modifications. (Would be happier without 15 sec engine limit actually-easier to know trajectory) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::Actually what goes off is [https://digitalempire.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/9m38m1.jpg 9M38M1], the one supposed to have [http://pvo.guns.ru/buk/buk_02.htm 15 sec engine run], but the video lasts for 40 sec. This appears to be edited video, around 2:30 we got two tracks, than one slides right unreasonably for a natural recording. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 02:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::Since this is a point we haven't already covered around that I know of, I'll pop in for it. 42 seconds I gather is the time for the fuel to burn out and the thing to fall, like a grad rocket or the like can only do. But this is a missile with guidance, set to intercept a moving airliner. Therefore, app. 40-45 seconds is the longest, not the shortest, it can fly (or am I just confused?) But 15 seconds is plausible, depending. Still might be untrue, not trusting people saying stuff. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::::After the engine is off it is high up and and at high speed, still can fly until gravity acceleration brings it down, and is on guided flight -unlike Grad-because fins can move causing it to turn. Issues here are visuals (contrail all the way or only about 15 km in flight), and trajectory. With engine on for 40 +secs it will go straight to collision point doing proportional navigation all the way (exploding earlier if it needs to be). If it is only 15 sec, trajectory is less clear, it may for example use engine to climb high up, than do guided fall and proportional navigation to the target from a spot where engine delivered it (for low and close-by target, that may potentially end up with a hit from another side--some drawings from unclear sources were showing opposite side hits at under 1 km and direct hits at 10-15 km). Or it may use engine to end up on a ballistic trajectory hitting target (no side changing than). This is solid fuel engine so there is not much control on how quickly it burns off, that time is a set design feature. What we see on launch video is 40+ seconds of engine work-- will go direct to collision point in that case. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 12:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::::That's another clue that plume of smoke photo is not a Buk launch, that would give at least some 10-15 km worth of contrail, not a plume; with 40+seconds engine, contrail all the way to impact...(or else, launched from far away, over 40 km distance) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 12:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==About accents==<br />
<br />
[http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29109398 This report,] released one day before the preliminary official report, recycles visual imagery already discussed on this page, and attempts a new claim that a BUK crew spoke with Russian-'Muscovite' accent. The claim is made by (British-accent) actors representing 'eyewitness(es)', with a visual imagery of a car at unknown night-lighted location in the embedded video, and some text, provided in English. Regarding 'Muscovite' accent, first it is not easy to tell, for example [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBCfmlMkYMg this video] is Mr. Poroshenko speaking in Russian to a resident of Crimea, replying in Russian, and commented by a presenter, who is speaking 'Muscovite'. Although Mr. Poroshenko has a slight southern accent, there is little difference between the three speakers in practice. Moreover, actors and presenters can easily switch from Southern to Muscovite as required. <br />
<br />
Secondly, if somebody speaks 'Muscovite', this does not mean this person works for Russia or the rebels,--- he can work for any side (PS. No change of condition to the blue dumpster on Zuhres video was reported in this latest update). --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Thanks for bringing this. What a stupid report. "Three eyewitnesses, all civilians, separately told Panorama that they saw a missile-launcher in rebel-held territory a few hours before the Boeing jet was hit." Yeah, video shows the same. It was there. It probably shot down the plane. Accents, as you note, aren't the best indicator of anything, and even the reason sounds vague: the G thing, which even I know about (back to Olga/Olha). The "Russians" might even be Russian dissident mercenaries right from Moscow, for all we know. Who paid them? Their going up to the media and saying "you didn't see us" was not a good plan to stay secret. The witnesses: chosen at random? Directed to them? <br />
::''If correct, the Kremlin has to explain to the relatives of the 298 passengers and crew who died - including ten Britons - why Russian military personnel were allegedly seen in the area escorting a BUK shortly before MH17 was shot down.''<br />
:I think Russia could come up with a reason or two such allegations are made. Those ten Britons' tax dollars fund it. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: Hmm, this foreigner is confused by dat BBC talk: "If correct" ... doesn't that mean it ''wouldn't be'' merely "allegedly" but, well, correct? ;oP --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 23:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::It means "If {made up vague allegation) is correct....then "SHOCK HORROR CONCLUSION IS TRUE". this lets them be as wild or wide off the mark as they like and the magic "if correct" turns it true. Without any effort to check if it IS true in our understanding of that word.[[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 03:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::Another BBC weapon in its arsenal of innuendo and dissimulation is the quotation mark. Whenever they are dealing with something of dodgy provenance, or something of good provenance they want to weaken they put it in quotation marks. e.g. - ISIS beheaded 20 Syrians. becomes ISIS 'beheaded 20 Syrians' or 'ISIS' beheaded 20 Syrians or ISIS 'beheaded' 20 'Syrians' or ISIS beheaded '20' Syrians. No need for corrections later. Any version can be retrospectively justified or otherwise. --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 03:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== If Buk 3x2 Was in Russia ==<br />
Previously, it seemed quite likely the Buk launcher associated with the shoot-down was one of those owned and operated by the Kiev regime, simply snuck into separatist territory, maybe with some cover to make them even invite it in like a Trojan Horse. Then, I saw the November Bellingcat research on "Buk 3x2." As covered [[#Bellingcat and 3x2|above,]] this claims to match that unit with a distinct one seen three weeks earlier, driving in a military convoy well inside Russian territory. This is widely taken as clear proof the Russian military supplied the weapons, and it is strongly indicative of that. However, the general possibilities are worth laying out at this point.--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
All options below share these presumptions: <br />
* MH17 was brought down by the missing SA-11 missile AND/OR (in some cases) at least the launcher's appearance was coordinated to give that impression and is a clue to the plot <br />
* The videos and photos in question are genuine and not manipulated (my usual presumption, same here)<br />
* The Russia geolocations (many of them, making sense in context) are correct - Buk 3x2 as seen was seen in Russia, between Kurk, Stary Oskol, and a bit south of there (not verified but most likely correct) <br />
<br />
Presuming all that:<br />
* Buk 3x2 (seen in Russia) and the mystery one are not the same - this require paint job match and matching damage to the lip above the track to make a Kiev-owned unit look like that one. It's possible, but not the most compelling.<br />
* The two units are the same - it was in the convoy in Russia and also towed around Donetsk oblast July 17. <br />
<br />
If the unit is the same, there are a few possibilities for the nature of that connection, some of them silly or just there for logical fullness:<br />
* It was Kiev's unit and they snuck it over and into this convoy, and...<br />
** ... got it back later<br />
** ... the Russians kept it and used it for their own operation<br />
* It was Kiev's but some other way lost to the Russians <br />
* It was Russia's but Kiev managed to sneak over and steal it out of the convoy and then use it for the false-flag event<br />
* Same, but Donbass rebels then stole it from Kiev <br />
* It was Russian, and someone on the Russian side drove it over and then it was stolen by Kiev forces <br />
* Someone on the Russian side drove it over and it stayed in their control or handed over to their chosen parties, or transferred at the border - that is, no Kiev interference.<br />
<br />
So far, I'm inclined to call Bellingcat's reading (the last option, the widely accepted one) the single most reasonable one, though maybe outweighed by the ''combined'' alternatives. It's not fun to feel almost swayed to a view so close to Kiev's problematic narrative, but this is what I see, pretty basic. Some combined maybes go against the straightforward reading. As for other thoughts I might be missing, well, that's partly why it's here. Let me know, I'm all ears. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Starting from that reasonable if unproven last option, not one but three final types of possibility remain. If it was freely moving in convoy inside Russia, it probably belongs to Russia at the time. Presumed. However, it could be that...<br />
* '''A rogue officer''' at Kursk - maybe a closet Nazi who sympathizes with Kiev, hates Putin, or just took a bribe - provided this unit to Kiev. He would set up this convoy to anchor the thing in Russia, then send the shady unit on, with his own guys or to hand off to Kiev's, who took it from there as I've speculated. The strangely obvious manner it was displayed - on both sides of the border, with its number slowly fading away - is consistent with this motive + intelligence. <br />
* '''It happened as reported''' (one way or another) Putin's military signed off on the loan, apparently with a sent crew or maybe given to local handlers, who for their own purposes did fire that shot. The strangely obvious manner it was displayed is consistent with this + stupidity/sloppiness, providing proof that probably wasn't even needed, just helpful, to start the punishment. At that point, it would be a real problem about as trumpeted, and still I would suggest we consider what the real crime is under the circumstances, if the solutions pursued are fair, or if this is all just geo-politics and warfare by other means cloaked in a cynical disguise of concern for justice. ^ <br />
* '''Koo-koo (?):''' "as reported plus" - a mega conspiracy theory: it goes all the way to the top, and Putin is that rogue general selling the nation out, to demonize himself and Russia and be sure to get caught, in an elaborate staged play - Putin (or whoever's running things presumed to be run by HIM) is somehow controlled, his opposition scripted and ultimately geared towards provoking and achieving an expansion of "The West" into "The North." (I've always considered this possible, and one that's occurred to me more lately, and seems worth listing ... but I don't buy it. I'm going with "rogue officer" with a second bet on one of the other divergence points listed before that - unspecified. Third choice is "as reported.")--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::^ Not to apologize for egregious behavior if it really is that, but let's please compare this to the shoot-down of Iran Air 655 by the USS Vincennes in 1988. A US Naval ship illegally in Iranian waters shot down an Iranian passenger plane with 290 people aboard, despite all the safeguards and sensors working correctly (the consistent clues the ship's computers gave them saying "do not shoot" can only be overridden so totally by choice). But it was deemed by the US to be no crime, just accident and Iran's fault for being provocative, and useful in the effort to compel them to quit the war with Iraq they were just starting to win. In Ukraine, repeated Air Force attacks on rebel-held cities, often hiding their jets behind civilian airliners, might both justify arming the rebels with such defensive weaponry, and invite an honest mistake from a team running this machine in stand-alone mode. The SBU version however overrides this all: it was an accident, but the Russians' intent was never defensive, always planning to kill an airliner, just meaning it to be a different one. That would clearly be criminal in all regards, and it's a sub-set of "as reported" - not a very good one. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Sorry, I can't help you here as I don't share your presumptions. I consider it a waste of time and energy to connect dots that are laid out by "sources" like the SBU and Brown Noses - proven liars and at least in case of the former producers of fraud "evidence" - and therefore I didn't even read your logical chains based on them. Just saying to not make it appear that I agree. ;o) --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 10:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:Poking at specific presumptions could be helpful, but it all could go on and on and remain inconclusive anyway. And I take back what I say about leaning this way or that - I keep leaning different ways and on balance I'm feeling sort of weightless here. I think that comes through in the text... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I don't see the numbers matching, getting close is not good enough, and I quit it there. Yes, it is weird that they are close, and that this murky business is covered by Spiegel, but can't really help with any of that. There is lots of murky weird stuff going on all the time, can't change the whole world to stop it. (Also: the Russian Government would be fully capable of doing a painting job properly if deciding to starting painting at all, their food trucks are all nicely painted, etc; just too sloppy for them to be behind) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:The paint being what it is, between that and the bend and light patch below all lining up, I think we're down to the same unit, or faked to match, and the possibilities branching off those two. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::As discussed earlier, the dot is shifted off the middle, more on Russian video than in PM photo; in Russian video, number 2 has well-curved semi-circle; in PM, it is almost straight segment. Bad photos for comparison but it's off, as far as it's possible to tell. As for the skirt bend, too blurry and distorted on PM to tell; Russian video, I think it is actually dirt, not a bend. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Also, looks like two squares , a bit darker than background, over first digit in PM photo. Unclear is it paint or digital camera effect. Any sane person hiding something will paint over everything, not paint just specifically over the first digit. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::I think I got everything linesd up - it has to be de-skewed the same, and all ines up. You might be scraping bottom on this one. The curve is there, at its elongated part, at an angle. The dent/dirt looks the same, same place, relative to the light patch and all else. It's too much for coincidence by a couple of degrees. BUT I just shifted back to option ... should have numbered them. ... the middle starting option - image authenticity. I hardly ever call digital image fakery, and not calling it here, but... I still haven't checked the new (to us) June videos, so I'll stay presuming it might be okay - video's harder to fake than a photo. But on the other end, it all comes down to the one photo. That I noticed, no other views are close enough to say if these matching clues are present. (the bend, maybe). The squares you noticed, maybe a paint clue or just artifacting. It may too pixelly. I cannot really analyze the technicals properly to say. It looks okay, but possibly fishy too. Maybe the dirty windshield helps hid the painted in pixels to make this thing - just once - or maybe again in other images - look like that Russian 3x2 unit, exaggerated and going into rebel hands... Some kind of coincidences setting that up to work, but it's possible, and an expert should look closer at this picture. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC) <br />
::::I, --at the very start of discussion,-- zoomed picture on screen (by a lot), and measured length ratios (to the dot/ total panel length), parallel to the 2 sides of the panel, using ruler (millimeters one) over screen. I ended up with ratios in horizontal side of panel directions were off, by more than blurring; in vertical, could not tell-within blurring. This is not sensitive to skewing or zooming. So I don't think it's the same. May double-check measurement when have time; or somebody else can. Did not have time to try doing digital version of the same/similar method. Did not look carefully at comparison the 2 after de-skewing , but have an impression this is different; not that much skewing there; it looks essentially straight line on PM, skewing will not make circle into a line. May look at 2's some other time. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::::Finally took a closer look and PM was still off a bit on rotation and vertical-to-horizontal - in line with your observations. Still working out the adjusted graphic. The white is shifted a bit left of lining up perfectly... I think it's still close enough it's the same or is supposed to be, and not far enough off I'd call a bad fake - probably just pixel shift. Will see tonight. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 00:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Okay, I don't have a comprehensible graphic handy yet, but Maybe Resup is seeing what I am now. I was having a hard time aligning it all, so focused just one the one rectangle panel with the number. Still, on the PM photo I trace apparent edges, best line of dark pixels ... it lines up, proportion-wise, with the white spots on or a hair to apparent left. But when the whole image is placed by lining up that center, the rest of it doesn't line up - both sides seem shifted right, or the middle shifted left. (also the track areas appear far to the left, but they stick out a bit, and from the back angle flattened like this, that's why. Each difference in relief from "true flat" plane of the side will cause this... maybe I'm just not correlating it right, and maybe it's a clue the photo is messed with. possible offsets in both white patches as well, but maybe too in the natural fuzz zone. ?? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
If the launcher was driven over the Russian border, fired once then driven back again after it had carried out its mission, the part of the story that doesn't make sense is the sighting on a stolen flatbed truck outside Donetsk. If the Russians were prepared to supply a launcher but not a truck, the stolen truck would have had to be driven to the border to be loaded and there'd be no reason to risk a journey back to Donetsk. The west to east journey is more consistent with CL's original suggestion of a launcher from the Ukrainian base north of Donetsk. If this was a false flag, there would have had to be a paint job to give it Russian markings (maybe to match one in a recent video). Otherwise the videos would point to separatists with a captured Ukrainian BUK, leaving the Ukrainian government liable for failing to close its airspace when it knew that a BUK had gone missing. [[User:Pmr9|Pmr9]] ([[User talk:Pmr9|talk]]) 16:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:Now this sounds engaged, thanks P. Yes, why drive it to Donetsk? (Other than to be seen in the smoking-gun rebel capitol, before getting seen in Lugansk too) And I never thought of that why it had to be Russian. Indeed, for liability reasons, it had to be a snuck-in surprise, not captured (unless they could come up with a reason why they didn't learn about it, and I suppose they could). The suggestion has problems and was slow to gain adherents, but maybe this kind of thought has swayed people to realize Kiev "must be right" about that... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Sunday Times story: original is behind paywall but reprint [http://malaysiandigest.com/news/531506-ukraine-ignored-warning-to-close-malaysia-airlines-flight-mh17-airspace-before-tragedy.html here]. Eurocontrol's experts "spoke privately to their Ukrainian counterparts" about their concerns but Ukraine refused to close its airspace. "Ukraine intelligence sources said they had been made aware that several anti-aircraft systems had crossed from Russia into Ukraine at least a week before the MH17 incident. But they claimed the intelligence was not “100 per cent reliable” and could not have been used as grounds for 'drastic moves' such as shutting airspace". [[User:Pmr9|Pmr9]] ([[User talk:Pmr9|talk]])<br />
:::Okay, well there's a train headed this way then. Several units? The whole June convoy? We do have this alleged maybe-Buk launch just before on July 14, an associated loader seen later, etc. And Ukie intel somehow did point to this number "312" you can't see on the unit they tracked so quickly. Did they already have that obscure Russian video everyone missed until now? And more yet showing the "1" still there? That early on? (that's all very speculative, but interesting). It has to be snuck in, maybe, but then it helps that you can vouch for it - so they fudge and average this aspect. Main point then seems to be, whatever failures they mumble out on their own end, it has to implicate both Russia (provided weapon) and the rebels (held the space needing demonized).--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references /></div>Antidyatelhttps://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17&diff=22755Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH172015-06-13T15:49:56Z<p>Antidyatel: /* Investigation of Buk producer Almaz-Antay */ Example with head on collision is not very convincing in terms of explaining why pilots of MH17 didn't notice incoming missile</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:Ukraine]] [[Category:MH17]]<!-- Cats go to the top on talk pages--><br />
<br />
{{Mainpage}}<br />
== Subpages ==<br />
* [[List of MH17 airframe parts]]<br />
* [[Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Dutch preliminary report|Dutch preliminary report]] ([[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Dutch preliminary report |talk]])<br />
* [[Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Map|Maps]] – ([[/Map|talk]])<br />
* [[/Forensics]]<br />
* [[/Witnesses]]<br />
* [[/Fighter jets]]<br />
* [[/BUK Tracking]]<br />
* [[/Debunked topics]]<br />
* [[/Cyber Berkut leak]]<br />
* [[/SBU Audio Evidence]]<br />
* [[/Archive]]<br />
<br />
== General ACLOS Investigation Thoughts ==<br />
<br />
===Brilliant Analysis of the Propaganda===<br />
American writer on [http://rt.com/op-edge/183132-only-truth-flight-mh17/ RT.com] Brilliant and funny. And sadly true. Well worth a read. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 18:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::I didn't read it all, but it's excellent. A couple steps up from T.B. Hinchey-class writing. I didn't notice any lazy jet-blaming. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Considering Possibilities ===<br />
Only so many theories have been seriously proposed for what happened to MH17. But it seems worthwhile to create a master list of basically all logical possibilities to consider - what has and hasn't been proposed, by whom, why? Anyone can start or add to a sub-section below to conmment on that possibility. I inserted simple notes to many, hoping they're not too controversial - suggest or, hey, make a change as you see fit. I sign here for the initial list and notes only. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''All possibilities:''' Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 was brought down by (A Buk, B Jet, C Other) operated by (1 Russia, 2 Kiev, 3 Rebel) in an attack that was (a accidental, b intended, c intent + error)<br />
<br />
'''A Buk/SA-11''' (supported by some evidence, claimed by Kiev, presumed by Western powers)<br />
* A.1 Russian (Kiev's story - known stocks - border and logic issues)<br />
** A1a - accidental (intended legit/defensive downing - possible)<br />
** A1b - intended (not likely - Russia would stand little to gain and some to lose)<br />
** A1c - intent+error (SBU theory - intended to hit Aeroloft civilian flight, blame Kiev, invade - hit MH17 by mistake)<br />
<br />
* A.2 Kiev (known stocks, alleged movement at the time) (why: make seps/Russia look bad) (how: snuck in totally, approval snuck in too, or fired from outside rebel areas after all) <br />
** A2a - accidental (intended legit/defensive downing - not likely having snuck behind enemy lines to do it)<br />
** A2b - intended (most likely - going behind the lines suggests false flag intent) <br />
** A2c - intent+error (they aimed for the Aeroloft flight, etc. - possible)<br />
<br />
* A.3 Rebel (no known stocks, some evidence for, some against - rebel Buk is/was the Western presumption outside Kiev)<br />
** A3a - accidental (intended legit/defensive downing) (presumed by intelligent outsiders who blame them)<br />
*** (variations: launcher supplied by Russia, seized by separatists, brought by defector - crew came with it, or not - etc.)<br />
*** (variations: sliding scale of culpability from drunk and negligent operators with all blame, to blameless but fooled by false signals and such) <br />
** A3b - intended (not likely, soft implication from Kiev against the "terrorists") <br />
** A3c - intent + error (intent of a criminal kind still seems unlikely, so all error options probably under A3a.)<br />
<br />
'''B Jet''' <br />
(supported by some evidence, promoted by many revisionists) <br />
(var: used air-to-air missile, used auto-cannon/other, or combination)<br />
* B.1 Russian (had to violate Kiev's airspace without being mentioned)<br />
** B1a - accidental (intended legit/defensive downing)<br />
** B1b - intended (not likely - Russia would stand little to gain and some to lose)<br />
** B1c - intent + error (triple unlikely - it's just a possibility slot)<br />
<br />
* B.2 Kiev (denied by Kiev)<br />
** B2a - accidental (intended legit/defensive downing) (of what?)<br />
** B2b - intended (implication of those proposing it - to make seps/Russia look bad)<br />
** B2c - intent + error (possible)<br />
<br />
* B.3 Rebel (no known jet holdings - no one proposes this)<br />
<br />
'''C Other''' nothing seriously suggested. Lets not go digging for all outlying theories, but if one worth listing emerges, it can be option C and Other will be D, etc.<br />
<br />
:moved material to [[Category talk:Ukraine#Ruban's Third Force]] - theories might say "perpetrator unknown," and thus reason and motive ... but this list is all about actual possibilities more than theories. To the truth, the perp is known, and these are all poss. truths. ''Most'' people's theories will fit a slot here... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Questions Raised ===<br />
<br />
In the end of the day, we may not be able to pronounce a forensic conclusion, for the rest of the world to accept, as we may not have full information or all the needed expertise. Perhaps the best to hope for will be to RAISE (a rather short) list of main questions which we hope the official investigation will not ignore. <br />
I think it will be worthwhile to identify such questions (may be followed by voted answers or something of sort and some supporting arguments). <br />
<br />
In my list, it would be questions establishing basic facts, like <br />
<br />
*impact coordinates<br />
*where blast(s) were coming from<br />
*confirmed evidence about launch and launchers (a.k.a " any high-resolution photos with known coordinates and times?") <br />
*navigation and control methods (a.k.a. " can it curl from forward right to back-left?")<br />
* land based or air based launch? (a.k.a "can satellite see well under the cloud?" )<br />
*anything to learn from radar data (publicized or otherwise)?<br />
*and any other relevant confirmed evidence to consider<br />
<br />
Once all of that is in stone, will be good time for theories.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 19:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Question #1, since it's looking like a Buk fired from Snizneh ... what does that really prove as to who was running it? Nothing. That's why the State Dept. has to add on the Youtube and twitter evidence where it doesn't even matter if those are the real people"admitting" it was them. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:17, 11 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: No confirmed evidence for a Buk, or from Snizhne, yet. Knowing who runs that would be perfect. --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 00:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::Definitions of "confirmed" might differ, but I've been recommending people at least prepare for that coming true, in case the SU-25 thing doesn't pan out. There's a burnt field, somewhere quite near where that supposed launch contrail photo was placed to. And that, I just saw, supposedly [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/exif-data-in-mh17-missile-launch-photo.html had its ex/if data verified] as July 17, 16:25:48. So it might be that figuring who runs that becomes totally crucial. So far, just the fact of what it was and where it was fired is supposed to be proof it ''was not'' the party that was equipped for this - physically and morally - and has benefited from it. Anyway, we're on it somewhat - [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/BUK Tracking#Who Has the BUK Launchers in Ukraine?|who controls the Buks,]] whose got moved - [[#A Rebel-Held Area|what does "rebel-held" mean]] when someone's trucking in a anti-aircraft unit just after [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/07/25/snizhne-mh17-and-rebel-held-territory/ Kiev primed the locals with a bombing of civilians in Snizneh two days before]? Stuff like that I think has extra value to develop. I should get to it... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: If there is confirmed photo of launch, that would go under one of already listed items. With electronic evidence on social networks, I am not sufficiently knowledgeable, but presume it is too easy to edit those to fit any agenda, easier than to refute. Government releases, like satellite photos, is different, as they can't change stories overnight and have something to loose if proven fake. Faking hard physical evidence would be fairly impossible. It is good to know who is to blame of course. (But most people would already have their own intuitive answer,which is not likely to change, so how exactly we are going to focus on such an issue? --For myself, the best outcome will be for truth to come out, wherever that may lead).<br />
--[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 19:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== TASS: According to Our Sources ==<br />
23 December, Moscow. "Russian special services are in procession of information, that Malaysian Boeing crash over Donbas in July 2014 may have happened as a result of operation of Ukrainian special services, however it remains unclear whether the plane was the initial target, or a tragic mistake has occurred. This information was conveyed to journalists by a reliable source in one of the Russian competent agencies". <br />
"We can also assume that the operation involved the Ukrainian Air Force and ground air defense, combined". "SBU, which is investigating the accident with the Ukrainian side has already destroyed all the data on the movements of air defense systems in the area of disaster and all the data on the departure of the aircraft". Earlier, the Ukrainian authorities stated that on the day of the crash Ukrainian military aircraft did not leave the airfields in the area of military operation in the south-east of the country. "They did fly - said the source - or yes, they did" [http://itar-tass.com/politika/1667289 TASS] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 20:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==More Remains found ==<br />
<br />
Photo journalist Graham Phillips has found a human bone on the burn site. Doesn't obviously show up on [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0o4SAaCEpk&list=UUbwfUqs5Y6_jblWJwMIfRzA&index=7 this video]. While you're there, from playlist at right you can see he has about 12 videos about the crash scene. They're all just a minute or two long. Meanwhile Zakharchenko is offering for investigators to come back and [http://en.ria.ru/world/20141013/194011115/Donetsk-Ready-to-Grant-Ukrainian-Investigators-Access-to-MH17.html clean up]. Actually he should send a group of people to comb the burned area, not as if he's short on people who cab recognise body parts. Chance to shows up the Dutch who spent a few hours there picking up a token few pieces of luggage and not looking for bones,when they KNOW 12 or 15 people are still missing. HEAPS of belongings they left behind, too.[[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 07:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Story from October 31 from the Dutch, confirming [http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/mh17-dutch-pm-mark-rutte-confirms-more-human-remains-have-been-found/story-fnizu68q-1227109165667 more remains] had been found (in a site visit that had not been publicised). Stories from the current visit also mentioned bodies found but they are wrong -- there are no "bodies" left from MH17. Anything found now that still looks anything like a body is going to be from [http://www.news24.com/World/News/More-remains-of-MH17-passengers-found-20141107 later fighting].[[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 02:51, 8 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Novorossia reported on the visits, [http://rusvesna.su/third_world/1413295402 14.10 (russvesna)], about site exploration (lots of personal belongings found); [http://rusvesna.su/third_world/1415293335 06.11 (russvesna)], agreement is reached on transporting wreckage, 4 open and 1 closed wagon. They did not report pro-Kiev Ukrainian site interested or participating (while news24 report above talks about "A team of Dutch, Ukrainian and Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe workers"). --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 05:25, 8 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Witness Accounts ==<br />
:''Moved to [[/Witnesses]]<br />
<br />
== ANNA News - Crash Scene Imagery ==<br />
=== Jet Wreckage ===<br />
How did we miss this? From mid September, 50 minute video of the crash site, the burn areas substantially [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rt-QIsgjQkg cleaned up]. A lot of close-ups, walking around every angl of pieces (eg broken wing). Boring until about 38 min mark, when gets onto cockpit area. This is first area with voice, too, with someone explaining their theory of what happened (Russian) and showing shrapnel damage from angles we've not seen on any stills. "Ukraine" mentioned a few times, so I'm assuming it's a theory that blames Kiev. Can anyone translate please? [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 15:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
: A shorter video, just the part with the explanation, better audio. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rt-QIsgjQkg#t=2785 [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 15:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: Shorter video: they guy says that the holes are small, and so he thinks it is air-to-air missile. (Well, we now know presumed size of buk shrapnel as it is on a recent photo with a ruler; 15 millimeters or smth; and what he shows appears to be like finger-tip wide; so it is not too much off as far as I can tell, and does not seem to prove or disprove buk). He also says that it is known effect that when pressurized plane is punctured, it falls apart. (Well, that certainly did not happen with Korean Boeing over USSR, so it seems a bit exaggerated) . That's all he has to say, so what we gained is more video evidence --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 16:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::More new footage, taken about Oct 5 or 6 (just before OSCE visit) with someone who was there within first hour, interspersed with some footage be took at the time, never before seen [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5j5Bpa010Q English subs]. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 20:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::: Graham Phillips from the scene on October 16 [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAhqWi5cavY in] two [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAf8PFx3tmY parts]. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 16:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Great find, good quality footage. helps set the spread of things ... hope the section re-org works for everyone (did destroy the original title, but I don't think much was linking here...) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::I posted it before I finished watching it. It has a lot of interviews, rebel leaders, experts. They're saying Kiev stalled and lied to scare off investigators. The rebels took over the bodies by force to make sure they go for proper investigation ie Kiev can't mess things up. The Malaysians came to get the black boxes against Kiev's wishes and got shot at on the way. <br />
:::They say on TV that morning was Andriy Lysenko boasting about planning 8 bombing runs that day; after the crash he said they didn't have a plane up that day. Then they bombed the site to say it's too dangerous for investigators (they show some rocket craters). What were they hiding? [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 20:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
A curious detail is that we are told at 9:34 that UAF was at Nikishino. That would be roughly on the line to Chernukino, so behind-and-left from the crash. That theme featured in ACLOS discussions already; there is nothing new to add. We also hear about two planes, and get some hand waving explanations. That was covered as well; perhaps now there is somewhat better idea where the witness is located. It is curious that a German guy says that Pechora missile system was located in Ukraine; as I remember, what was released was more vague; I am not clear why he says 'Ukraine' now. Indeed, we get a sense that Novorossia side is not trying to hide something; and we do get a sense that pro-Kiev side has something to hide. What is that exactly, would be a speculation. If they are serious about peace, perhaps some PR professionals can advise them as appropriate, that is, likely, to release whatever is there to hide. This appears to be rather popular method employed before elections. (Than after the elections, they can say, we told that already, and got elected anyway; but if something new comes up, somebody may say why it was hidden, and argue that it changes the balance). --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 23:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: The Nikishino reference is meant to show distance, ie that they were not close enough for any fighting to be happening at the crash site, therefore "too dangerous to let in investigators" was just an excuse. Definitely Novorossiya is not trying to hide anything -- they have nothing to hide, and did the right thing all the way through. The video is meant to show how much Kiev was obstructing all the way...this was obvious as soon as shelling started in the area the minute the bodies were gone. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 17:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
For example, one odd thing is that Ukrainian high officials are reported to make recent comments discussing 'that Buk' which shot the plane; and leaked document suggests the same, that they think it is "Buk', moreover very specific info on warhead, missile, and launcher. But how do they even know it was Buk? (if they just have some murky photo of the shrapnel piece? ) If they have shrapnel piece itself, not just the photo, why it was not sent to Netherlands? --Nobody in Netherlands seem to be certain what are those penetrating 'high velocity objects'. And how Ukrainians determined not only the missile type, but also '''launcher type''' just from this warhead shrapnel piece? Finally, after all that, why is that they are saying the launcher used is the one apparently only they have and Russians no longer use?([https://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%91%D1%83%D0%BA_(%D0%B7%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81)&previous=yes#.D0.A1.D0.BE.D1.81.D1.82.D0.B0.D0.B2_.D0.BA.D0.BE.D0.BC.D0.BF.D0.BB.D0.B5.D0.BA.D1.81.D0.B0_9.D0.9A37_.C2.AB.D0.91.D1.83.D0.BA-.D0.9C1.C2.BB Buk M1] they claim is the first and oldest launcher system from around 1979, no computer, etc. Russian Buk would be a more modern version, perhaps some 10 years older, and may use some computer already). So, the impression is, that UAF is, kind of, saying itself, that it is us to blame, and than also keeps this secret for 2 months. But somehow we are supposed to keep believing it was '''not''' them. Well, I dunno, this appears to get harder by the day. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 00:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
::I don't think it's UAF saying about this rocket, the whole movie is from the Russian side. They believe it was a Kiev job; movie stresses how they blocked investigation. There was an interview by Joern Akkermans with the local fire brigade chief which also showed this, how they sabotaged the investigators getting the first responders' detailed notes. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 17:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::Comments in above paragraph is not about the movie, it is about leaked documented dated 2 months ago, we have it elsewhere discussing leaks --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 17:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::On "how did they know from the debris fragment, they'd say they know because they had a bunch of photos of the launcher driving that way, plus the supposed audio of people talking about it as "Buk" (covered in their spots here) Of course, they sure got all that submitted and analyzed a bit too quick, so it seems more of that strange omniscience that suggests they aren't just reading along with the story but actually writing it. In reality I guess they know because it was theirs and used by them, but officially they have at least the video and audio evidence besides the later debris. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 22:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::You lost me there. What fragment do they have? they had no access to the site and who,in that mess, would anyway recognise a fragment the size of a coin? if they have a blurry photo, well, blurry means you can't see what's on it, and still doesn't prove where it came from, so....what are they on about? are they just saying "debris fragment" to mean those few skin sections with the lots of holes in them? from that they claim to know the model number of the BUK?<br />
:::I'm back to thinking about the movie, the women saying the 2 planes. people said that on day one, too. All people used to the idea of planes being SHOT WITH ROCKETS, by then there'd been about 15 or 20 of those, so why would they suddenly invent or imagine this was NOT? [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 22:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::Corrected; they have the audio-visual plus, '''they say,''' this scrap photo. Point was the Buk claim isn't based on the alleged scrap but the other stuff, fake or not, which they had from the start. Numerous potential reasons it isn't what they claim, but again I've always suspected they would know and properly ID the murder weapon, so I'm not very doubtful that they will have consistent evidence sooner or later (and it's been a while now) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Plane spotting story: could not detect any signs it was invented, sounded like simple folks telling what they saw, no signs it was forced on them to say, or tension/second thoughts in saying this, could be detected --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 00:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[http://www.cyber-berkut.org/en/ Leaked document ] is based on the photo, and apparently UAF do not have fragments<br />
:: "остаточний висновок щодо належності .... можливо зробити при наявностi оригінали" means "final conclusion on the association can be done in the presence of the original." <br />
Nalivaichenko (SBU) [http://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=2040949&cid=5 is said] to make this comment recently on 5 channel, Ukraine (Poroshenko channel): "Ukrainian investigators need to execute the plan, developed in collaboration with the Dutch side and the other members of the international investigation, arrive at the scene and find what we need, - fragments of a particular rocket specific "Buk" - said Nalyvaychenko." (The latter comments may possibly belong to the humor section). C-B appears to suggest that photo may be from the Netherlands. <br />
: (Nalyvaychenko has [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentyn_Nalyvaichenko a major in linguistics,] so his "plan" sounds odd).<br />
::[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIpD2eebJ_c Nalivaichenko report] appears essentially accurate, he did talk (in Ukrainian) about the investigation, starting at 7:30 timestamp; he did say "Buk M modernized" at 8:30, and "Buk" is even captured by automatic transcript (more->transcript ; but transcript is not working well overall. )<br />
. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Guys: he said "Ukrainian investigators need to execute the plan, developed in collaboration with the Dutch side and the other members of the international investigation, arrive at the scene and find what we need, - fragments of a particular rocket specific "Buk""<br />
The collaboration part might be along the lines of, "Ukrainians should go there as it seems too dangerous for anyone else" (which Ukies have made sure of all along). Now I'll strip down the rest to the vital parts:<br />
execute the plan...arrive and find...what we NEED<br />
Not search for. '''FIND.'''<br />
How hard is it to find something you just dropped? of course if they now said they found it, the whole world would just belly-laugh. Luckily it's in NR hands so they can't get near the site.<br />
I do believe Russia may be keeping an ace up their sleeve so to speak.[[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 03:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:"Investigation" would be the right word for what one should implement, while "plan" suggests something else, something one hatches in secret... With all this time to have been found and hidden by the separatists, he seems confident the smoking gun is still right there to be found. Maybe Putin's business card as well. Only Kiev's specially rigorous investigators can find it, and only after they've taken full control of the area. Indeed, "search for" would be a better term, if he meant "investigation," which seems hopeless But he said "plan" and apparently one that involves a pre-planned finding of the right clue, and is far from hopeless. Maybe they're just asking for help in conquering this area. No one will expect, need, or want them to follow through on such a plot, just to control more territory and have a fruitless look for good measure. Seems to me the US and allies probably already have enough evidence to blame Russia and carry out whatever punishment they can. It's always more about will than evidence anyway. <br />
:So... is the linguist just this sloppy? Or is he up to something dropping hints like this? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Reminds me of what Putin once said about the Iraqi WMDs: "If I were the Americans, I would have found some". Maybe his CIA overlords told Naliwhatshisname about that... ;oP --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
::: Haha, I didn't know that about Putin. Good on him for saying so out loud, too (tho that's a hint of menace as well). Ukraine police and secret services don't strike me as needing advice about faking evidence. oh, though on second thoughts, they're more used to just saying it and being believed, like the Big Invasion and 2 nukes on airport guys. USA has not said a word about Russia on this matter for ages, ie about the time the black boxes got read.[[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 12:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::: Tried to locate the origin of that quote but failed. Nothing in English and all the references in German indicate that they had it from the same source I have: German "comedians". It is in character though, if you add some "they can't even control their own plots" Russian humour. And I think he really said it, but at the current state of evidence don't reference it to me, please. ;o) --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 19:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Bloodless Bodies, Photo Proof? === <br />
Two days ago ANNA News [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAlC7HhfkrU uploaded a video] of some kind of presentation of photos from the aftermath and clean-up operation. Camera shows a Laptop with an apparently rather large collection of photos, a woman is operating and explaining what is shown (in Russian). As to the nature of it, this is really gruesome stuff showing the victims as they ended up on the ground, and I only made it a good minute in. The video description seems to allege [[Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17/Debunked_topics#Bloodless bodies – fake Facebook profiles?|what Strelkov reported his men reporting]] to the outrage of everyone: Smell of chemicals, many naked, no or very few blood, in decay. <br />
<br />
Doesn't fit there ("debunked topics"), because the photos are certainly not debunked and evidence independent of any conclusions. So it's here. Should be watched by someone who can judge what they see and have a good stomach. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:It might've been flippant to put the theory right into debunked, but it made a fair point that it sounds really dumb on the surface ... but this is presented as evidence, okay. I had a look, indeed some horrible images - people broken and smeared in several different ways (look out esp. from 4:49-5:08). I'm guessing these are mostly next morning photos near the site? Ones further out, found later, will be rotting. I'm not expert enough to settle this, but fresh bodies normally should not have these signs we see: darkening skin, black lips, etc. - lack of visible surface blood - (heard about) bad decay smell. <br />
:But then again, bodies don't normally - suffer massive decompression / oxygen cut-off / etc. - move at high speed as they're torn up (smeared people = wiped clean?) - have all their tussues and guts torn up so badly - and do all this in mass numbers at the peak of summer. No maggots yet - they must have been pre-killed somewhere there were no flies, (or gassed with a pesticide-like poison!) or very quickly before loading ... no, my semi-educated guess is still some combination of these factors will explain what we see, even in these select photos. But at least, this lets us see more of it ourselves for comparison. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Yeah, it sounds bizarre but Strelkov mentioned it himself saying he just relayed what he was told from the ground. Anyway, to speculate about it we first need more details about the claims. Went back to ANNA to see if anybody subtitled it ... but they don't seem to do that the same way as in Syria. But I noticed just recently they have a German team which produces little news shows. Didn't look into it yet. But hey, [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8YycmILC2M there it is], a German version with hardwired subtitles. Which means there is no transcript to copy & paste like with the CC function. Which means I will have to watch at least a bit of it. *sigh* Maybe later, maybe tomorrow. <br />
::From the German description I can already say that the woman alleges to be an eyewitness who arrived "immediately" at the scene. Description is written in sceptical language. Her claims: Very few Europeans (as opposed to Asians, I guess), disgusting smell, rotten bodies. They checked Laptops and USB-Sticks and found "no photos" younger than October 2013. Let me guess (I don't know out of hand), that's when the other MH disappeared? --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 00:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::I'm so not trusting this narrative - these are also people who were (kept alive?) from ... no MH370 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370 wp] was in March this year (that recent?) - All I can find October 2013 related is an alleged Israeli acquisition of the jet's twin (sale in Florida, October 21, 2013 [http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2014/03/malaysian-jet-in-israel-identical-to-hijacked-plane-2927532.html per Chris Bollyn (quack)] He speculates it would be rolled out for another false flag attack, unless maybe people were alerted. So ... maybe passengers bought at the same time at that plane, kept alive but not allowed to take pictures, for nine months, but killed long enough before the July crash date they were just then rotting ... lot of fake families implied for the missing new (alleged) victims ... lot of proof in the rotting bodies and nine-months lack of new photos ... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 08:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: FTR [http://info.kopp-verlag.de/hintergruende/enthuellungen/gerhard-wisnewski/ausfuehrlicher-augenzeugenbericht-passagiere-von-flug-mh-17-definitiv-dosenfleisch-.html here] is a detailed German language article about the claims in the video, which makes them more accessible per autotranslation than the embedded subtitles. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
If you think the subtitles are worth it, you can cover the whole screen besides that and still even get time-stamps. Like, at 0:40 is she saying here are more blood free body parts, and the wet pavement under them is from the day's rain? (tried typing into Google translate - my High School German mostly catches "the ... of ... and" - but still "a "wet" aureole were umwolkt" didn't help enough) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 08:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
::What nonsense. Anyone who would go to this much trouble would surely EASILY put some more recent photos on the USB sticks.<br />
::As well as fake families,they'd have to create fake social media going back years, plus fake old school/work friends and neighbours. In 10 countries. Oh and a fake AIDS conference. <br />
::None of these idiots has yet come up with WHY? what benefit does anyone get from faking all this? If it was meant for putting the blame on one country or another, they could have got THAT bit right and shoot it in a way that 100% identifies that country.<br />
<br />
::Most if not all the passengers would have been killed by the shock wave of the missile detonation, causing internal injuries including mashing of the lungs and intestines. Black lips etc would be from lack of oxygen. Then while the plane was thrashing around/diving/spinning they'd get thrown around, among seats and luggage also flying around. This would cause numerous injuries. These would hardly bleed at all, because the hearts were no longer pumping. Blood in their veins/arteries would be barely liquid by the time they hit the ground a few minutes later. <br />
::This is consistent with what Strelkov's people were reporting - bloated blackening bodies with "no blood" where they expected to see blood. Any mangled bodies these guys would have recently seen were fresh killed in front of their eyes, a different result altogether.[[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 10:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: FWIW Double plus that! Simple explanations win over conspiracy theories every time --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 11:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::: Not worth much without examination of the evidence. As Sir Arthur Conan Doyle once said: "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." Just saying. ;o) --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::: I suppose this one's been well-enough piled on. All points including the last seem totally valid. I'm still not inclined to pursue it, but it might be worth double-checking. If things besides decay can be ruled out or whatever, ... eh, I'll just have to see.--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 00:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==What Can Forensics Prove?==<br />
:''Investigation moved to [[/Forensics]]<br />
We're now getting organized, with [[List of MH17 airframe parts]] - a picture of how the plane was impacted will emerge. The BUK alleged ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buk_missile_system Wikipedia]) has radar guided missiles that can track, turn, change altitude, etc. So I conclude the damage won't tell us if the missile was air-to-air or from the surface, or what direction it was fired from. It's still worth knowing, of course, but ... could use some discussion maybe on what we can/can't/should be aiming for here. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:The damage will tell us it was an air-to-air missile with rod warhead fired from the front, that exploded when its proximity fuse passed the cockpit window. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 23:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
DPR and Netherlands reached [http://rusvesna.su/third_world/1415293335 an agreement] that plain wreckage will be transported to Netherlands by train, using 4 open and one closed wagons. Loading will be done by Netherlands. OSCE will accompany. <br />
'Laying out' wreckage and forensics may help to determine the cause of the crash. This is currently open, with surface-to-air missile 'the most likely' scenario, and military planes involvement not excluded. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 04:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Fighter Jet? ==<br />
:''Moved to [[/Fighter jets]]<br />
<br />
== General Discussion ==<br />
=== Slightly informed comment on air defences ===<br />
<br />
See [http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com.au/2014/07/memories-recollection-guesses-and.html vineyardsaker]. Certainly biased, but internally reasonably consistent --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 02:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I'll just add various rumours / propaganda I've heard so far.<br />
<br />
- US Satellites tracked the missile<br />
<br />
- Russia did it (at least morally)<br />
<br />
- Ukraine did it (for continuing the battle)<br />
<br />
- The plane was deliberately diverted to the location it was shot down<br />
<br />
- There was a storm over Crimea causing the diversion<br />
<br />
- add your rumour here<br />
<br />
What I haven't heard yet is the terrorist bomb theory. If the plan had crashed in say Poland that would have been the only game in town.<br />
--[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 02:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Anton Gerashchenko: case solved in under 3 hours ===<br />
Anton Gerashchenko, adviser to Ukraine's Interior Ministry, must have some serious detective skills. Within 6 hours of the plane's disappearance from radar screens, he already had almost exactly the full official story Kiev is still rolling with 6 months later. This is illustrated by at least these three Facebook posts from July 17 (any other timed sources we find I'd like to add): --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC) <br />
<br />
The earliest I found was [https://www.facebook.com/anton.gerashchenko.7/posts/694787050608145 July 17, 6:20 PM local time] from crash at about 15:19 local = 3 hours after. Auto-translated with repair attempts, he says:<br />
:''Just over the Torez Putin kindly passed to terrorists anti-aircraft missile complex "Buk" that shot down civilian aircraft Kuala Lumpur-Amsterdam.'' <br />
:''This morning local patriots detected this being moved from Thorez to Snezhnoye'' <br />
:''He was flying at an altitude of 10 thousand meters Claimed 280 passengers and 15 crew members.'' <br />
:''There is not limit to the cynicism of Putin and his terrorists!'' <br />
:''Europe, the United States, Canada, the civilized world-open your eyes! Help us all than we can!'' <br />
:''It is a war of good versus evil!''<br />
:''Here's a video of the crash site! Some scoundrels shouted that "beauty! Beautifully lit!"!'' <br />
:''The Inhumans!'' ( Нелюди! )<br />
In less than three hours he was only able to show [http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JhUkqs9CQ0w#t=57 this video of the smoke plume after crash,] but with unexplained prior knowledge, apparently, of a Buk launcher from Russia, moved through Torez to Sneznhnoye. None of that is remotely evident from this video. But somehow he had and was sure of this information and had it all put together into this certain diagnosis of who's "evil" here, in under three hours. Hm. It's noted there was an edit at 6:28, to insert "He was flying at a height of 10 thousand meters." This might be due to the fact that at this point, he wasn't supposed to know for sure it was that Russian Buk that fired, as opposed to a MANPADS or the like, and suggests he or whoever he talked to had deduced that from the altitude (too high for other known weapons). --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
At least two more early posts come from [http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/805272-anton-gerashchenko-buk-missile-photo-ukranian-official-accuses-putin-of-sponsoring-terrorists/<br />
Epoch Times] <br />
<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=694844643935719&set=p.694844643935719&type=1 20:45] = app. 7.5 hours after the crash; by now he has the Torez launch plume photo as well, finally a visual clue giving him a good reason to specify the town the firing was near (if there was time to analyze it). In part: "Putin! You and your cronies did not escape from the International Tribunal. This is a photo ... a few minutes after the launch ... Thousands of people have seen the launch and flight of the rocket, which you kindly handed your sponsored terrorists!"<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=694849760601874&set=p.694849760601874&type=1 20:59,] just 14 minutes later, posting with (?) Gennady Bakalar (Геннадий Бакаляр), he added this post with the launcher driving through Torez, finally confirming the (reports?) he heard earlier that it passed through there. Did "thousands" of people see that too? He says in part "Oh and to permanently close questions about when and who committed this outrageous act of international terrorism is further evidence of the International Tribunal: installing Buk passes through the city of Torez this morning!" But we already heard all about that hours earlier. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The Lugansk launcher video of the next morning was also allegedly handed right over to the SBU for their own publication, by the (tipped-off?) police agent who filmed it passing by just before dawn. But everything else, ostensibly, they had to find themselves from public sources, posted by people with no such SBU/MoI links. But man is that swift work. Almost entirely found - and effectively analyzed for clues, understood and double-checked good enough for them - that they were spouting off complete answers within three hours. Clearly suspect. Suggested: he had it solved instantly, sent in pre-packaged like planned. Even this three hour delay is his way of appearing realistic; considering how blatantly evil Putin is and how friggin' brilliant these Ukie Fascists are, why would it take any longer? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: the most fascinating part of this is, at the 3 hour mark it was still burning...and ALL the bits with the bullet holes in them were at another village, and nobody KNEW it had not just crashed all by itself, like planes do sometimes. The video he posted is the Antonov the day before which had also appeared on Strelkov's VK that was taken as boasting of MH17. Strelkov's was posted at 17.50 local time so about 40 mins after the MH17 crash and HALF HOUR before the expert solved the case, using an image stolen from Strelkovs VK. That was not discovered by SBU until next day, after it had been "hurriedly withdrawn". [http://cdn0.dailydot.com/uploaded/images/original/2014/7/18/Screen_Shot_2014-07-18_at_12.03.03_PM.png screenshot] [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 12:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Just occurred to me. If he decided it was shot down entirely because of Strelkov's badly timed post, and it turned out later it crashed from eg pilot error or onboard hijacking, WOW how silly he would have looked then. But nah, they knew, couldn't believe their good luck when Strelkov put that up. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 12:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::It is well known that Strelkov VK is not managed by Strelkov (he said it explicitly a number of times).That post is not his. He occasionally posts things himself (elsewhere) but this thing was not posted by him, it may be somebody posting far from the battlefield and not having direct knowledge, or confused opolchenie (says it comes from opolchenie in the post). (Strelkov is also accused of other publicity crimes he did not commit, for example having intention to run for President of Russia and other misdemeanors not actually committed. Articles about him are typically such mis-attributions.). --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===What's a Bellingcat?===<br />
[https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2015/05/25/whats-a-bellingcat-anyway/ What’s a Bellingcat Anyway?] --Studied at DeepResource, and reported on 25.5.2015. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 17:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
:Looks like a great piece, and I know it wasn't a question, but to the extent it might be: it refers to "belling the cat," or smthg like "who dare bell the cat," from an old fable about mice who decide to make their world safe by taking on some tyrant (cat) and stringing a bell around his neck so they'll always know before he attacks. But everyone's too afraid to go put the bell on him. Implied: Higgins is not afraid to blame Putin for stuff (or here, to analyze the recordings of a bell already placed? Or...?). In practice, it's more a one-trick bellingpony. Site creation: about a week before MH-17 shootdown, FWIW. Far and away their #1 obsession since then: the geo-location epic of that stupid (irrelevant?) BUK launcher multi-stop field trip. It's only natural - in fact it could hardly be tailor made any better for him and his well-connected team to unravel 'in the open' like that, all on video. Cases not so well-suited to yield his desired results, of course, [http://taldoutruth.blogspot.com/2014/12/brown-moses-on-hook.html he will never have time for,] even when the work's done and all he has to do is review it. No time - there's probably yet another seam of the MH-17 case to discover that these sooper-seekret Russian terrorists just left laying around. And always, there is praises and biscuits to collect. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 08:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
::Number of times bellingcat recently tweeted or retweeted on [https://twitter.com/GeoffPyatt Geofrey Pyatt]: 17/page; while us = 0. 'Russia's finest propagandists are no match for bellingcat, who have picked apart yet more shaky claims about MH17' (now something wrong with Russian MoD satellite photos)--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 12:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
::: Their latest stunt with the "faked" Russian satellite images isn't going well. Not "only" has our friend Charles Wood given it [http://7mei.nl/2015/06/01/about-bellingcats-claim-russian-sat-pics-fake/ a quick treatment], but the man behind the online tool they used [https://twitter.com/hackerfactor/status/605362347616526337 agrees] with a [http://life.lanzone.eu/?p=30 devastating analysis] telling them essentially to read the f... manual. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 18:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::: Had a look at both, well-lodged points. Neither even says the photos must be real, just that bellinputin are clearly not the vaunted "experts" they're getting praised as and the meaningfulness of their findings is open to question. Didn't actually look at the original work. Aside from Charles at least, we're not really qualified experts in much either, might make mistakes too, etc. But when this supposed competence plus clear Putin-blame come together suddenly the media lackeys are amplifying their expertise (or rather shifting it from experts at blaming Putin to experts at how to do it with scientific rigor, which it seems they're not). --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::: [http://life.lanzone.eu/?p=53 Here]'s the promised part 2 of "Myghty"'s analysis. More of the same amateurish errors for pic 5. The real scandal here is that they are still peddled by the "MSM", not that they aren't real experts. But, miracles happen, DER SPIEGEL [http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/mh17-satellitenbilder-bellingcat-betreibt-kaffeesatzleserei-a-1036874.html has an interview] ([http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/expert-criticizes-allegations-of-russian-mh17-manipulation-a-1037125.html English translation] --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)) this morning with a German digital photo forensics expert who says the same as Charles and the others, and they even put disclaimers linking to it on their earlier "praise Brown Noses" articles. Good sign. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::::: Was about to note the Spiegel piece but it's done. Good. So the problem is those who pushed headlines like [http://mashable.com/2015/05/31/russia-fake-mh17-report/ Satellite images show clearly that Russia faked its MH17 report] (Mashable)-[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2836245/Report-slams-new-surveillance-photos-released-Russian-state-broadcaster-MH17-shot-shoddy-fake.html Were MH17 'satellite images' photoshopped? Report slams new surveillance pictures released by Russian state broadcaster as a 'shoddy fake'] (Daily Mail) - [http://www.joinfo.com/world/1002451_British-experts-accuse-Russian-Defense-Ministry.html British experts accuse Russian Defense Ministry of forging photos of MH-17 crash] --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 22:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::::: In case you wondered, [http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/bellingcat-autor-war-hauptamtlicher-stasi-mitarbeiter-a-1037297.html "Timmi Allen" is a former Stasi operative], according to the latest SPIEGEL exposure. I've stacked huge amount of popcorn to make sure to survive the weekend. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 15:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::::: Oh, and [http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10692555#post10692555 I already came up with a conspiracy theory about that]. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 15:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== A Rebel-Held Area ==<br />
The presumption behind blaming separatists at all is that the blamed surface-to-air missile was fired from an area under control of separatist forces. But most people seem to just presume the entire eastern area (past what line, who knows?) is all rebel turf, with no Ukrainian military inroads anywhere. That's part of why it's taken as so obvious, even though no one's sure just where the firing was from. The Russian military presentation took BUK itself as meaning Ukrainian military. They claim satellite images of them in Kien-run army bases as close as 5 km from Donetsk, moved on the 17th to a site closer to the shoot-down area, then moved away again.<ref name="RT10">[http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ 10 more questions Russian military pose to Ukraine, US over MH17 crash] RT. July 21, 2014</ref> It seems the "just where" question is far more important than most presume (that is, if there was a ground launch that even mattered, as I suspect) Does anyone have a good analysis of the general control-accessibility situation on that day? Some nerd might have made a map that's reliable? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
:For the NATO narrative on the Novorossiyan Buk you can look at the Ukraine@war. He will you the exact location in Snizhne (the town that was bombed two days before, with 13 civilians killed inside their apartment block). I am no longer interested. All that interest me is the technical aspects of the of the crash investigation. What hit the MH17 where and when.<br />
:P.S. – There is supposedly a video somewhere of a Buk fired. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 12:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
:WSJ has a crappy map: [http://graphics.wsj.com/mh17-crash-map/?standalone=1 How MH17 Came Apart Over Ukraine] – Fails to show any of what the title claims. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 12:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== The Defector Theory ==<br />
* [http://eyesopenreport.com/u-s-prepares-to-blame-mh17-shoot-down-on-ukrainian-army-defector/#more-13012 U.S. Prepares to Blame MH17 Shoot Down on Ukrainian Army “Defector”] Paul Joseph Watson , July 23<br />
:''In an attempt to explain away the existence of evidence which shows Ukrainian troops firing the missile that brought down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, Washington may be preparing to fix the intelligence by pinning the blame on a “defector” in order to absolve Kiev.''<br />
:''As we reported on Monday, award winning former AP and Newsweek reporter Robert Parry was told by an intelligence source that the U.S. is in possession of images which show men dressed in Ukrainian Army uniforms operating the Buk missile system which shot down MH17. If proven accurate, such information would completely eviscerate Washington and Kiev’s already shaky narrative that Russian-backed separatist rebels were responsible for the attack.''<br />
:''The U.S. State Department now appears to be shifting the emphasis of its narrative to discount the possibility that Kiev itself was responsible for shooting down MH17. As the L.A. Times reported yesterday, “U.S. officials said it was possible the SA-11 [anti-aircraft missile] was launched by a defector from the Ukrainian military who was trained to use similar missile systems.” Blaming the incident on a “defector” would allow the U.S. to explain why the culprit was wearing a Ukrainian Army uniform when he shot down the airliner.''<br />
Sounds intriguing, and Robert Parry is usually pretty reliable.Seems worth a section here to see how it pans out. Skipping the prior Infowars article, [http://consortiumnews.com/2014/07/20/what-did-us-spy-satellites-see-in-ukraine/ This from July 20] seems to be the original explanation by Parry at Consortium News. I'm not encouraged by the details - the images aren't video or photo, but satellite. Parry mentions the limits of what satellites can see, but rightly points out they could see any Buk system component. Russia's satellites saw the ones run by Kiev's pro-America junta, first at their normal base, then somewhere else '''on July 17.''' What you can't as likely see is smaller details like the exact pattern on a person's shirt, or what the label on a bottle says, if even its shape. But he says:<br />
:''What I’ve been told by one source, who has provided accurate information on similar matters in the past, is that U.S. intelligence agencies do have detailed satellite images of the likely missile battery that launched the fateful missile, but the battery appears to have been under the control of Ukrainian government troops dressed in what look like Ukrainian uniforms.''<br />
:''The source said CIA analysts were still not ruling out the possibility that the troops were actually eastern Ukrainian rebels in similar uniforms but the initial assessment was that the troops were Ukrainian soldiers. There also was the suggestion that the soldiers involved were undisciplined and possibly drunk, since the imagery showed what looked like beer bottles scattered around the site, the source said.''<br />
Ooh, bad move when, as John Kerry, knows, it's the separatists that are the drunken ones in the area. As for where the image was taken, the evidence suggests it was a separatist-policed one. It probably was non-defected Kiev soldiers running it, but false claims to that effect make that possible truth harder to see, in the end. I think Parry's source stopped being credible prior to this latest. Anyone else more inclined to accept this evidence? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Everyone is trash talking everyone else. I'm not believing any of it. It was partly cloudy that day and you'd have to be very lucky to have a satellite pass overhead just when a BUK gets launched. It is much more likely that whatever the US has it got from a spy plane, such as the RC-135 they have operating in the area.(On July 18 some Russian MIGs approached it and it had to fly off over Sweden without permission). https://medium.com/war-is-boring/u-s-spy-plane-reportedly-violated-swedish-air-space-to-escape-russian-fighters-424d05e11bd5 Sorry can't find it now, but another story said land radar had locked onto them, which is why they left in such a hurry. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 03:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: [http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ Russian press conference:] "As far as we know, there was indeed a US satellite flying over southeastern Ukraine on July 17 from 17:06 to 17:21 Moscow time." That will be 16.06 to 16.21 local. _If true_, this is likely to show at least part of the trajectory. No need for satellite's beer bottle photos. -- [[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 03:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: As I recall, somewhere on the news there was a claim that there is no US radar data (too far) --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 03:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: US: “We saw the take-off. We saw the trajectory, we saw the hit. We saw this aeroplane disappear from the radar screens. So there is really no mystery about where it came from and where these weapons have come from." [http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/foreign-affairs/we-saw-the-hit-we-saw-plane-disappear-says-john-kerry-on-mh17/story-fn59nm2j-1227022300618?nk=9b529f73960c26d0085eae5193a5b6b7] (Hope not on a fake photo)? --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 05:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::The photo that popped up for me showed lots of flowers and photos of Diana, Princess of Wales, i.e from 1997. So in true ''The Australian'' tradition a fake. FYI ''The Australian'' is one of the least accurate papers in Australia and runs a very heavy anti-Russian and pro-Israel line. --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 05:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== False-Flag Theories ==<br />
=== Andriy Parubiy again? ===<br />
<br />
Pepe Escobar names Andriy Parubiy as a possible suspect.<br />
* [http://rt.com/op-edge/174088-was-it-putin-missile/ It was Putin’s missile!] – ''RT'', July 19, 2014<br />
:''Carlos’s assessment: the missile was fired by the Ukraine military under orders of the Ministry of Interior - NOT the Ministry of Defense. Security matters at the Ministry of the Interior happen to be under Andrey Paruby, who was closely working alongside US neo-cons and Banderastan neo-Nazis on Maidan.<br />
-- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 02:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
::From what I've read on the guy, he's likely enough to be behind this that, really, all Ukraine's airspace should be closed until he's no longer on the loose. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Robert Parry introduces Parubiiy in [http://consortiumnews.com/2014/07/20/what-did-us-spy-satellites-see-in-ukraine/ his July 20 article,] and mentions:<br />
:''It was this same Parubiy whom the Post writers turned to seeking more information condemning the eastern Ukrainian rebels and the Russians regarding the Malaysia Airlines catastrophe. Parubiy accused the rebels in the vicinity of the crash site of destroying evidence and conducting a cover-up, another theme that resonated through the MSM.''<br />
:''Without bothering to inform readers of Parubiy’s unsavory neo-Nazi background, the Post quoted him as a reliable witness declaring: “It will be hard to conduct a full investigation with some of the objects being taken away, but we will do our best.”'' --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
FTR, Andriy Parubiy [http://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/30934.html resigned yesterday]. Same day the following came out. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Valentyn Nalyvaichenko ===<br />
<br />
On August 7, SBU head Valentyn Nalyvaichenko introduced a new narrative ([http://www.sbu.gov.ua/sbu/control/en/publish/article?art_id=129860&cat_id=35317 release on SBU website] / [https://archive.today/KItnx archived snapshot]) apparently contradicting their released audio tapes that early on helped form the narrative of an accidental shoot-down of MH17 by "rebels" who thought it was a military plane. Now the story goes that the Russians planned to shoot down an Aeroflot plane in a false flag operation blaming it on Ukraine, to have a pretext for invasion. But the "Russian mercenaries" moved their Buk to a different location than planned and mistook MH17 for the Aeroflot machine with their own people they wanted to kill. What exactly they prepared to blame it on Ukraine (maybe Ukrainian uniforms or something?), or why a plane full of AIDS researchers and Dutch children couldn't be used as a pretext (Russian people don't care about Dutch children?), is not explained. Nalyvaichenko [[Talk:Ukraine_2014#Mercenaries_commanded_by_Andriy_Parubiy|has been implicated by his predecessor]] in the sniper killings on Maidan, together with Andriy Parubiy.--[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*Human Rights Investigations, Aug. 7 - [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/08/07/in-ukraine-the-lunatics-have-taken-over-the-asylum/ In Ukraine, the lunatics have taken over the asylum] This relates a SBU statement of earlier in the day outlining their latest theory. As said before, Russians did it, with a system they brought in and took right back with them. Most people have presumed there's no motive for Russia to shoot down an airliner into the separatist's area on their behalf, and it must have been an accident. The SBU's thinkers decided it was intentional, but with an accidental part too. '''They meant to shoot down a Russian airliner''', but set themselves up in the wrong town, so they hit MH17 instead. The original plan was to use dead Russians blamed on Kiev as a reason to invade Ukraine, but when it was other people dead, he said never mind. Awesome theory, no? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: Beat you to it, put it here where it belongs... bizarre. Interesting that Parubiy resigned (see above the subheadline) the same day this came out, isn't it?--[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::Awesome, tag-teamed it with similar technique. Parubiy, huh! That gave zero reason, didn't it? It's not 'to spend more time with my family.' No, he notes on the way out, he still belongs at the "forefrongfront." --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]])<br />
:::: FTR [http://rt.com/news/178760-ukraine-security-chief-resigns/ RT says] "On Monday, reports appeared in Ukrainian media about Parubiy’s resignation. The Local Zn.ua website, citing its source, said that the security chief is due to resign due to diverging opinions with the country’s president. The media stated that Parubiy decided to resign after he was ordered to declare another ceasefire in Kiev’s military operation in the southeast of the country, but he refused to do so." --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:22, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::: [http://www.unn.com.ua/ru/news/1374133-p-poroshenko-doruchiv-rozsliduvati-proval-spetsoperatsiyi-na-kordoni-z-rf-zmi This article] announces an investigation into the "Southern Cauldron" disaster and calls Parubiy the "main author" of the plan that led to it. Maybe that's the reason. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 16:47, 10 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/08/ukrainian-sbu-comes-with-conspiracy.html Ukraine@War views the theory favorably] --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:34, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
* And [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/08/debunking-sbu-theory-of-afl2074-mh17.html not impressed with one de-bunk effort] but rather more convinced!<br />
<br />
: Yeah, we got it the first time already. The guy is a knucklehead. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Cyber Berkut leak ===<br />
{{Main|Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Cyber Berkut leak}}<br />
* [http://en.voicesevas.ru/news/analytics/2793-kolomoyskiy-assistants-facebook-account-hacked-the-boeing-downed-by-junta.html Kolomoyskiy assistant’s Facebook account hacked - the Boeing downed by junta!]<br />
<br />
=== SBU wiretap video ===<br />
:''Moved to [[/SBU Audio Evidence]]<br />
<br />
===Corbett report===<br />
Petri just put this on the main page<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWlAARb0fN4<br />
<br />
I ASSUME it is going to be a false flag nonsense. After 8 whole minutes of introductory waffle and advertising, he still has not started on the topic, so I am not watching any more of it. It is titled "MH17 FULLY EXPOSED!! You Won't Believe The SHOCKING TRUTH About the Ukraine FALSE FLAG ". they are right, I won't believed a word of it. Don't bother with it. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 01:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== A False-Flag Defector Theory ==<br />
Here's one way the facts might wind up going: an SA-11 was fired from outside Snizneh, as alleged, and that's what killed MH17. The Buk launcher was even welcomed in by local commanders, heard saying so in audio communications that could prove true (or not), was sent to the spot by them, and then disavowed in embarrassment. And also the launcher came from Kiev's arsenal, the shootdown was not a mistake, and the crime carried out by pro-Kiev false-flaggers in the proud Euromaidan tradition. Here's how that could all be so:<br />
<br />
Some secret Right-winger in the army playing a disgusted defector makes contact with local rebels on July 15. He heard about the apartment bombing that day in Snizneh, and about the junta's plans for another run at the same place two days later. But, he said, he could get access to a launcher at the base north of Donetsk, a disloyal guard who'd take a bribe (small, covered) plus even a couple local defectors trained to run it, and even a truck from his part time job - the boss wouldn't notice it missing, he's such a clueless junta-supporter... Yeah, he could have it all mobile, drive it himself, make all the contacts, have their guys check it out, it works! It'll shoot down anything. They can get it put in place and wait. In this version, the "SBU wiretap" audio was maybe their defector's own phone - he was undercover the whole time, "wearing a wire" - the launcher was a trojan horse, and its crew were evil and knew just what they where they were and just what they were doing. <br />
<br />
On the rebel end, having no clue there will be a mass murder ensuing, and seeing nothing criminal in preventing a second junta air force atrocity, happily waved the thing in. They were supposed to meet someone in Snizneh, but drove off mysteriously. Then MH17 came down and, in dread and shock, the rebels decided to dis-acknowledge the whole deal, and no one's simply come clean about it yet. But the "defector" meme coming out might be spurred by its partial truth, along lines kind of like this, and not from some satellite photos. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: Hey CL, apart from your vivid imagination, do you have even just a whisper to back this up? And if we're speculating, how would you like to forget Snizneh and look at Chornukhyne as the launch site? At the time was on almost no man's land, under Don Cossack Control. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 14:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::: Do I have evidence? Yes. There are these pieces we're considering, supposed to point that way, that might or might not. This theory here is sort of a "worst case scenario" where all those come out true, or an idea for those who believe all those clues, to show how alternate explanations still exist even then. Im am fairly convinced of the core parts, much less on the calls, but this is more a though exercise than "my theory," although it's not far from my working theory and become it if the audio is genuine after all. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 22:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: Yeah, similar to KatKan question is bugging me as well . Why not to look, let's say, perhaps somewhere else? (hopefully without creating sudden burst of fighting or urgent land management work just right exactly there, if possible )? --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 14:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: yeah, early intercepted call said ""These are Chernukhin folks who shot down the plane. From the Chernukhin check point. Those Cossacks who are based in Chernukhino." and nobody's ever looked there. It is same distance as Snizneh and 90 degrees to the flight path so an easy shot. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 15:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: I certainly would not know why a reputable news-maker would pay travel expenses going to Snezhny but not this other well-flagged place nearby. The only new comment I have to make here is that this is a big expensive truck, not a flag costing one grivna/ruble {nor is it a can of some chemicals). It is your best air defense, and there aren't many. So it is either off front line or it is there, somewhere, for a real strong reason. --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 19:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: Okay, the other town being named is one clue for another site, and no one looking could be why there's nothing else. I'm not sure how Chernukin connects - If the burned spot is up there, or there's another one... maybe the defector made his contact with those guys, and so his little team was called part of theirs - Miner brought them. As for why the other area, it was indicated and they say it had burn marks at the end (can't be checked and ruled in or out), so they went and it ''appears'' to have been smart. In the other direction, a mention the responsible people are ''from'' there, not even that they fired from there. But at least it's not pulled out of thin air. If there becomes more to support it, I'll consider more. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 22:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::: We may want to put the audio story in order separately, someplace, if it was not done. I was following it initially, but now references are hard to find. <br />
<br />
:::::Agreed. This happens here sometimes. Hoping it helps, I made [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/SBU Audio Evidence|a page for that subject]] and moved comments from both of you guys over there. Hope I didn't mess anything up in the process - please review. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::::You did indeed delete a whole bunch of stuff instead of "moving" it. Restored here. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::As I recall (but do not have links saved), this is Bes recordings, glued together from genuine pieces. (I believe Bes said pieces are genuine early on himself) The first piece, mentioning Enakievo, is about a different earlier episode--as he himself responded. His response about second piece, mentioning Cossacks, was much more evasive, something like 'if every block post has a Buk, than I'll be in Kiev'. But it is clear that at the time of event, he had reason to believe that something was going on over there. That does not say this happened as he thought, Cossacks may be shooting pistols not Buks or whatever; but it may looked like something is launched from there, or whatever the case might be. This does suggest some notable event at that location. I do not see genuine evidence pointing to the current official version; it is more consistent with somebody trying to put a false flag there so that all attention of social networkers go that way. Chasing this flag further is a waste of time in my opinion, and is unlikely to produce anything new which is not known already. Looking the other way, even pointing out there is SOME other way, might. (Actually, it looks like attempts were made to place SEVERAL false flags, and than whatever was picked up , was supported by some further noise). --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 23:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::: (Coincidently) just above I posted [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T34AB6CImTE an alleged proof of audio fakery] of some SBU-released audio, likely from the first batch. As I said, I didn't look into it really closely. Maybe worth doing so. Claim is that it was cut together from several audio tapes. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 23:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::::Bes in the audio (perhaps glued from pieces) does [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJnD1wgofYM say] Cossacks from Chernukhino block post shot the plane down, those Cossacks _standing_ at Cherknukhino. Why everybody is looking the other way just beats me --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 00:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::::: This brief piece on Chernukhino Cossacks is disconnected from the first piece (about Miner, apparently another rebel) and from discussion of discovering that it was a passenger plane and of the bodies. Chernukhino piece is timed at 16.33 on the crash day. First piece (Miner) is timed earlier, actually, at 16:40, and talks about a different location (really bad gluing skill here; this miner thing is most likely from another day, and I recall that was claimed in discussions which followed. ) Gluing is beyond any doubt; but individual pieces sound genuine for my ears. So he does not actually say it was his Cossacks or what they shot was a passenger plane; just that (some) Cossacks standing at Chernukhino shot (some ) plane, and than it cuts off; rebel blame is rather what this gluing order is trying to convey on us. I would certainly check this out. --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 01:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::I've gone back to early things to refresh my memory. And the whole tone of voice was different then. Today it is all propaganda and fantastic stories from everyone.The first 2 days everyone sounded genuine, spoke unthinking,not for effect. So I am thinking, things said early are more likely true. Yes that video with the telephone calls was from 3 separate calls, and at least one maybe not from July 17. The one about Yenaklevo I think is another day. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 00:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Debunked topics ==<br />
:''Moved to [[/Debunked topics]]<br />
<br />
This link http://adam1baum.blogspot.fi/2014/08/another-journalist-exposes-mh17-false.html <br />
<br />
just added to the main page under "Analysis"<br />
is FULL of items already debunked. Are the "analysis" items being added without comment? just to collect them? [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 16:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Yes, basically the main page is for pre-scrutiny source material. Analysis is mainly to collect them. I had a quick look at the blog post, but noticed most of the topics were debunked long ago. Or should be debunked. For example, it seems that MH17 may have flown a different route on previous days, but there were plenty of other Asia flight in the Donetsk airspace. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 20:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Warhead damage ==<br />
:''Moved to [[/Forensics#Warhead damage]]<br />
<br />
== Radar Evidence ==<br />
:''Moved to [[/Map#Radar Evidence]]<br />
<br />
== Cockpit Voice Recorder ==<br />
Thanks for a start, Charles, will review. I was watching for that, gathering a bit of background on the CVR angle. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
* July 23: good condition http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/malaysian-airlines-flight-mh17-cockpit-voice-recorder-in-good-condition-1.2715671<br />
:''The cockpit voice recorder of the Malaysian airliner downed over Ukraine is in good condition, the UN civil aviation body said on Wednesday,'' <br />
:''"The cockpit voice recorder is in good condition ... the digital flight data recorder is still under review," ICAO said in a statement.''<br />
* July 23, downloaded: http://www.eturbonews.com/48306/mh-17-cockpit-voice-recorder-data-downloaded<br />
:''On Tuesday 22 July 2014 at 22:00 inKiev, Ukraine, the flight data and cockpit voice recorders (the 'black boxes') from the Malaysian Airlines flight 17 were taken into custody by the Dutch ambassador and a team of investigators led by the Dutch Safety Board. The Dutch Safety Board requested that the Air Accident Investigation Branch of theUnited Kingdom (AAIB) perform the data download from both the recorders. The recorders were transported to the AAIB's laboratory at Farnborough, arriving 23rd July in the early morning.''<br />
<br />
::I just got a real TinFoil idea. The black boxes were found in the wheatfield where they also found some bodies on day ONE. There were daily reports that they had been found and were going to be sent to Russia. Then on July 21 they were "found" ON CAMERA...and the guy carried it a long way, stuck out in front of him, to a command post of some sort, the camera following him the whole way. Not a rebel but an official Emergency Services guy. Nice "evidence" of chain of possession. BUT there is a 3-day gap there, when something could be taken the 80 miles or so to a place called Rostov, and back again. Black boxes have ports for cables to be attached,they don't need to be pulled apart to be read. What if Russia already has a copy of what was on the black boxes? adding to their confidence? [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 15:21, 26 December 2014 (UTC) <br />
:::If something is doable, but they have not done it, than one can ask, why have not they. But also, propaganda warfare is on (recently seeing ex-official Kudrin interview voicing displeasure over propaganda being on). This is mostly for internal consumption, Channel 1 TV and the like, but it can spill over elsewhere, presumably. [http://www.nytimes.com/video/world/europe/100000003011003/malaysian-planes-black-box-retrieved.html July 20 video (NY Times)] (indeed, looks like staged 'find") --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:43, 26 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== AAIB Analysis ===<br />
Analysis of the CVR from here on should be by the UK Air Accidents Investigation Branch. We shall see. For the record, they came out far less shady in the Lockerbie investigation 25 years ago than the now-fazed out RARDE and its hacks Hayes and Feraday, or the FBI's stumblebum "Tom" Thurman (see [http://lockerbiedivide.blogspot.com/2010/11/political-scientists-of-lockerbie.html The Political Scientists of Lockerbie.] I might have been overly fair - Dr. Morag Kerr could tell you in more detail some of the problems with even the AAIB's work there setting the explosion center. But this was 25 years ago, They're only looking at the flight data this time, not the wreckage. We're on the verge of world war, with this the latest information front. They're in London. They'll tell us the truth only if it fits okay with their narrative. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::The crash investigation of Lockerbie was fine. It was the criminal investigation that was messed up. They didn't do that, FBI got involved, same as in TWA800. Some facts seem to depend a fair bit on who is looking at them. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 03:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== New Straits Times - CVR ===<br />
<br />
THE preliminary analysis of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17’s cockpit voice recorder (CVR) revealed “nothing out of the ordinary”.<br />
<br />
A source close to the international investigation told the New Sunday Times that the CVR downloaded by the United Kingdom’s Air Accidents Investigation Branch had picked up the communications between the Malaysia Airlines’ pilot and an unspecified personnel with an air traffic controller (ATC).<br />
<br />
“So far, from what the team has heard, there was nothing unusual. The last voice heard was not the pilot’s. No, there was no indication that the pilots saw or sensed anything off,” the source said without elaborating further to protect the investigations.<br />
<br />
This may mean that whatever happened was very sudden.<br />
<br />
The CVR records all communications on the flight deck, including transmissions with air traffic controllers, discussions between the flight crew, cabin announcements and conversations with any other crew entering the cabin.<br />
<br />
In this case, it could provide investigators with some insight into the flight crew’s mindset and emotional state if they had to deal with an emergency in the final moments.<br />
<br />
However, it remains unclear if the Dutch-led investigation team had secured the recordings from the Ukrainian air traffic controllers to match the conversations between the ATC staff and the MH17 flight crew.<br />
<br />
Asked about the Ukrainian government’s revelation on Monday that the aircraft was brought down by “a massive explosive decompression”, the source said the statement was “unconfirmed”.<br />
<br />
The source told the NST that the “initial factual findings” of the probes into the shootdown of MH17 were expected to be released next week.<br />
<br />
It is learnt that investigations also centred heavily on the findings provided by the group of three Malaysian investigators, who were among the first to reach the crash site and conduct probes.<br />
<br />
The NST was told that instead of the 200 reported earlier, the experts dissecting the flight data recorder (FDR) were looking at 1,500 parameters of the black box.<br />
<br />
The FDR records essential flight data parametres at least 10 times per second and defines the aircraft’s flight path and motion.<br />
<br />
The data also include primary information, such as position, altitude, airspeed and heading. This allows investigators to reconstruct the aircraft’s flight path.<br />
<br />
Also recorded in the FDR are the aircraft’s aerodynamics and engine parameters, including information from the air data computer and sensors.<br />
<br />
The Dutch Safety Board (DSB), which is leading the international investigation into the downing of the aircraft, had said the findings would likely provide a picture of how the investigation would proceed.<br />
<br />
Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak had said the aircraft’s flight data recorder and the CVR were among the “hard evidence” the investigation team needed to find out what happened.<br />
<br />
DSB spokesman Sara Vernooij was quoted as saying the board would likely say “what it can rule out” and “what it is going to focus on”.<br />
<br />
It is understood that the team of investigators at the crash site in eastern Ukraine would carry out verification of information that had been gathered from other sources.<br />
<br />
This is to allow them to search<br />
for possible new information and collect material for the investigation, such as pieces of the wreckage.<br />
<br />
The Dutch police had earlier this week received 150 photos<br />
and video clips on their server<br />
set up to piece together the mystery.<br />
<br />
The photos were uploaded by eyewitnesses from what has been described as “the world’s biggest crime scene”.<br />
<br />
[http://www.nst.com.my/node/19598 New Straits Times CVR report]<br />
--[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 12:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== ATC recordings ==<br />
Initially it was reported that the SBU confiscated the ATC air-to-ground-communication. After weeks the Malaysians asked the Ukrainian ambassador to their country about this, and he denied that it had happened. He said he had no idea what happened to them and no formal request of any investigating party has been made. The Malaysian Attorney General then announced that he will make a formal request to get the recordings. This according to:<br />
* [http://www.nst.com.my/node/21260 Malaysia wants the ‘missing’ Ukrainian ATC tapes], New Straits Times, August 8, 2014<br />
--[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Investigation==<br />
* [[Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Dutch preliminary report|Dutch preliminary report]] ([[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Dutch preliminary report |talk]])<br />
<br />
talk moved here from accidental location on Main page [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 08:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* [http://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/en/onderzoek/2049/investigation-crash-mh17-17-july-2014/onderzoek/1559/questions-and-answers-concerning-the-investigation-into-flight-mh17 Investigation crash MH17, 17 July 2014 Donetsk – Dutch Safety Board] 21 Aug 2014<br />
<br />
<br />
:Interesting list of countries involved. I wonder how Russia and Germany got on this list? from the above report<br />
<br />
:"The following countries have contributed (to a greater or lesser extent) to the international investigation team into the crash of flight MH17: '''Ukraine, Malaysia, Australia, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States, Germany, France, Italy and Indonesia.''' The ICAO and the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) also contributed to the investigation as organisations. The leadership of the investigation rests with the Dutch Safety Board, which will publish both the preliminary and final report. The countries that have a formal role as participants in the investigation under the ICAO agreement will be given access to the draft reports, and may provide feedback. The country leading the investigation may offer other countries access to the draft reports at its discretion." [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 07:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Germany, maybe just provided radar data for the stretch that flew over them. Russia, maybe because they were asked to tell the federalists to let investigators do their work (a stupid but real way of thinking, as if Putin hired all these people). Maybe they were asked for their own radar data too. Indonesia's connection is not too obvious, but I suppose there is one. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 08:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
:: Buks--which were widely reported to be suspected rocket and which Ukraine is known to have , is designed and manufactured in Russia, and ONLY Russia would know exact technical details, if those are at issue to the investigation. It is NOT having Russia is what would make zero sense. --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 09:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: Good point there. We could use more detailed specs here too (though reliable airliner measures and hole size needs settled first anyway) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::It says " on the days following the incident (when Ukraine was still leading the investigation), several Ukrainian aviation investigators visited the crash site briefly several times for investigative purposes." They must have sneaked in disguise as rescue workers collecting bodies. And maybe it was they responsible for some of the "cutting up and removing evidence" and maybe they decently handed it over to the Dutch, whatever they found useful. <br />
:::: Are you SURE the BUKs are made in Russia? I know they ere designed there, so were the Antonovs and helicopters which Ukraine not only makes but exports to other countries. They make radar and big rockets too. Mostly in the south east...8th largest arms manufacturer in the world.<br />
<br />
<br />
:::::I do not have means to verify that no plant in Ukraine is producing books, but my understanding based on press reports, is that production is in Dolgoprudnyi, Moscow. That makes logical sense and I do not have a reason to think that this report is not accurate . There is no way for me to check this 100 sitting on my chair. Did anybody even claimed that there is a plant based in Ukrain capable of producing Buks? I have not seen such reports. It is possible that some components were normally exported from somewhere else in former SU, but it looks like final assembly at least is near Moscow . (That would also make logical sense, and I do not have grounds to dispute the report [http://www.ibtimes.com/maker-buk-missile-may-have-shot-down-mh17-targeted-recent-us-sanctions-1632698] --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 01:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
::::Anyway this is only Air Safety report. Criminal investigation if any has to be done by different department (but could be in any country involved). There won't be criminal charges. The finding will be "missile fired by persons unknown". [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 12:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
* [http://en.ria.ru/world/20140823/192273535/Russia-Wants-Regular-Transparent-Reports-on-MH17-Crash.html Russia Wants Regular, Transparent Reports on MH17 Crash Probe] – RIA Novosti, 23/08/2014 -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) aug 24 not signed<br />
<br />
:This story looks like for domestic consumption, <br />
<br />
::Maybe in small part, but mostly it is more like you accused us--where is the proof? With intention to have the matter dropped, not to escalate the matter. This is not working very well, it just gets stuck, because the other part is not paying much attention. They are not trying to work together at all, and so it just reflects that there is a lot of unresolved tension. --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 05:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:to make it look like the "West" is hiding something. <br />
::::A bit of that , --certainly they want to recieve as early as possible all available evidence, and they were saying in the past that they had not. But in terms of tone, the reason is concern with insufficient respect to Russia, so the payback is, hey,go bring us some pointless paper. So there are tone problems, not just substance problems, --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 07:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:It refers to <br />
Resolution 2166 adopted by the UN Security Council in July calls for a thorough and impartial investigation into the MH17 tragedy and requires the secretary-general to provide the Security Council with investigation progress reports". which is nonsense, as Security Council has no access, will not do own investigation, and it is being done under international laws by the Dutch. Furthermore, as a member of the investigation panel, Russia knows this. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 22:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::The original story is that separatists shot it down with a BUK. The physical evidence only points to a proximity fuse missile ''of some sort'', several types of these available including air to air ones. USA claims but has not shown satellite evidence of a BUK being fired frm "rebel held territory". This is UNTRUE as satellite would not show the type of evidence they claim to have. So to produce evidence they would have the show what they really have, which must be off a spy plane. Domestically they want to hide that they had enough interest in the area to operate such a plane there, though everyone locally knows. They will not produce this for a criminal case. No criminal case is possible without proof of who (what person or unit) shot it. Anyway the consensus also was that they were aiming at a legitimate military target, so was accidental.<br />
::Several other accidental "wrong target" scenarios are possible, and almost as equally likely. If there WERE Ukrainian aircraft near MH17 (and witnesses said there WAS a fighter there) they may have been the target, of separatists OR RUSSIAN AIRCRAFT which of course are not meant to be in Ukrainian air space -- but would not have to be, to be close enough to shoot a missile at one. Alternatively a Russian one may have been the target of a Ukrainian plane. Either way the much larger and intervening B777 would have captured the attention of the missile. <br />
::The Russian "radar proof" of SUs being there were fake. But based on some knowledge that there WERE some there. If their own planes saw them, they can't admit to that.<br />
::There is enough doubt for all parties to NOT WANT a thorough investigation. Nobody can do one with hopes of blaming the other, without potentially incriminating themselves. <br />
::So it will not happen. Whichever way it was, the missile was aimed at a legitimate target. So at most the charge could only be negligence. Discovering whose negligence would only escalate hostilities. Nobody wants that. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 07:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
:::All signed and should-be-signed chit chat should ideally be on a talk page, not front (article) page. Friendly reminder. (and I say ideally as I and others have done this before and sometimes never fixed it, but it's not ideal) (good talk though) :) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 08:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::sorry, I started it there, fixed now. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 08:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== November 2014 ===<br />
<br />
Dutch experts are back at the scene, this time collecting the wreckage. As [http://www.sputniknews.com/europe/20141111/1014605576.html RIA Novosti reports], an agreement with the DPR has been signed yesterday, but there were some shenanigans with the Dutch delivering a second version of the agreement in which any mention of "DPR" was erased. Grow a spine, cheeseheads, FFS. ''Your'' children died there. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Correspondents in the area say there was shelling of the wreckage area by Ukraine on 10 of November [http://rusvesna.su/news/1415708946 (KP correspondent-rusvesna)] . They have a video from the scene; I don't think shelling is heard there, but it is a very brief clip. They show damage in the metal, a thin crack which goes from the inside out. It may be missile shrapnel shooting the plane through, entering, than exiting on the other side of the plane, there is no problem with that. Cracks looks most consistent with missile shrapnel (which may be a rhombus plate). Woman in the second half does not say things of help to investigation, she heard explosion and seen smoke, but that was about it. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
What are they on about?? they went there weeks ago to pick up luggage and belongings,no problems, no OSCE help either. Left most of it behind.Few days later Graham Phillips showed heaps of stuff still there -- including BONES. They were quietly invited back (BY DPR)went back and found some bones. Few days ago went back, found more remains WITH DPR PEOPLE WITH THEM. Well yeah, it's only about 25 km from Debaltseve, true. Ukies shelling that way on purpose to scare them off, was nothing when they were there secretly. On other hand their PM didn't knows they were there either? he's a snarling venom-spitter agaist Putin. "Rutte has always said he doesn’t want to negotiate with the pro-Russian separatists because he doesn’t recognize their self-proclaimed regional government." what BS you negotiate with whoever is there, who else? the man in the moon? Malaysia negotiated with them and got back all the bodies and the black boxes. Kiev was not going to give them, even if they'd been able to. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 14:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
=== December 2014 ===<br />
At SBU press conference given by Vasilii Vovk, and lasting some 30 minutes, MH17 crashed was mentioned. It was said that final outcome of investigation may be not exactly the same as initially announced, and that investigators have recovered fragments in passengers bodies which may show that the plane was shot by a missile. [http://rusvesna.su/news/1419023898 Reports on this (rusvesna)] came out with a title claiming that SBU admitted that MH17 could be shot from a plane; that seems to be a lot stronger than what SBU actually announced. They did say that [http://112.ua/glavnye-novosti/v-telah-passazhirov-boinga-obnaruzheny-elementy-kotorye-mogut-byt-chastyami-raket-sbu-163012.html "there are many reasons to think that those were missile fragments"]. Here is [http://112.ua/glavnye-novosti/v-sbu-ne-uvereny-chto-iznachalnaya-versiya-krusheniya-samoleta-naydet-100-procentnoe-podtverzhdenie-163013.html 112.ua report, and press conference video (Ukrainian)] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 08:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* http://uatoday.tv/crime/bodies-of-mh17-victims-contain-missile-fragments-sbu-says-398439.html <br />
"Chief of the Investigation Department of the Security Service of Ukraine and the co-chair of the international investigation group into the crash, Vasiliy Vovk." This is one and the same person, then, not a joint statement. UNIAN reports from this "the bodies of some of the passengers killed in the plane crash contain metal objects that were not part of the aircraft," now citing external forces. Apparently, per the above, he said a jet-fired missile was possible, and Russian media latches onto that. UNIAN emphasizes the other half of the options: "One of the main theories being considered is that the plane was shot down by a Buk missile system from territory controlled by terrorist groups," Vovk said." --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Eliot Higgins [https://twitter.com/EliotHiggins/status/546064079350411264 tweets]: Preview of interview with the head of the #MH17 criminal investigation ‘Geen satellietbeelden van neerschieten MH17’ http://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2014/12/19/geen-satellietbeelden-van-neerschieten-mh17/ --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:Translated, Westerbeke basically says there is no video-movie type satellite imagery proof of what happened, as many had come to expect. Makes sense to me. But there should be data that can be read and then presented graphically, that should indicate what happened. Should be forthcoming? To note, new to me, Malaysia has maybe been invited into the JIT (Joint Investigation Team, once a total secret) - the article lists member states as "Oekraïne, Australië, Maleisië, België en Nederland." --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: Malaysia was finally allowed into the club [http://www.nst.com.my/node/60321 on or around December 8]. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===February 2015===<br />
The team of international aviation investigators who investigate the cause and contributing factors of the crash of flight MH17 concluded the investigation meeting at Gilze-Rijen. In the past week they conducted several investigations on the wreckage, including the fractures, the failure mechanisms and the impact patterns. This meeting is part of the procedures prescribed by the ICAO provisions on international aircraft accident and incident investigation.<br />
<br />
The investigators represented the countries involved in the MH17 investigation: Ukraine, Malaysia, Australia, United States, United Kingdom and the Russian Federation. The representatives of Belgium and Germany attended the meeting on February 17. A representative of ICAO was also present.<br />
<br />
Next week preparations will be made for the visit of next of kin to see the recovered wreckage in the first week of March. The planned three-dimensional reconstruction of a part of the aircraft will start soon. The next of kin will be allowed to view this three-dimensional reconstruction at a later time. [http://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/en/onderzoek/2049/investigation-crash-mh17-17-july-2014/onderzoek/1622/international-aviation-investigators-conclude-meeting-at-gilze-rijen#fasen /Dutch Safety Board, 20.02.2015] <br />
: and ...? --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 21:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: The great Alex Thomson has been there lately, finding [https://twitter.com/alextomo/status/566945066284228608 piles of Malaysian Airlines jet wreckage] still around. Guess that's not needed for their 3D reconstruction. All very shady and quite disappointing if one (like me) has held the Dutch in high regard when it comes to thoroughness and integrity. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 21:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===March 2015===<br />
[http://nos.nl/artikel/2027660-justitie-zoekt-getuigen-van-neerhalen-mh17-door-buk-raket.html Something from Netherlands emerged], claimed to be International Investigation team (with Ukraine, but not Russia) with old stuff,+ some (newly?) recorded, some of it at studio quality, zero emotions, suspiciously accented conversation in RUssian about a Buk being moved direct from Russia to somewhere near Snezhnoe by some unknown, but surely opolchenie member, characters --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 16:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
: Some Western operation, announcer quite clearly lived in the West for a while, newly emerged recording of bad guys--something strange about accents (something out of place), and tone (supercalm in presumably tense circumstances, curses with no fire to them appear staged)--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 16:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::[http://www.newsru.com/world/02apr2015/mh17.html Now saying ] [http://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2015/04/01/russische-legerofficier-herkend-op-justitietape-mh17/ (and here)] looking for Petrovskii-Khmuryi, who can be one of the guys on the recording (Do not remember comments from him on the matter...kind of curious) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::Pro-opolchenie blog say that this is old Ukrainian fake presented now as coming from Netherlands. Have not seen Petrovskii comments on the matter. (Manner of speech somewhat reminds him, in a kind of exaggerated way; to me sounds as more likely to be a play-up, --having hard time believing the tone). Recordings attributed to crash day were [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgdqdklrqDA#t=238 published by SBU] on 18 July. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===April 2015===<br />
[http://www.nltimes.nl/2015/04/08/dutch-release-hundreds-of-emails-tied-to-mh17/ Dutch Release Hundreds Of Emails Tied To Mh17]--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Russian demands ===<br />
* [http://en.itar-tass.com/world/750377 Russia proposes appointing UN special envoy for MH17 crash probe — Churkin] – ITAR-TASS, 20 Sept 2014<br />
:''He said that Russian delegation has seen no will on the part of the secretariat to display any initiative to promote international investigation of the crash. “We think it important that the United Nations Secretary General should analyze the state of things on the above problems and deliver a detailed report to the Security Council, including his suggestions about additional measures to promote the investigation,” he said.<br />
:''“It would probably be expedient to look at establishing a post of a secretary general’s envoy on that matter and sending, in collaboration with the OSCE [Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe], a mission to the crash area,” Churkin said.<br />
: Russians are annoyed by disrespect, and by sanctions. [http://itar-tass.com/politika/1455360 During the meeting of the UN Security Council, Churkin urged his colleagues] to work together to clarify the tragic story of the airliner "without any hints and insinuations" and references to the evidence which has not been submitted. "If you do not submit (any proof) than this is not evidence, but just as we say," фига в кармане " ("the 3-finger gesture exhibited in one's own pocket"- basically meaning bullshit). And such things to investigate such serious situations is completely inappropriate," - he stressed. Russians support the official investigation, -but still emit some noise indicating their annoyance. Also, they may have some beliefs regarding the circumstances. <br />
:At the time, it appeared that sanctions and MH17 are [http://time.com/3025173/eu-sanctions-russia-mh17-putin/ linked ] ; and despite a progress towards peace, new sanctions were imposed. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 12:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: [http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1407/18/cnr.04.html UN Ambassador Power Addresses Security Council Meeting] "we cannot rule out technical assistance from Russian personnel" "If indeed Russian-backed separatists were behind this attack on a civilian airliner, they and their backers would have good reason to cover up evidence of their crime. Thus, it is extremely important that an investigation be commenced immediately."--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Germany Decides Rebels Dunnit==<br />
<br />
German Intelligence has decided for definite that the first story was correct - MH17 was downed by a BUK operated by [http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/mh17/prorussian-rebels-downed-mh17-with-ukraine-missile-germans/story-fno88it0-1227095832498 separatists] after all. <br />
Not really surprising, as this is (a) the easiest result based on Occam's Razor and (b) comes at a time Germany would like to do something to help Russia in the sanctions mess but Merkel can't back off yet (and/or different parts of Germany have different degrees of friendship with The Bear). It may also be a smack on the fingers for Ukraine for the neo-nazi mess. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 04:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
We also covered this elsewhere [[Category_talk:Leaks#BND |BND leak]]. (As for positives, they seem to say Ukrainian photos are fake). As for rebel Buk, Bolotov said on 20 July that his Buk is broken, and offered anybody to come and check. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 04:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
:And Kiev also agrees the rebels had no Buk of their own, saying Russia (not Kiev) brought it in on their behalf and fired it. How does BND think it can just make up claims no in the region believes or supports? Will need to have a look, especially at their take on the images used to support Kiev's version of the "not separatists" narrative. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::There's nothing for you to take a look at. This "presentation" was towards a fig leaf secret service control instance, and even [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Ströbele one of the few people on it], a kind of German Ron Paul when it comes to argue against the grain, said he doesn't buy it. And another one of those "kleine Anfragen" made them admit that [https://www.jungewelt.de/schwerpunkt/»keine-eigenen-erkenntnisse« "no own insights" went into that "leaked" statement]. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 23:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/mh17-chief-investigator-says-no-actionable-evidence-yet-in-probe-a-999485.html Chief MH17 Investigator on German Claims: 'We Will Need Evidence'] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 18:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Joost Bosman photos ==<br />
[https://www.flickr.com/photos/33705716@N05/14687945100/sizes/l This one] is interesting. Also [https://www.flickr.com/photos/33705716@N05/14872160254/in/set-72157646326477044 this.] -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 00:14, 12 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Other MH17 analysis ==<br />
<br />
Half-way decent [http://0serg.livejournal.com/146553.html analysis] of the known facts on MH17 in Q & A format. Use Bing translator as google gives up half way through.--[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 01:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== R-27 long-range air-to-air missile? ==<br />
<br />
Work in progress, please leave alone for a an hour. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 15:56, 13 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-27_(air-to-air_missile) R-27 (air-to-air missile)]<br />
* [http://belsat.eu/en/wiadomosci/a,20935,official-russian-military-aircraft-to-blame-for-shooting-down-ukrainian-su25-plane.html Official: Russian military aircraft to blame for shooting down Ukrainian Su-25 plane] – 7 July 2014<br />
* [http://www.ukrinform.ua/eng/news/nsdc_russian_aircraft_shot_down_ukrainian_su_25_plane_323908 NSDC: Russian aircraft shot down Ukrainian Su-25 plane] – July 17, 2014<br />
* [http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/russian-military-plane-shot-down-ukrainian-su-25-aircraft-in-ukraine-356422.html Russian military plane shot down Ukrainian Su-25 aircraft in Ukraine] – Interfax-Ukraine / Kyiv Post, July 17, 2014<br />
<br />
<br />
== R-60 ==<br />
Basic info. Infrared-homing, proximity fuse (radar or optical); range 8 km, altitude 20 km [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/62/Rakiety_R-60_i_R-13M_A381.jpg Photo] (but rods not shown--dummy warhead). [http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-101.html More photos]. Older versions warhead use tungsten expanding rods, newer (R60 M, R60 MK) may use depleted uranium . 3-3.5 kg warhead weight. Exact rod shapes, and whether encasing is suitable to produce fragmentation on top of that, are not found/hard to find.<br />
<br />
It is thought that R 60 rod damage will look similar to [http://s711.photobucket.com/user/smi6086/media/visit61.jpg.html sidewinder,] but straight cut, not L shape --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 23:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 23:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: <s>Here's what R-60 warhead ''allegedly'' [http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/evanesce_girl/8305736/101880/101880_original.jpg looks like] (I can neither confirm nor deny that it is indeed an R-60 warhead, as I simply do not know for sure). If it is true, then there's no way the holes will look even remotely close to Sidewinder damage. (Note that the ruler at the bottom of the photo is in centimeters, not inches).</s> -- [[User:Ed3218|Ed3218]] ([[User talk:Ed3218|talk]]) 17:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::But [http://imperiya.by/news.html?id=139809 other sources] call it anti aircraft shell (artillery) , WW2 times---and it does look like (artillery) shell. patronen.su is a source of the photo (typed on the photo)--, but I could not find that photo there--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 18:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::It got an outer rotating band , those grooves outside. Also material seems to be cast iron, not tungsten-as far as it's possible to tell from the photo --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 18:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::: Looks like you are correct. -- [[User:Ed3218|Ed3218]] ([[User talk:Ed3218|talk]]) 23:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Disinformation? ==<br />
<br />
Chris Harrison [https://www.facebook.com/groups/IOUCO/permalink/631575156955542/ on Facebook:]<br />
* [http://www.discussionist.com/101445081 Overlooked....the mysterious imprisoned US spy who gave the Daily Mail witness testimony about MH-17] – Clarity of Signal, Aug 16, 2014<br />
:''Needing a little help form Novorossiya blogging investigators in regards to this individual who I put a thread up about back in August. He is a very intriguing character that supplied the Daily Mail UK with information that doesn't seem to be mentioned in the ATC to plane transmissions for MH-17 (the ones released by the Dutch Safety Board). The Daily Mail quoted him as saying that the pilots of MH-17 "felt bad". However, this quote and conversation is missing from the DSB's preliminary report. After having performed some minor investigation I found that this same individual was also a key source of misinformation for last years false flag chemical weapons attack in Syria. I'm curious if any other Novorossiya blogging investigators want to attempt to dig deeper on this guy and bring more info to light? He could be somewhat of a 'smoking gun'.<br />
<br />
== Radar jamming and spoofing? ==<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vYaRtY27iY Proof of NATO false flag attack on MH17] – Patrick Roddie, Jul 22, 2014<br />
:''Just one month before the Malaysian airliner was shot down, NATO ran a live exercise using fighter jets to jam the transponders of commercial airliners and spoof them as military jets by broadcasting a military transponder signal at close range. NATO forces seem to have made the doomed Malaysian 777 appear to be a hostile military jet and forced the separatists to open fire. <br />
:''The video evidence of military chaff falling at the crash site reinforces the argument that military fighters were very close to MH17 when it was shot down.<br />
The Russian civilian radar data however shows that the MH17 transponder was not jammed. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 05:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Cause of death? ==<br />
<br />
Up to now it has generally been assumed that the pilots may have died from the "high-energy objects" hitting them while the passengers died almost instantly from hypoxia after the explosive decompression of the cabin. This rapid death might explain the odd "[[/Debunked topics#Bloodless bodies – fake Facebook profiles?|bloodless bodies]]".<br />
<br />
Dutch Foreign Minister Frans Timmermans now says that at least one passenger was found with an oxygen mask on.<br />
* [http://en.itar-tass.com/world/753427 Malaysia Airlines MH17 passenger found with oxygen mask on — Dutch FM] – ITAR-TASS, October 09, 2014<br />
:''The latest finding questions the earlier theory that the 298 victims on board the tragic flight had been killed instantly and indicates that they may have remained conscious after the Boeing aircraft was shot down.<br />
* [http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-10-09/mh-17-false-flag-exposed-after-revelation-passenger-was-wearing-oxygen-mask MH-17 Report False Flag Exposed After Revelation Passenger Was Wearing Oxygen Mask] Zero Hedge, 10/09/2014<br />
:''The mask found around the neck of the unnamed passenger, one of 88 Australian citizens and residents on board, was tested for fingerprints, saliva and DNA but produced no forensic evidence, De Bruin said. "So it is not known how or when that mask got around the neck of the victim," he said.<br />
:''The discovery of the mask and the implications it raised about the passengers' final moments were conveyed to the Australian's family before Timmermans' interview on Wednesday night, the prosecutor's office said. But information was sent out to other family members of the MH-17 victims only on Thursday morning.<br />
-- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 18:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Russia Blames Buk, Secret Info ==<br />
[http://rusvesna.su/news/1413027395 "CyberLeaks" on russvesna] claims 9H314 warhead of 9M38 missile, Buk M1 system. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:11, 11 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* [http://rt.com/news/195128-mh17-crash-cyberberkut-leak/ Kiev secretly received data from MH17 crash investigators – Ukrainian hacktivists] RT Oct. 11<br />
:''Ukrainian CyberBerkut hacktivists claim that they have penetrated the internal network of Ukraine’s Defense Ministry and found proof that Kiev is getting secret data from MH17 crash investigators, including information which implies its involvement.''<br />
<br />
:''A document, posted on the website cyber-berkut.net, and allegedly downloaded from Ukraine’s Defense Ministry network, dates back to August 7 and appears to be signed by Colonel Igor Zorin, the chief of Ukraine’s air defense forces. It is a report which maintains that a fragment of a projectile found together with the debris of the crashed flight MH17 is in fact a damage agent of a 9M38 surface-to-air guided missile belonging to the mobile air defense complex Buk or Buk M1.''<br />
<br />
:''... CyberBerkut claimed that the documents are evidence that the MH17 crash investigation commission and the Ukraine Defense Ministry have “special relations.”'' --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* [http://rt.com/news/194848-mh17-ukrainian-missile-buk/ MH17 crash: Ukraine security chief says missile only Kiev has may be found at crash site] RT Oct. 10 <br />
:''Investigation of the MH17 Boeing-777-200 crash in July will be completed when the remains of the Buk-M air defense missile are found, Valentin Nalivaichenko, head of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), told Ukrainian TV.<br />
::Because:<br />
:''“It will be Russian servicemen who used the Buk-M missile” to take down the passenger jet, he said.''<br />
However, they might have also said it was a certain type - Soviet-era but modernized. I'm not sure if that's so, but if so, Russia's military says they use only "modified" not modernized Buk M-1 and M-2, and only Ukraine has the ones it "modernized." <br />
:''When Mr Nalivaichenko mentions a ‘modernized Buk’ system, he probably means an air defense system that was upgraded by the Ukrainian defense industry. We know that Ukraine has been working in this direction,” the source said, adding that the information about the modernization of Ukrainian Buk systems was confirmed in late June on the Ukrainian Defense Ministry’s website, which reported renovated missile systems becoming operational.''<br />
::And a couple weeks later:<br />
:''On the day that the MH17 was shot down, Ukraine’s 156th SAM regiment carried out an unauthorized missile launch, an emergency situation that is being investigated by the SBU and obviously being hushed up by Kiev authorities, the official said.''<br />
::Therefore:<br />
:''“The confusion and inconsistency of Nalivaichenko’s responses leaves no doubt that he mentioned a plan that definitely had not been developed by the SBU, but rather brought in the other day from their overseas mentors,” the Joint Staff source said. “This is Nalivaichenko and his big mouth blunder.”''<br />
--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
There is no analysis, only conclusion, which is said to be based on the photo. The first question about the photo is where it is coming from. The Netherlands investigation? (Than why it was not also sent to Moscow)? From SBU office? (It is too easy to fake a photo, and with so many fakes already THEY have the burden of proof it is not a fake) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
:There's supposedly analysis behind the match, and my guess is it's all valid. But, that's a guess. Why would it not be sent to Moscow? Apparently its being sent to Ukraine is an issue or scandal, so apparently it's not supposed to be sent to anyone (?) Later it'll be seen by others and us, and our guesses can get better. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 14:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
==Investigation of Buk producer Almaz-Antay==<br />
Russian concern Almaz-Antay held a press conference, aimed at quashing sanctions against them, to say that (if it was Buk, then) it was Buk missile 9M38M or 9M38M1 with missile warhead 9М314 or 9М314М1, because only those have X shape elements. That was taken off production in 1999, while the concern was formed in 2002, so they did not provide this missile to anybody; but Ukraine has it. Their conclusion is based on publicly available photographs; they also participate in the investigation and has exclusive competences. They say that Snezhnoe is inconsistent as that will take cabin off at once; offer to do an [http://rusvesna.su/news/1433241635 experiment] to prove/establish who is responsible (an experiment seems right thing to do-and interesting how you account for movement)- [http://www.interfax.ru/russia/445152 interfax]. They seem to repeat the version given in Novaia Gazeta [[Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17/Forensics#Novaya_Gazeta |(discussion)]], placing launch in Zaroshenskoe. They essentially say that some 40% of elements go perpendicular to the missile and so it needs to be on intersecting course to (have a chance to) account for all the damage. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:33, 2 June 2015 (UTC) <br />
:Severe damage to the flap, illustrated in NG, with less damage to the wing, raises a possibility of a multiple event. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 16:33, 2 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
: Their presentation is on youtube now [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAMY2SpohDA in Russian] and [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsohFzbJ-vs with English translation]. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 15:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Full presentation by Almaz-Antey ( Buk-m2 manufacturer ) about the incident [http://tass.ru/boeing-presentation/vvedenie/2023629#/2023629].<br />
Still only in Russian. Unfortunately even in Russian somebody the diagrams are not self-explanatory. But main arguments are clear. It includes calculations of the attack angle of the rocket in order to cause such damage. - --[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 09:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
They say it was incoming at about 78 degrees; they reject Snezhnoe at 20 degrees; schematically in 2D cones are smth like this, with one extra alternative at -110 degrees shown [[File:Cones.jpg|thumb|Cones for various incoming angles, relative to the plane's frame. MH17: 0.8 Mach, missile: 3 Mach, projectiles 2400 m/s]]--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 05:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
Resup, thanks for shifting my comment to more relevant location. I would like to add here one more analysis. Minimum Distance between Hit point (based on Dutch castrated report) and Snizhne is 24 km (Bellingcat magical tricks placed the launch spot even further). Buk-M1 missile goes at 860m/s, but let's assume 1km/s. Let's also assume that missile immediately travels at highest speed. For such distance the trajectory will be parabolic (slide 49 from Almaz-Antey). Than the time of flight will be way more than 30 sec and it will even intersect the pilot's vertical field of view. Dutch officially declared that there is nothing interesting on black box voice recorder. How is it possible for the pilot not to notice a 5 meters lobg rocket, that ejects violent plume behind, flies directly at him for more than 30 sec and even goes across his vertical field of view? And according to Dutch report, pilot was informed of another airliner in proximity, that he had to watch out for. So he was alert and paying attention to the surroundings. It is just impossible for the pilot not to comment on it, at least WTF. Even cloudy day doesn’t explain the issue.<br />
--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 09:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
:Last radio transmission at 13:19:56-13:19:59 UTC – MH17: ROMEO NOVEMBER DELTA , MALASYAN 17 p15, p29 (MH 17 speaking; RND=waypoint)<br />
:Both flight recordings ended at 13:20:03 UTC-- from the preliminary Dutch report [[Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17/Dutch_preliminary_report#New_Info|(preliminary report discussion link)]]--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 16:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::The BUK missile burns out at around 14-15 seconds (from memory - it may vary but not much, it also depends on model, but I'm talking about the one alleged in this instance). The missile spends much of its flight in an unpowered ballistic trajectory but uses fins to make minor adjustments to strike the target.<br />
::The missile is much smaller than an ordinary aircraft so very hard to see. There have been numerous head-on collisions of large aircraft where the pilots never saw anything despite being on lookout. It's not surprising at all the MH17 pilots didn't see anything. --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 10:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::We are in confused state with this -discussed at the end [[Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17/BUK_Tracking#Contrail|here]]. On some web pages, we can read about 15 seconds engine run, but there is a video out there which looks like old (long fins) model fired, and looks like firing engine for 40 seconds. Antey shows some trajectories which gives some clue, but not saying explicitly. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The 15 second for missile is from Wikipedia that quotes one Russian BUK that is about different military technologies. I've never seen it in some official document. Every source that talks about it eventually boils down to this book. But I strongly suspect that there is a typo.it should be 50 sec. Otherwise it doesn’t make sense. Missile is using proportional navigation and is supposed to chase manuvouting targets with speeds up to 830 m/s, while maximum missile speed of this kind is 860m/s. And it is supposed to catch those targets at distances up to 30 km. It just doesn’t make sense that after 15 seconds it is basically a stone with minor control indirection. Simple wind or requirement for slightly sharp turn will make it useless. <br />
Can you give an example of head on collision of planes? All I can find were either in the thick clouds or when one of the planes was ascending and another one during descending. They never crossed each other's field of view. <br />
Your comment about 5 meter rocket obviously relies on the assumption of 15 sec, meaning no plume behind. Youtube videos of Buk launches show plumes plumes staying way longer than 15 seconds.<br />
--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 13:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
For those who still think that pilot of Boeing 777 is looking at the world through some kind of pinhole [http://m.youtube.com/watch?hl=en-GB&v=-8a6qbF9ECg&gl=SG]<br />
--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 00:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
It is rare for pilots to see oncoming aircraft. Usually the first thing they get is an ATC warning or a TACAS warning.<br />
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gol_Transportes_A%C3%A9reos_Flight_1907 Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907] is a classic example of planes heading directly towards each other and colliding without either pilot noticing anything --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 08:17, 13 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Charles, it is an interesting example. Thank you. However, there was no crossing of the field of view, and pilots were not particularly looking around for danger, as testified by journalist Joe Sharkey on that flight "And it had been a nice ride. Minutes before we were hit, I had wandered up to the cockpit to chat with the pilots, who said the plane was flying beautifully. I saw the readout that showed our altitude: 37,000 feet. I returned to my seat. Minutes later came the strike (it sheared off part of the plane's tail, too, we later learned". It was 5 pm in Brazil, so it was already getting dark, but still bright enough to minimize contrast for light indicators on incoming jet. I would imaging pilots were relying on electronics, to tell them that something is wrong. In case of MH17 Pilots were informed by ATC of incoming traffic. So they were alert.<br />
Looking at this problem I also found out an interesting thing. When we say that plane was at particular hight it is no based on direct hight measurement but on response of barometric sensor at this location. Although the radar will give a direct measurement. So there can be conflict between what ATC operator instructs tot he pilot and how pilot controls the height. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_level]. Not sure how do they deal with such issue. What if the pressure sensor is faulty?<br />
<br />
P.S.: I hope you are convinced that 15 seconds for BUK missile is not reasonable. --[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 15:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=='Unauthorized launch?' ==<br />
[http://russian.rt.com/article/42405#ixzz38ShRpr00 Such theory appeared] around 25 July 2014. According to quoted source said to be from defense structures of Ukraine, on 17 of July, commander of 156 UAF anti-aircraft defense regiment was ordered to perform training of crews to support ground forces in a Donetsk suburb. They had to deploy batteries, and perform routing of target and all procedures of tracking target and its training destruction with Buk M1. Commanders received unblocking keys for launch, but real launch of 9М38М1 (Buk) was not planned. To participate in the exercise, two SU 25 planes from 229 tactical aviation brigade were sent from Kulbakino airbase in Nikolaev to Dnepropetrovsk. They were charged with aerial reconnaissance and to mark control targets in ATO area to the West from Donetsk. After one of the planes entered detection zone of Buk, it was tracked by a crew of battery located near Zaroshenskoe (Зарощенское). It appears that due to tragic accident after some time, and despite height difference, the azimuth of SU 25 and MH17 coincided, in which case the missile will go after the target with bigger area. The source says that he does not know why accidental launch happened, and this is investigated by SBU. "Battery commander and the whole crew were taken". <br />
<br />
There are some details, but sources are not revealed, and details were neither confirmed nor denied. Location seems a bit suspicious, it suggests a right side hit; not clear how reacquiring target from SU 25 at a coinciding azimuth will result in the other side hit. Not totally impossible, (lost target, overshot to the North, than reacquired). But this is not very likely, on top of unexplained accidental launch. Little solid details makes this theory to be on shaky footing. Apparently was recycled in later versions (Nikolaev air base mentioned in recent film). The worst is that it is unclear what is the source, and could he really know. Otherwise, piece of cake to tell such tale (of 'my aunt told me' sort) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
10.10.2014, 14:05 "Rossiiskaia Gazeta" (official publisher of documents of the Russian Government) [http://www.rg.ru/2014/10/10/buk-site.html says in part:] A week after Boeing (i.e. MH17) catastrophe, a source in the armed forces of Ukraine shared information, definitely not matching the official version of Kiev. This source said: on the day of the tragedy, in the 156th air defense missile regiment of the Ukrainian army, armed with modernized "Buk," there was an unauthorized missile launch, which happened in the course of an exercise . Investigation of the incident involved "impartial" SBU investigators. No need to be a genius to put together elements of a puzzle - said a source in the MoD General Staff of the Russian Federation. " <br />
<br />
The number (156) in this report does not match the number in Bezler account on the video (section below); maybe some mix-up on the way to newspaper; but otherwise it all looks consistent. Bezler was operating in the nearby area, and likely would be more knowledgeable. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 23:48, 5 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Bezler Account==<br />
[http://rusvesna.su/news/1413549200 Bes:] " I do not have weapons to shoot Boeing at 10,000 m. Boeing was shot by 154 anti-aircraft regiment of UAF stationed in Artemovsk, using Buk system. My reconnaissance team has spotted "Buk" as it left. Former Defense Minister Geletey knows about it. It was a provocation. The day before the accident, we shot Ukrainian SU-25, two pilots ejected and we went to look for them. My conversation was intercepted and mis-represented as a talk about the downed Boeing. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 05:35, 18 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: Of all the people making statements in this matter, Bezler was probably the only one actually there on the ground to know what was where. The area he claims is borderline for distance, but not impossible. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 21:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Yes, what he says needs to be taken very seriously --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 22:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
A straight line S-SE to the approximate impact point (as we've narrowed down) is 61.5 km. That's significantly out of range, isn't it? [http://wikimapia.org/#lat=48.4572063&lon=38.2935846&z=10&l=0&m=b&gz=0;380113220;481550929;5094910;0;0;4351413 The line on Wikimapia] for second thoughts on that. Clearly, center of downtown was not the firing spot, but even presuming a bit south of town (and not north) this doesn't readily line up. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 00:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Launcher can drive around easily. While personnel is better of sleeping in a city, not out in the field (even if they do, one would not say 'stationed in a cornfield'). There is nothing to defend in the city itself--Novorossia does not use planes. And also, the range is approximate, it has listed ceiling of 20 km, actual range would depend on height and other things.--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Actual range depends on the actual rocket used, not the launcher. Nobody is suggesting they were defending anything, he's saying it was a provocation,ie deliberate. There have been other reports of Ukies starting to test/train on BUKs,perhaps preparing for a war with Russia directly involved. Now, practice, I've had it from numerous ex-military (various Western nations) that they used civilian planes to practice the BUK type radars on as (a) always available and (b) less likely to knows you've lit them up so won't retaliate. That is meant to be radar practice, not actual shooting, of course.<br />
::There was doubt about why "rebels" would be taking this BUK on a scenic tour, especially in mostly KIEV-held territory. But if it was a Kiev BUK?? carted around on a very conspicuous truck to be later identified as having been stolen by rebels? (in interview with very anti-Russian Lithuania's reporter??)<br />
::The Kiev story was, rebels were going to shoot down an Aeroflot, to fall onto Ukie territory, to give Russia excuse for war. However, if looks like rebels shot down something, falling on their territory, Russia can still be blamed and NATO might come help Kiev obliterate the subhumans. Hitting an actual Aeroflot was too risky in case Russia does come in but NATO doesn't. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 07:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::Oh, as if "stationed in" changes anything from a presumption of "firing from" ... lol. Obviously. I sit corrected on that, unless that is what he means... Good points on Obviously no real reason for air defense to be doing anything. True claim or not, it's worth considering these units were just sitting around with no use, freeing up their schedules for off-the-books work. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 08:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Bezler repeated the claim, 154 anti-aircraft regiment of UAF stationed in Artemovsk, using Buk system, Gelatei as overall commander has to answer eventually. This answer is recorded on video <br />
during an interview with Ukrainian news channel 1+1, starting 2:10:00 of the last, long video on [http://rusvesna.su/news/1414630752 rusvesna]. But 1+1 news report did not have that, they put old known fakes instead (first video in russvesna report). Russvesna responds to claims made by Ukrainian news report in detail, with video time stamps referring to Ukrainian news report; the long tape (last video) was made as a safeguard against false claims. Bezler himself does not have any equipment which can shot a plane even at 7000 m (he than mentions Strela 10 which cannot shoot a plane at such height; listed ceiling for Strela 10 is 3500 m)<br />
::Man in black leather next to Bezler is Василий Будик (Vasilii Budik), who was Bezler prisoner for 88 days (according to Budik himself, a 'guest'), and now is in Ukraine and helping Ruban to release more prisoners. He is listed as "Adviser to Defense Ministry, Ukraine" on the long tape<br />
:: --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 04:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references /></div>Antidyatelhttps://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17&diff=22702Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH172015-06-12T00:14:09Z<p>Antidyatel: /* Investigation of Buk producer Almaz-Antay */ forgot to sign</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:Ukraine]] [[Category:MH17]]<!-- Cats go to the top on talk pages--><br />
<br />
{{Mainpage}}<br />
== Subpages ==<br />
* [[List of MH17 airframe parts]]<br />
* [[Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Dutch preliminary report|Dutch preliminary report]] ([[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Dutch preliminary report |talk]])<br />
* [[Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Map|Maps]] – ([[/Map|talk]])<br />
* [[/Forensics]]<br />
* [[/Witnesses]]<br />
* [[/Fighter jets]]<br />
* [[/BUK Tracking]]<br />
* [[/Debunked topics]]<br />
* [[/Cyber Berkut leak]]<br />
* [[/SBU Audio Evidence]]<br />
* [[/Archive]]<br />
<br />
== General ACLOS Investigation Thoughts ==<br />
<br />
===Brilliant Analysis of the Propaganda===<br />
American writer on [http://rt.com/op-edge/183132-only-truth-flight-mh17/ RT.com] Brilliant and funny. And sadly true. Well worth a read. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 18:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::I didn't read it all, but it's excellent. A couple steps up from T.B. Hinchey-class writing. I didn't notice any lazy jet-blaming. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Considering Possibilities ===<br />
Only so many theories have been seriously proposed for what happened to MH17. But it seems worthwhile to create a master list of basically all logical possibilities to consider - what has and hasn't been proposed, by whom, why? Anyone can start or add to a sub-section below to conmment on that possibility. I inserted simple notes to many, hoping they're not too controversial - suggest or, hey, make a change as you see fit. I sign here for the initial list and notes only. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''All possibilities:''' Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 was brought down by (A Buk, B Jet, C Other) operated by (1 Russia, 2 Kiev, 3 Rebel) in an attack that was (a accidental, b intended, c intent + error)<br />
<br />
'''A Buk/SA-11''' (supported by some evidence, claimed by Kiev, presumed by Western powers)<br />
* A.1 Russian (Kiev's story - known stocks - border and logic issues)<br />
** A1a - accidental (intended legit/defensive downing - possible)<br />
** A1b - intended (not likely - Russia would stand little to gain and some to lose)<br />
** A1c - intent+error (SBU theory - intended to hit Aeroloft civilian flight, blame Kiev, invade - hit MH17 by mistake)<br />
<br />
* A.2 Kiev (known stocks, alleged movement at the time) (why: make seps/Russia look bad) (how: snuck in totally, approval snuck in too, or fired from outside rebel areas after all) <br />
** A2a - accidental (intended legit/defensive downing - not likely having snuck behind enemy lines to do it)<br />
** A2b - intended (most likely - going behind the lines suggests false flag intent) <br />
** A2c - intent+error (they aimed for the Aeroloft flight, etc. - possible)<br />
<br />
* A.3 Rebel (no known stocks, some evidence for, some against - rebel Buk is/was the Western presumption outside Kiev)<br />
** A3a - accidental (intended legit/defensive downing) (presumed by intelligent outsiders who blame them)<br />
*** (variations: launcher supplied by Russia, seized by separatists, brought by defector - crew came with it, or not - etc.)<br />
*** (variations: sliding scale of culpability from drunk and negligent operators with all blame, to blameless but fooled by false signals and such) <br />
** A3b - intended (not likely, soft implication from Kiev against the "terrorists") <br />
** A3c - intent + error (intent of a criminal kind still seems unlikely, so all error options probably under A3a.)<br />
<br />
'''B Jet''' <br />
(supported by some evidence, promoted by many revisionists) <br />
(var: used air-to-air missile, used auto-cannon/other, or combination)<br />
* B.1 Russian (had to violate Kiev's airspace without being mentioned)<br />
** B1a - accidental (intended legit/defensive downing)<br />
** B1b - intended (not likely - Russia would stand little to gain and some to lose)<br />
** B1c - intent + error (triple unlikely - it's just a possibility slot)<br />
<br />
* B.2 Kiev (denied by Kiev)<br />
** B2a - accidental (intended legit/defensive downing) (of what?)<br />
** B2b - intended (implication of those proposing it - to make seps/Russia look bad)<br />
** B2c - intent + error (possible)<br />
<br />
* B.3 Rebel (no known jet holdings - no one proposes this)<br />
<br />
'''C Other''' nothing seriously suggested. Lets not go digging for all outlying theories, but if one worth listing emerges, it can be option C and Other will be D, etc.<br />
<br />
:moved material to [[Category talk:Ukraine#Ruban's Third Force]] - theories might say "perpetrator unknown," and thus reason and motive ... but this list is all about actual possibilities more than theories. To the truth, the perp is known, and these are all poss. truths. ''Most'' people's theories will fit a slot here... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Questions Raised ===<br />
<br />
In the end of the day, we may not be able to pronounce a forensic conclusion, for the rest of the world to accept, as we may not have full information or all the needed expertise. Perhaps the best to hope for will be to RAISE (a rather short) list of main questions which we hope the official investigation will not ignore. <br />
I think it will be worthwhile to identify such questions (may be followed by voted answers or something of sort and some supporting arguments). <br />
<br />
In my list, it would be questions establishing basic facts, like <br />
<br />
*impact coordinates<br />
*where blast(s) were coming from<br />
*confirmed evidence about launch and launchers (a.k.a " any high-resolution photos with known coordinates and times?") <br />
*navigation and control methods (a.k.a. " can it curl from forward right to back-left?")<br />
* land based or air based launch? (a.k.a "can satellite see well under the cloud?" )<br />
*anything to learn from radar data (publicized or otherwise)?<br />
*and any other relevant confirmed evidence to consider<br />
<br />
Once all of that is in stone, will be good time for theories.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 19:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Question #1, since it's looking like a Buk fired from Snizneh ... what does that really prove as to who was running it? Nothing. That's why the State Dept. has to add on the Youtube and twitter evidence where it doesn't even matter if those are the real people"admitting" it was them. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:17, 11 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: No confirmed evidence for a Buk, or from Snizhne, yet. Knowing who runs that would be perfect. --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 00:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::Definitions of "confirmed" might differ, but I've been recommending people at least prepare for that coming true, in case the SU-25 thing doesn't pan out. There's a burnt field, somewhere quite near where that supposed launch contrail photo was placed to. And that, I just saw, supposedly [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/exif-data-in-mh17-missile-launch-photo.html had its ex/if data verified] as July 17, 16:25:48. So it might be that figuring who runs that becomes totally crucial. So far, just the fact of what it was and where it was fired is supposed to be proof it ''was not'' the party that was equipped for this - physically and morally - and has benefited from it. Anyway, we're on it somewhat - [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/BUK Tracking#Who Has the BUK Launchers in Ukraine?|who controls the Buks,]] whose got moved - [[#A Rebel-Held Area|what does "rebel-held" mean]] when someone's trucking in a anti-aircraft unit just after [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/07/25/snizhne-mh17-and-rebel-held-territory/ Kiev primed the locals with a bombing of civilians in Snizneh two days before]? Stuff like that I think has extra value to develop. I should get to it... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: If there is confirmed photo of launch, that would go under one of already listed items. With electronic evidence on social networks, I am not sufficiently knowledgeable, but presume it is too easy to edit those to fit any agenda, easier than to refute. Government releases, like satellite photos, is different, as they can't change stories overnight and have something to loose if proven fake. Faking hard physical evidence would be fairly impossible. It is good to know who is to blame of course. (But most people would already have their own intuitive answer,which is not likely to change, so how exactly we are going to focus on such an issue? --For myself, the best outcome will be for truth to come out, wherever that may lead).<br />
--[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 19:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== TASS: According to Our Sources ==<br />
23 December, Moscow. "Russian special services are in procession of information, that Malaysian Boeing crash over Donbas in July 2014 may have happened as a result of operation of Ukrainian special services, however it remains unclear whether the plane was the initial target, or a tragic mistake has occurred. This information was conveyed to journalists by a reliable source in one of the Russian competent agencies". <br />
"We can also assume that the operation involved the Ukrainian Air Force and ground air defense, combined". "SBU, which is investigating the accident with the Ukrainian side has already destroyed all the data on the movements of air defense systems in the area of disaster and all the data on the departure of the aircraft". Earlier, the Ukrainian authorities stated that on the day of the crash Ukrainian military aircraft did not leave the airfields in the area of military operation in the south-east of the country. "They did fly - said the source - or yes, they did" [http://itar-tass.com/politika/1667289 TASS] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 20:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==More Remains found ==<br />
<br />
Photo journalist Graham Phillips has found a human bone on the burn site. Doesn't obviously show up on [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0o4SAaCEpk&list=UUbwfUqs5Y6_jblWJwMIfRzA&index=7 this video]. While you're there, from playlist at right you can see he has about 12 videos about the crash scene. They're all just a minute or two long. Meanwhile Zakharchenko is offering for investigators to come back and [http://en.ria.ru/world/20141013/194011115/Donetsk-Ready-to-Grant-Ukrainian-Investigators-Access-to-MH17.html clean up]. Actually he should send a group of people to comb the burned area, not as if he's short on people who cab recognise body parts. Chance to shows up the Dutch who spent a few hours there picking up a token few pieces of luggage and not looking for bones,when they KNOW 12 or 15 people are still missing. HEAPS of belongings they left behind, too.[[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 07:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Story from October 31 from the Dutch, confirming [http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/mh17-dutch-pm-mark-rutte-confirms-more-human-remains-have-been-found/story-fnizu68q-1227109165667 more remains] had been found (in a site visit that had not been publicised). Stories from the current visit also mentioned bodies found but they are wrong -- there are no "bodies" left from MH17. Anything found now that still looks anything like a body is going to be from [http://www.news24.com/World/News/More-remains-of-MH17-passengers-found-20141107 later fighting].[[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 02:51, 8 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Novorossia reported on the visits, [http://rusvesna.su/third_world/1413295402 14.10 (russvesna)], about site exploration (lots of personal belongings found); [http://rusvesna.su/third_world/1415293335 06.11 (russvesna)], agreement is reached on transporting wreckage, 4 open and 1 closed wagon. They did not report pro-Kiev Ukrainian site interested or participating (while news24 report above talks about "A team of Dutch, Ukrainian and Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe workers"). --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 05:25, 8 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Witness Accounts ==<br />
:''Moved to [[/Witnesses]]<br />
<br />
== ANNA News - Crash Scene Imagery ==<br />
=== Jet Wreckage ===<br />
How did we miss this? From mid September, 50 minute video of the crash site, the burn areas substantially [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rt-QIsgjQkg cleaned up]. A lot of close-ups, walking around every angl of pieces (eg broken wing). Boring until about 38 min mark, when gets onto cockpit area. This is first area with voice, too, with someone explaining their theory of what happened (Russian) and showing shrapnel damage from angles we've not seen on any stills. "Ukraine" mentioned a few times, so I'm assuming it's a theory that blames Kiev. Can anyone translate please? [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 15:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
: A shorter video, just the part with the explanation, better audio. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rt-QIsgjQkg#t=2785 [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 15:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: Shorter video: they guy says that the holes are small, and so he thinks it is air-to-air missile. (Well, we now know presumed size of buk shrapnel as it is on a recent photo with a ruler; 15 millimeters or smth; and what he shows appears to be like finger-tip wide; so it is not too much off as far as I can tell, and does not seem to prove or disprove buk). He also says that it is known effect that when pressurized plane is punctured, it falls apart. (Well, that certainly did not happen with Korean Boeing over USSR, so it seems a bit exaggerated) . That's all he has to say, so what we gained is more video evidence --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 16:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::More new footage, taken about Oct 5 or 6 (just before OSCE visit) with someone who was there within first hour, interspersed with some footage be took at the time, never before seen [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5j5Bpa010Q English subs]. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 20:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::: Graham Phillips from the scene on October 16 [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAhqWi5cavY in] two [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAf8PFx3tmY parts]. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 16:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Great find, good quality footage. helps set the spread of things ... hope the section re-org works for everyone (did destroy the original title, but I don't think much was linking here...) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::I posted it before I finished watching it. It has a lot of interviews, rebel leaders, experts. They're saying Kiev stalled and lied to scare off investigators. The rebels took over the bodies by force to make sure they go for proper investigation ie Kiev can't mess things up. The Malaysians came to get the black boxes against Kiev's wishes and got shot at on the way. <br />
:::They say on TV that morning was Andriy Lysenko boasting about planning 8 bombing runs that day; after the crash he said they didn't have a plane up that day. Then they bombed the site to say it's too dangerous for investigators (they show some rocket craters). What were they hiding? [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 20:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
A curious detail is that we are told at 9:34 that UAF was at Nikishino. That would be roughly on the line to Chernukino, so behind-and-left from the crash. That theme featured in ACLOS discussions already; there is nothing new to add. We also hear about two planes, and get some hand waving explanations. That was covered as well; perhaps now there is somewhat better idea where the witness is located. It is curious that a German guy says that Pechora missile system was located in Ukraine; as I remember, what was released was more vague; I am not clear why he says 'Ukraine' now. Indeed, we get a sense that Novorossia side is not trying to hide something; and we do get a sense that pro-Kiev side has something to hide. What is that exactly, would be a speculation. If they are serious about peace, perhaps some PR professionals can advise them as appropriate, that is, likely, to release whatever is there to hide. This appears to be rather popular method employed before elections. (Than after the elections, they can say, we told that already, and got elected anyway; but if something new comes up, somebody may say why it was hidden, and argue that it changes the balance). --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 23:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: The Nikishino reference is meant to show distance, ie that they were not close enough for any fighting to be happening at the crash site, therefore "too dangerous to let in investigators" was just an excuse. Definitely Novorossiya is not trying to hide anything -- they have nothing to hide, and did the right thing all the way through. The video is meant to show how much Kiev was obstructing all the way...this was obvious as soon as shelling started in the area the minute the bodies were gone. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 17:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
For example, one odd thing is that Ukrainian high officials are reported to make recent comments discussing 'that Buk' which shot the plane; and leaked document suggests the same, that they think it is "Buk', moreover very specific info on warhead, missile, and launcher. But how do they even know it was Buk? (if they just have some murky photo of the shrapnel piece? ) If they have shrapnel piece itself, not just the photo, why it was not sent to Netherlands? --Nobody in Netherlands seem to be certain what are those penetrating 'high velocity objects'. And how Ukrainians determined not only the missile type, but also '''launcher type''' just from this warhead shrapnel piece? Finally, after all that, why is that they are saying the launcher used is the one apparently only they have and Russians no longer use?([https://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%91%D1%83%D0%BA_(%D0%B7%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81)&previous=yes#.D0.A1.D0.BE.D1.81.D1.82.D0.B0.D0.B2_.D0.BA.D0.BE.D0.BC.D0.BF.D0.BB.D0.B5.D0.BA.D1.81.D0.B0_9.D0.9A37_.C2.AB.D0.91.D1.83.D0.BA-.D0.9C1.C2.BB Buk M1] they claim is the first and oldest launcher system from around 1979, no computer, etc. Russian Buk would be a more modern version, perhaps some 10 years older, and may use some computer already). So, the impression is, that UAF is, kind of, saying itself, that it is us to blame, and than also keeps this secret for 2 months. But somehow we are supposed to keep believing it was '''not''' them. Well, I dunno, this appears to get harder by the day. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 00:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
::I don't think it's UAF saying about this rocket, the whole movie is from the Russian side. They believe it was a Kiev job; movie stresses how they blocked investigation. There was an interview by Joern Akkermans with the local fire brigade chief which also showed this, how they sabotaged the investigators getting the first responders' detailed notes. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 17:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::Comments in above paragraph is not about the movie, it is about leaked documented dated 2 months ago, we have it elsewhere discussing leaks --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 17:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::On "how did they know from the debris fragment, they'd say they know because they had a bunch of photos of the launcher driving that way, plus the supposed audio of people talking about it as "Buk" (covered in their spots here) Of course, they sure got all that submitted and analyzed a bit too quick, so it seems more of that strange omniscience that suggests they aren't just reading along with the story but actually writing it. In reality I guess they know because it was theirs and used by them, but officially they have at least the video and audio evidence besides the later debris. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 22:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::You lost me there. What fragment do they have? they had no access to the site and who,in that mess, would anyway recognise a fragment the size of a coin? if they have a blurry photo, well, blurry means you can't see what's on it, and still doesn't prove where it came from, so....what are they on about? are they just saying "debris fragment" to mean those few skin sections with the lots of holes in them? from that they claim to know the model number of the BUK?<br />
:::I'm back to thinking about the movie, the women saying the 2 planes. people said that on day one, too. All people used to the idea of planes being SHOT WITH ROCKETS, by then there'd been about 15 or 20 of those, so why would they suddenly invent or imagine this was NOT? [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 22:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::Corrected; they have the audio-visual plus, '''they say,''' this scrap photo. Point was the Buk claim isn't based on the alleged scrap but the other stuff, fake or not, which they had from the start. Numerous potential reasons it isn't what they claim, but again I've always suspected they would know and properly ID the murder weapon, so I'm not very doubtful that they will have consistent evidence sooner or later (and it's been a while now) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Plane spotting story: could not detect any signs it was invented, sounded like simple folks telling what they saw, no signs it was forced on them to say, or tension/second thoughts in saying this, could be detected --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 00:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[http://www.cyber-berkut.org/en/ Leaked document ] is based on the photo, and apparently UAF do not have fragments<br />
:: "остаточний висновок щодо належності .... можливо зробити при наявностi оригінали" means "final conclusion on the association can be done in the presence of the original." <br />
Nalivaichenko (SBU) [http://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=2040949&cid=5 is said] to make this comment recently on 5 channel, Ukraine (Poroshenko channel): "Ukrainian investigators need to execute the plan, developed in collaboration with the Dutch side and the other members of the international investigation, arrive at the scene and find what we need, - fragments of a particular rocket specific "Buk" - said Nalyvaychenko." (The latter comments may possibly belong to the humor section). C-B appears to suggest that photo may be from the Netherlands. <br />
: (Nalyvaychenko has [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentyn_Nalyvaichenko a major in linguistics,] so his "plan" sounds odd).<br />
::[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIpD2eebJ_c Nalivaichenko report] appears essentially accurate, he did talk (in Ukrainian) about the investigation, starting at 7:30 timestamp; he did say "Buk M modernized" at 8:30, and "Buk" is even captured by automatic transcript (more->transcript ; but transcript is not working well overall. )<br />
. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Guys: he said "Ukrainian investigators need to execute the plan, developed in collaboration with the Dutch side and the other members of the international investigation, arrive at the scene and find what we need, - fragments of a particular rocket specific "Buk""<br />
The collaboration part might be along the lines of, "Ukrainians should go there as it seems too dangerous for anyone else" (which Ukies have made sure of all along). Now I'll strip down the rest to the vital parts:<br />
execute the plan...arrive and find...what we NEED<br />
Not search for. '''FIND.'''<br />
How hard is it to find something you just dropped? of course if they now said they found it, the whole world would just belly-laugh. Luckily it's in NR hands so they can't get near the site.<br />
I do believe Russia may be keeping an ace up their sleeve so to speak.[[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 03:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:"Investigation" would be the right word for what one should implement, while "plan" suggests something else, something one hatches in secret... With all this time to have been found and hidden by the separatists, he seems confident the smoking gun is still right there to be found. Maybe Putin's business card as well. Only Kiev's specially rigorous investigators can find it, and only after they've taken full control of the area. Indeed, "search for" would be a better term, if he meant "investigation," which seems hopeless But he said "plan" and apparently one that involves a pre-planned finding of the right clue, and is far from hopeless. Maybe they're just asking for help in conquering this area. No one will expect, need, or want them to follow through on such a plot, just to control more territory and have a fruitless look for good measure. Seems to me the US and allies probably already have enough evidence to blame Russia and carry out whatever punishment they can. It's always more about will than evidence anyway. <br />
:So... is the linguist just this sloppy? Or is he up to something dropping hints like this? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Reminds me of what Putin once said about the Iraqi WMDs: "If I were the Americans, I would have found some". Maybe his CIA overlords told Naliwhatshisname about that... ;oP --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
::: Haha, I didn't know that about Putin. Good on him for saying so out loud, too (tho that's a hint of menace as well). Ukraine police and secret services don't strike me as needing advice about faking evidence. oh, though on second thoughts, they're more used to just saying it and being believed, like the Big Invasion and 2 nukes on airport guys. USA has not said a word about Russia on this matter for ages, ie about the time the black boxes got read.[[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 12:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::: Tried to locate the origin of that quote but failed. Nothing in English and all the references in German indicate that they had it from the same source I have: German "comedians". It is in character though, if you add some "they can't even control their own plots" Russian humour. And I think he really said it, but at the current state of evidence don't reference it to me, please. ;o) --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 19:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Bloodless Bodies, Photo Proof? === <br />
Two days ago ANNA News [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAlC7HhfkrU uploaded a video] of some kind of presentation of photos from the aftermath and clean-up operation. Camera shows a Laptop with an apparently rather large collection of photos, a woman is operating and explaining what is shown (in Russian). As to the nature of it, this is really gruesome stuff showing the victims as they ended up on the ground, and I only made it a good minute in. The video description seems to allege [[Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17/Debunked_topics#Bloodless bodies – fake Facebook profiles?|what Strelkov reported his men reporting]] to the outrage of everyone: Smell of chemicals, many naked, no or very few blood, in decay. <br />
<br />
Doesn't fit there ("debunked topics"), because the photos are certainly not debunked and evidence independent of any conclusions. So it's here. Should be watched by someone who can judge what they see and have a good stomach. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:It might've been flippant to put the theory right into debunked, but it made a fair point that it sounds really dumb on the surface ... but this is presented as evidence, okay. I had a look, indeed some horrible images - people broken and smeared in several different ways (look out esp. from 4:49-5:08). I'm guessing these are mostly next morning photos near the site? Ones further out, found later, will be rotting. I'm not expert enough to settle this, but fresh bodies normally should not have these signs we see: darkening skin, black lips, etc. - lack of visible surface blood - (heard about) bad decay smell. <br />
:But then again, bodies don't normally - suffer massive decompression / oxygen cut-off / etc. - move at high speed as they're torn up (smeared people = wiped clean?) - have all their tussues and guts torn up so badly - and do all this in mass numbers at the peak of summer. No maggots yet - they must have been pre-killed somewhere there were no flies, (or gassed with a pesticide-like poison!) or very quickly before loading ... no, my semi-educated guess is still some combination of these factors will explain what we see, even in these select photos. But at least, this lets us see more of it ourselves for comparison. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Yeah, it sounds bizarre but Strelkov mentioned it himself saying he just relayed what he was told from the ground. Anyway, to speculate about it we first need more details about the claims. Went back to ANNA to see if anybody subtitled it ... but they don't seem to do that the same way as in Syria. But I noticed just recently they have a German team which produces little news shows. Didn't look into it yet. But hey, [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8YycmILC2M there it is], a German version with hardwired subtitles. Which means there is no transcript to copy & paste like with the CC function. Which means I will have to watch at least a bit of it. *sigh* Maybe later, maybe tomorrow. <br />
::From the German description I can already say that the woman alleges to be an eyewitness who arrived "immediately" at the scene. Description is written in sceptical language. Her claims: Very few Europeans (as opposed to Asians, I guess), disgusting smell, rotten bodies. They checked Laptops and USB-Sticks and found "no photos" younger than October 2013. Let me guess (I don't know out of hand), that's when the other MH disappeared? --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 00:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::I'm so not trusting this narrative - these are also people who were (kept alive?) from ... no MH370 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370 wp] was in March this year (that recent?) - All I can find October 2013 related is an alleged Israeli acquisition of the jet's twin (sale in Florida, October 21, 2013 [http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2014/03/malaysian-jet-in-israel-identical-to-hijacked-plane-2927532.html per Chris Bollyn (quack)] He speculates it would be rolled out for another false flag attack, unless maybe people were alerted. So ... maybe passengers bought at the same time at that plane, kept alive but not allowed to take pictures, for nine months, but killed long enough before the July crash date they were just then rotting ... lot of fake families implied for the missing new (alleged) victims ... lot of proof in the rotting bodies and nine-months lack of new photos ... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 08:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: FTR [http://info.kopp-verlag.de/hintergruende/enthuellungen/gerhard-wisnewski/ausfuehrlicher-augenzeugenbericht-passagiere-von-flug-mh-17-definitiv-dosenfleisch-.html here] is a detailed German language article about the claims in the video, which makes them more accessible per autotranslation than the embedded subtitles. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
If you think the subtitles are worth it, you can cover the whole screen besides that and still even get time-stamps. Like, at 0:40 is she saying here are more blood free body parts, and the wet pavement under them is from the day's rain? (tried typing into Google translate - my High School German mostly catches "the ... of ... and" - but still "a "wet" aureole were umwolkt" didn't help enough) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 08:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
::What nonsense. Anyone who would go to this much trouble would surely EASILY put some more recent photos on the USB sticks.<br />
::As well as fake families,they'd have to create fake social media going back years, plus fake old school/work friends and neighbours. In 10 countries. Oh and a fake AIDS conference. <br />
::None of these idiots has yet come up with WHY? what benefit does anyone get from faking all this? If it was meant for putting the blame on one country or another, they could have got THAT bit right and shoot it in a way that 100% identifies that country.<br />
<br />
::Most if not all the passengers would have been killed by the shock wave of the missile detonation, causing internal injuries including mashing of the lungs and intestines. Black lips etc would be from lack of oxygen. Then while the plane was thrashing around/diving/spinning they'd get thrown around, among seats and luggage also flying around. This would cause numerous injuries. These would hardly bleed at all, because the hearts were no longer pumping. Blood in their veins/arteries would be barely liquid by the time they hit the ground a few minutes later. <br />
::This is consistent with what Strelkov's people were reporting - bloated blackening bodies with "no blood" where they expected to see blood. Any mangled bodies these guys would have recently seen were fresh killed in front of their eyes, a different result altogether.[[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 10:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: FWIW Double plus that! Simple explanations win over conspiracy theories every time --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 11:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::: Not worth much without examination of the evidence. As Sir Arthur Conan Doyle once said: "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." Just saying. ;o) --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::: I suppose this one's been well-enough piled on. All points including the last seem totally valid. I'm still not inclined to pursue it, but it might be worth double-checking. If things besides decay can be ruled out or whatever, ... eh, I'll just have to see.--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 00:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==What Can Forensics Prove?==<br />
:''Investigation moved to [[/Forensics]]<br />
We're now getting organized, with [[List of MH17 airframe parts]] - a picture of how the plane was impacted will emerge. The BUK alleged ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buk_missile_system Wikipedia]) has radar guided missiles that can track, turn, change altitude, etc. So I conclude the damage won't tell us if the missile was air-to-air or from the surface, or what direction it was fired from. It's still worth knowing, of course, but ... could use some discussion maybe on what we can/can't/should be aiming for here. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:The damage will tell us it was an air-to-air missile with rod warhead fired from the front, that exploded when its proximity fuse passed the cockpit window. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 23:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
DPR and Netherlands reached [http://rusvesna.su/third_world/1415293335 an agreement] that plain wreckage will be transported to Netherlands by train, using 4 open and one closed wagons. Loading will be done by Netherlands. OSCE will accompany. <br />
'Laying out' wreckage and forensics may help to determine the cause of the crash. This is currently open, with surface-to-air missile 'the most likely' scenario, and military planes involvement not excluded. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 04:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Fighter Jet? ==<br />
:''Moved to [[/Fighter jets]]<br />
<br />
== General Discussion ==<br />
=== Slightly informed comment on air defences ===<br />
<br />
See [http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com.au/2014/07/memories-recollection-guesses-and.html vineyardsaker]. Certainly biased, but internally reasonably consistent --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 02:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I'll just add various rumours / propaganda I've heard so far.<br />
<br />
- US Satellites tracked the missile<br />
<br />
- Russia did it (at least morally)<br />
<br />
- Ukraine did it (for continuing the battle)<br />
<br />
- The plane was deliberately diverted to the location it was shot down<br />
<br />
- There was a storm over Crimea causing the diversion<br />
<br />
- add your rumour here<br />
<br />
What I haven't heard yet is the terrorist bomb theory. If the plan had crashed in say Poland that would have been the only game in town.<br />
--[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 02:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Anton Gerashchenko: case solved in under 3 hours ===<br />
Anton Gerashchenko, adviser to Ukraine's Interior Ministry, must have some serious detective skills. Within 6 hours of the plane's disappearance from radar screens, he already had almost exactly the full official story Kiev is still rolling with 6 months later. This is illustrated by at least these three Facebook posts from July 17 (any other timed sources we find I'd like to add): --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC) <br />
<br />
The earliest I found was [https://www.facebook.com/anton.gerashchenko.7/posts/694787050608145 July 17, 6:20 PM local time] from crash at about 15:19 local = 3 hours after. Auto-translated with repair attempts, he says:<br />
:''Just over the Torez Putin kindly passed to terrorists anti-aircraft missile complex "Buk" that shot down civilian aircraft Kuala Lumpur-Amsterdam.'' <br />
:''This morning local patriots detected this being moved from Thorez to Snezhnoye'' <br />
:''He was flying at an altitude of 10 thousand meters Claimed 280 passengers and 15 crew members.'' <br />
:''There is not limit to the cynicism of Putin and his terrorists!'' <br />
:''Europe, the United States, Canada, the civilized world-open your eyes! Help us all than we can!'' <br />
:''It is a war of good versus evil!''<br />
:''Here's a video of the crash site! Some scoundrels shouted that "beauty! Beautifully lit!"!'' <br />
:''The Inhumans!'' ( Нелюди! )<br />
In less than three hours he was only able to show [http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JhUkqs9CQ0w#t=57 this video of the smoke plume after crash,] but with unexplained prior knowledge, apparently, of a Buk launcher from Russia, moved through Torez to Sneznhnoye. None of that is remotely evident from this video. But somehow he had and was sure of this information and had it all put together into this certain diagnosis of who's "evil" here, in under three hours. Hm. It's noted there was an edit at 6:28, to insert "He was flying at a height of 10 thousand meters." This might be due to the fact that at this point, he wasn't supposed to know for sure it was that Russian Buk that fired, as opposed to a MANPADS or the like, and suggests he or whoever he talked to had deduced that from the altitude (too high for other known weapons). --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
At least two more early posts come from [http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/805272-anton-gerashchenko-buk-missile-photo-ukranian-official-accuses-putin-of-sponsoring-terrorists/<br />
Epoch Times] <br />
<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=694844643935719&set=p.694844643935719&type=1 20:45] = app. 7.5 hours after the crash; by now he has the Torez launch plume photo as well, finally a visual clue giving him a good reason to specify the town the firing was near (if there was time to analyze it). In part: "Putin! You and your cronies did not escape from the International Tribunal. This is a photo ... a few minutes after the launch ... Thousands of people have seen the launch and flight of the rocket, which you kindly handed your sponsored terrorists!"<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=694849760601874&set=p.694849760601874&type=1 20:59,] just 14 minutes later, posting with (?) Gennady Bakalar (Геннадий Бакаляр), he added this post with the launcher driving through Torez, finally confirming the (reports?) he heard earlier that it passed through there. Did "thousands" of people see that too? He says in part "Oh and to permanently close questions about when and who committed this outrageous act of international terrorism is further evidence of the International Tribunal: installing Buk passes through the city of Torez this morning!" But we already heard all about that hours earlier. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The Lugansk launcher video of the next morning was also allegedly handed right over to the SBU for their own publication, by the (tipped-off?) police agent who filmed it passing by just before dawn. But everything else, ostensibly, they had to find themselves from public sources, posted by people with no such SBU/MoI links. But man is that swift work. Almost entirely found - and effectively analyzed for clues, understood and double-checked good enough for them - that they were spouting off complete answers within three hours. Clearly suspect. Suggested: he had it solved instantly, sent in pre-packaged like planned. Even this three hour delay is his way of appearing realistic; considering how blatantly evil Putin is and how friggin' brilliant these Ukie Fascists are, why would it take any longer? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: the most fascinating part of this is, at the 3 hour mark it was still burning...and ALL the bits with the bullet holes in them were at another village, and nobody KNEW it had not just crashed all by itself, like planes do sometimes. The video he posted is the Antonov the day before which had also appeared on Strelkov's VK that was taken as boasting of MH17. Strelkov's was posted at 17.50 local time so about 40 mins after the MH17 crash and HALF HOUR before the expert solved the case, using an image stolen from Strelkovs VK. That was not discovered by SBU until next day, after it had been "hurriedly withdrawn". [http://cdn0.dailydot.com/uploaded/images/original/2014/7/18/Screen_Shot_2014-07-18_at_12.03.03_PM.png screenshot] [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 12:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Just occurred to me. If he decided it was shot down entirely because of Strelkov's badly timed post, and it turned out later it crashed from eg pilot error or onboard hijacking, WOW how silly he would have looked then. But nah, they knew, couldn't believe their good luck when Strelkov put that up. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 12:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::It is well known that Strelkov VK is not managed by Strelkov (he said it explicitly a number of times).That post is not his. He occasionally posts things himself (elsewhere) but this thing was not posted by him, it may be somebody posting far from the battlefield and not having direct knowledge, or confused opolchenie (says it comes from opolchenie in the post). (Strelkov is also accused of other publicity crimes he did not commit, for example having intention to run for President of Russia and other misdemeanors not actually committed. Articles about him are typically such mis-attributions.). --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===What's a Bellingcat?===<br />
[https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2015/05/25/whats-a-bellingcat-anyway/ What’s a Bellingcat Anyway?] --Studied at DeepResource, and reported on 25.5.2015. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 17:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
:Looks like a great piece, and I know it wasn't a question, but to the extent it might be: it refers to "belling the cat," or smthg like "who dare bell the cat," from an old fable about mice who decide to make their world safe by taking on some tyrant (cat) and stringing a bell around his neck so they'll always know before he attacks. But everyone's too afraid to go put the bell on him. Implied: Higgins is not afraid to blame Putin for stuff (or here, to analyze the recordings of a bell already placed? Or...?). In practice, it's more a one-trick bellingpony. Site creation: about a week before MH-17 shootdown, FWIW. Far and away their #1 obsession since then: the geo-location epic of that stupid (irrelevant?) BUK launcher multi-stop field trip. It's only natural - in fact it could hardly be tailor made any better for him and his well-connected team to unravel 'in the open' like that, all on video. Cases not so well-suited to yield his desired results, of course, [http://taldoutruth.blogspot.com/2014/12/brown-moses-on-hook.html he will never have time for,] even when the work's done and all he has to do is review it. No time - there's probably yet another seam of the MH-17 case to discover that these sooper-seekret Russian terrorists just left laying around. And always, there is praises and biscuits to collect. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 08:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
::Number of times bellingcat recently tweeted or retweeted on [https://twitter.com/GeoffPyatt Geofrey Pyatt]: 17/page; while us = 0. 'Russia's finest propagandists are no match for bellingcat, who have picked apart yet more shaky claims about MH17' (now something wrong with Russian MoD satellite photos)--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 12:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
::: Their latest stunt with the "faked" Russian satellite images isn't going well. Not "only" has our friend Charles Wood given it [http://7mei.nl/2015/06/01/about-bellingcats-claim-russian-sat-pics-fake/ a quick treatment], but the man behind the online tool they used [https://twitter.com/hackerfactor/status/605362347616526337 agrees] with a [http://life.lanzone.eu/?p=30 devastating analysis] telling them essentially to read the f... manual. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 18:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::: Had a look at both, well-lodged points. Neither even says the photos must be real, just that bellinputin are clearly not the vaunted "experts" they're getting praised as and the meaningfulness of their findings is open to question. Didn't actually look at the original work. Aside from Charles at least, we're not really qualified experts in much either, might make mistakes too, etc. But when this supposed competence plus clear Putin-blame come together suddenly the media lackeys are amplifying their expertise (or rather shifting it from experts at blaming Putin to experts at how to do it with scientific rigor, which it seems they're not). --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::: [http://life.lanzone.eu/?p=53 Here]'s the promised part 2 of "Myghty"'s analysis. More of the same amateurish errors for pic 5. The real scandal here is that they are still peddled by the "MSM", not that they aren't real experts. But, miracles happen, DER SPIEGEL [http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/mh17-satellitenbilder-bellingcat-betreibt-kaffeesatzleserei-a-1036874.html has an interview] ([http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/expert-criticizes-allegations-of-russian-mh17-manipulation-a-1037125.html English translation] --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)) this morning with a German digital photo forensics expert who says the same as Charles and the others, and they even put disclaimers linking to it on their earlier "praise Brown Noses" articles. Good sign. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::::: Was about to note the Spiegel piece but it's done. Good. So the problem is those who pushed headlines like [http://mashable.com/2015/05/31/russia-fake-mh17-report/ Satellite images show clearly that Russia faked its MH17 report] (Mashable)-[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2836245/Report-slams-new-surveillance-photos-released-Russian-state-broadcaster-MH17-shot-shoddy-fake.html Were MH17 'satellite images' photoshopped? Report slams new surveillance pictures released by Russian state broadcaster as a 'shoddy fake'] (Daily Mail) - [http://www.joinfo.com/world/1002451_British-experts-accuse-Russian-Defense-Ministry.html British experts accuse Russian Defense Ministry of forging photos of MH-17 crash] --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 22:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::::: In case you wondered, [http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/bellingcat-autor-war-hauptamtlicher-stasi-mitarbeiter-a-1037297.html "Timmi Allen" is a former Stasi operative], according to the latest SPIEGEL exposure. I've stacked huge amount of popcorn to make sure to survive the weekend. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 15:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::::: Oh, and [http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10692555#post10692555 I already came up with a conspiracy theory about that]. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 15:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== A Rebel-Held Area ==<br />
The presumption behind blaming separatists at all is that the blamed surface-to-air missile was fired from an area under control of separatist forces. But most people seem to just presume the entire eastern area (past what line, who knows?) is all rebel turf, with no Ukrainian military inroads anywhere. That's part of why it's taken as so obvious, even though no one's sure just where the firing was from. The Russian military presentation took BUK itself as meaning Ukrainian military. They claim satellite images of them in Kien-run army bases as close as 5 km from Donetsk, moved on the 17th to a site closer to the shoot-down area, then moved away again.<ref name="RT10">[http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ 10 more questions Russian military pose to Ukraine, US over MH17 crash] RT. July 21, 2014</ref> It seems the "just where" question is far more important than most presume (that is, if there was a ground launch that even mattered, as I suspect) Does anyone have a good analysis of the general control-accessibility situation on that day? Some nerd might have made a map that's reliable? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
:For the NATO narrative on the Novorossiyan Buk you can look at the Ukraine@war. He will you the exact location in Snizhne (the town that was bombed two days before, with 13 civilians killed inside their apartment block). I am no longer interested. All that interest me is the technical aspects of the of the crash investigation. What hit the MH17 where and when.<br />
:P.S. – There is supposedly a video somewhere of a Buk fired. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 12:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
:WSJ has a crappy map: [http://graphics.wsj.com/mh17-crash-map/?standalone=1 How MH17 Came Apart Over Ukraine] – Fails to show any of what the title claims. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 12:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== The Defector Theory ==<br />
* [http://eyesopenreport.com/u-s-prepares-to-blame-mh17-shoot-down-on-ukrainian-army-defector/#more-13012 U.S. Prepares to Blame MH17 Shoot Down on Ukrainian Army “Defector”] Paul Joseph Watson , July 23<br />
:''In an attempt to explain away the existence of evidence which shows Ukrainian troops firing the missile that brought down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, Washington may be preparing to fix the intelligence by pinning the blame on a “defector” in order to absolve Kiev.''<br />
:''As we reported on Monday, award winning former AP and Newsweek reporter Robert Parry was told by an intelligence source that the U.S. is in possession of images which show men dressed in Ukrainian Army uniforms operating the Buk missile system which shot down MH17. If proven accurate, such information would completely eviscerate Washington and Kiev’s already shaky narrative that Russian-backed separatist rebels were responsible for the attack.''<br />
:''The U.S. State Department now appears to be shifting the emphasis of its narrative to discount the possibility that Kiev itself was responsible for shooting down MH17. As the L.A. Times reported yesterday, “U.S. officials said it was possible the SA-11 [anti-aircraft missile] was launched by a defector from the Ukrainian military who was trained to use similar missile systems.” Blaming the incident on a “defector” would allow the U.S. to explain why the culprit was wearing a Ukrainian Army uniform when he shot down the airliner.''<br />
Sounds intriguing, and Robert Parry is usually pretty reliable.Seems worth a section here to see how it pans out. Skipping the prior Infowars article, [http://consortiumnews.com/2014/07/20/what-did-us-spy-satellites-see-in-ukraine/ This from July 20] seems to be the original explanation by Parry at Consortium News. I'm not encouraged by the details - the images aren't video or photo, but satellite. Parry mentions the limits of what satellites can see, but rightly points out they could see any Buk system component. Russia's satellites saw the ones run by Kiev's pro-America junta, first at their normal base, then somewhere else '''on July 17.''' What you can't as likely see is smaller details like the exact pattern on a person's shirt, or what the label on a bottle says, if even its shape. But he says:<br />
:''What I’ve been told by one source, who has provided accurate information on similar matters in the past, is that U.S. intelligence agencies do have detailed satellite images of the likely missile battery that launched the fateful missile, but the battery appears to have been under the control of Ukrainian government troops dressed in what look like Ukrainian uniforms.''<br />
:''The source said CIA analysts were still not ruling out the possibility that the troops were actually eastern Ukrainian rebels in similar uniforms but the initial assessment was that the troops were Ukrainian soldiers. There also was the suggestion that the soldiers involved were undisciplined and possibly drunk, since the imagery showed what looked like beer bottles scattered around the site, the source said.''<br />
Ooh, bad move when, as John Kerry, knows, it's the separatists that are the drunken ones in the area. As for where the image was taken, the evidence suggests it was a separatist-policed one. It probably was non-defected Kiev soldiers running it, but false claims to that effect make that possible truth harder to see, in the end. I think Parry's source stopped being credible prior to this latest. Anyone else more inclined to accept this evidence? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Everyone is trash talking everyone else. I'm not believing any of it. It was partly cloudy that day and you'd have to be very lucky to have a satellite pass overhead just when a BUK gets launched. It is much more likely that whatever the US has it got from a spy plane, such as the RC-135 they have operating in the area.(On July 18 some Russian MIGs approached it and it had to fly off over Sweden without permission). https://medium.com/war-is-boring/u-s-spy-plane-reportedly-violated-swedish-air-space-to-escape-russian-fighters-424d05e11bd5 Sorry can't find it now, but another story said land radar had locked onto them, which is why they left in such a hurry. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 03:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: [http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ Russian press conference:] "As far as we know, there was indeed a US satellite flying over southeastern Ukraine on July 17 from 17:06 to 17:21 Moscow time." That will be 16.06 to 16.21 local. _If true_, this is likely to show at least part of the trajectory. No need for satellite's beer bottle photos. -- [[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 03:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: As I recall, somewhere on the news there was a claim that there is no US radar data (too far) --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 03:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: US: “We saw the take-off. We saw the trajectory, we saw the hit. We saw this aeroplane disappear from the radar screens. So there is really no mystery about where it came from and where these weapons have come from." [http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/foreign-affairs/we-saw-the-hit-we-saw-plane-disappear-says-john-kerry-on-mh17/story-fn59nm2j-1227022300618?nk=9b529f73960c26d0085eae5193a5b6b7] (Hope not on a fake photo)? --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 05:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::The photo that popped up for me showed lots of flowers and photos of Diana, Princess of Wales, i.e from 1997. So in true ''The Australian'' tradition a fake. FYI ''The Australian'' is one of the least accurate papers in Australia and runs a very heavy anti-Russian and pro-Israel line. --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 05:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== False-Flag Theories ==<br />
=== Andriy Parubiy again? ===<br />
<br />
Pepe Escobar names Andriy Parubiy as a possible suspect.<br />
* [http://rt.com/op-edge/174088-was-it-putin-missile/ It was Putin’s missile!] – ''RT'', July 19, 2014<br />
:''Carlos’s assessment: the missile was fired by the Ukraine military under orders of the Ministry of Interior - NOT the Ministry of Defense. Security matters at the Ministry of the Interior happen to be under Andrey Paruby, who was closely working alongside US neo-cons and Banderastan neo-Nazis on Maidan.<br />
-- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 02:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
::From what I've read on the guy, he's likely enough to be behind this that, really, all Ukraine's airspace should be closed until he's no longer on the loose. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Robert Parry introduces Parubiiy in [http://consortiumnews.com/2014/07/20/what-did-us-spy-satellites-see-in-ukraine/ his July 20 article,] and mentions:<br />
:''It was this same Parubiy whom the Post writers turned to seeking more information condemning the eastern Ukrainian rebels and the Russians regarding the Malaysia Airlines catastrophe. Parubiy accused the rebels in the vicinity of the crash site of destroying evidence and conducting a cover-up, another theme that resonated through the MSM.''<br />
:''Without bothering to inform readers of Parubiy’s unsavory neo-Nazi background, the Post quoted him as a reliable witness declaring: “It will be hard to conduct a full investigation with some of the objects being taken away, but we will do our best.”'' --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
FTR, Andriy Parubiy [http://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/30934.html resigned yesterday]. Same day the following came out. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Valentyn Nalyvaichenko ===<br />
<br />
On August 7, SBU head Valentyn Nalyvaichenko introduced a new narrative ([http://www.sbu.gov.ua/sbu/control/en/publish/article?art_id=129860&cat_id=35317 release on SBU website] / [https://archive.today/KItnx archived snapshot]) apparently contradicting their released audio tapes that early on helped form the narrative of an accidental shoot-down of MH17 by "rebels" who thought it was a military plane. Now the story goes that the Russians planned to shoot down an Aeroflot plane in a false flag operation blaming it on Ukraine, to have a pretext for invasion. But the "Russian mercenaries" moved their Buk to a different location than planned and mistook MH17 for the Aeroflot machine with their own people they wanted to kill. What exactly they prepared to blame it on Ukraine (maybe Ukrainian uniforms or something?), or why a plane full of AIDS researchers and Dutch children couldn't be used as a pretext (Russian people don't care about Dutch children?), is not explained. Nalyvaichenko [[Talk:Ukraine_2014#Mercenaries_commanded_by_Andriy_Parubiy|has been implicated by his predecessor]] in the sniper killings on Maidan, together with Andriy Parubiy.--[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*Human Rights Investigations, Aug. 7 - [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/08/07/in-ukraine-the-lunatics-have-taken-over-the-asylum/ In Ukraine, the lunatics have taken over the asylum] This relates a SBU statement of earlier in the day outlining their latest theory. As said before, Russians did it, with a system they brought in and took right back with them. Most people have presumed there's no motive for Russia to shoot down an airliner into the separatist's area on their behalf, and it must have been an accident. The SBU's thinkers decided it was intentional, but with an accidental part too. '''They meant to shoot down a Russian airliner''', but set themselves up in the wrong town, so they hit MH17 instead. The original plan was to use dead Russians blamed on Kiev as a reason to invade Ukraine, but when it was other people dead, he said never mind. Awesome theory, no? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: Beat you to it, put it here where it belongs... bizarre. Interesting that Parubiy resigned (see above the subheadline) the same day this came out, isn't it?--[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::Awesome, tag-teamed it with similar technique. Parubiy, huh! That gave zero reason, didn't it? It's not 'to spend more time with my family.' No, he notes on the way out, he still belongs at the "forefrongfront." --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]])<br />
:::: FTR [http://rt.com/news/178760-ukraine-security-chief-resigns/ RT says] "On Monday, reports appeared in Ukrainian media about Parubiy’s resignation. The Local Zn.ua website, citing its source, said that the security chief is due to resign due to diverging opinions with the country’s president. The media stated that Parubiy decided to resign after he was ordered to declare another ceasefire in Kiev’s military operation in the southeast of the country, but he refused to do so." --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:22, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::: [http://www.unn.com.ua/ru/news/1374133-p-poroshenko-doruchiv-rozsliduvati-proval-spetsoperatsiyi-na-kordoni-z-rf-zmi This article] announces an investigation into the "Southern Cauldron" disaster and calls Parubiy the "main author" of the plan that led to it. Maybe that's the reason. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 16:47, 10 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/08/ukrainian-sbu-comes-with-conspiracy.html Ukraine@War views the theory favorably] --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:34, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
* And [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/08/debunking-sbu-theory-of-afl2074-mh17.html not impressed with one de-bunk effort] but rather more convinced!<br />
<br />
: Yeah, we got it the first time already. The guy is a knucklehead. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Cyber Berkut leak ===<br />
{{Main|Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Cyber Berkut leak}}<br />
* [http://en.voicesevas.ru/news/analytics/2793-kolomoyskiy-assistants-facebook-account-hacked-the-boeing-downed-by-junta.html Kolomoyskiy assistant’s Facebook account hacked - the Boeing downed by junta!]<br />
<br />
=== SBU wiretap video ===<br />
:''Moved to [[/SBU Audio Evidence]]<br />
<br />
===Corbett report===<br />
Petri just put this on the main page<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWlAARb0fN4<br />
<br />
I ASSUME it is going to be a false flag nonsense. After 8 whole minutes of introductory waffle and advertising, he still has not started on the topic, so I am not watching any more of it. It is titled "MH17 FULLY EXPOSED!! You Won't Believe The SHOCKING TRUTH About the Ukraine FALSE FLAG ". they are right, I won't believed a word of it. Don't bother with it. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 01:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== A False-Flag Defector Theory ==<br />
Here's one way the facts might wind up going: an SA-11 was fired from outside Snizneh, as alleged, and that's what killed MH17. The Buk launcher was even welcomed in by local commanders, heard saying so in audio communications that could prove true (or not), was sent to the spot by them, and then disavowed in embarrassment. And also the launcher came from Kiev's arsenal, the shootdown was not a mistake, and the crime carried out by pro-Kiev false-flaggers in the proud Euromaidan tradition. Here's how that could all be so:<br />
<br />
Some secret Right-winger in the army playing a disgusted defector makes contact with local rebels on July 15. He heard about the apartment bombing that day in Snizneh, and about the junta's plans for another run at the same place two days later. But, he said, he could get access to a launcher at the base north of Donetsk, a disloyal guard who'd take a bribe (small, covered) plus even a couple local defectors trained to run it, and even a truck from his part time job - the boss wouldn't notice it missing, he's such a clueless junta-supporter... Yeah, he could have it all mobile, drive it himself, make all the contacts, have their guys check it out, it works! It'll shoot down anything. They can get it put in place and wait. In this version, the "SBU wiretap" audio was maybe their defector's own phone - he was undercover the whole time, "wearing a wire" - the launcher was a trojan horse, and its crew were evil and knew just what they where they were and just what they were doing. <br />
<br />
On the rebel end, having no clue there will be a mass murder ensuing, and seeing nothing criminal in preventing a second junta air force atrocity, happily waved the thing in. They were supposed to meet someone in Snizneh, but drove off mysteriously. Then MH17 came down and, in dread and shock, the rebels decided to dis-acknowledge the whole deal, and no one's simply come clean about it yet. But the "defector" meme coming out might be spurred by its partial truth, along lines kind of like this, and not from some satellite photos. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: Hey CL, apart from your vivid imagination, do you have even just a whisper to back this up? And if we're speculating, how would you like to forget Snizneh and look at Chornukhyne as the launch site? At the time was on almost no man's land, under Don Cossack Control. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 14:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::: Do I have evidence? Yes. There are these pieces we're considering, supposed to point that way, that might or might not. This theory here is sort of a "worst case scenario" where all those come out true, or an idea for those who believe all those clues, to show how alternate explanations still exist even then. Im am fairly convinced of the core parts, much less on the calls, but this is more a though exercise than "my theory," although it's not far from my working theory and become it if the audio is genuine after all. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 22:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: Yeah, similar to KatKan question is bugging me as well . Why not to look, let's say, perhaps somewhere else? (hopefully without creating sudden burst of fighting or urgent land management work just right exactly there, if possible )? --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 14:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: yeah, early intercepted call said ""These are Chernukhin folks who shot down the plane. From the Chernukhin check point. Those Cossacks who are based in Chernukhino." and nobody's ever looked there. It is same distance as Snizneh and 90 degrees to the flight path so an easy shot. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 15:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: I certainly would not know why a reputable news-maker would pay travel expenses going to Snezhny but not this other well-flagged place nearby. The only new comment I have to make here is that this is a big expensive truck, not a flag costing one grivna/ruble {nor is it a can of some chemicals). It is your best air defense, and there aren't many. So it is either off front line or it is there, somewhere, for a real strong reason. --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 19:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: Okay, the other town being named is one clue for another site, and no one looking could be why there's nothing else. I'm not sure how Chernukin connects - If the burned spot is up there, or there's another one... maybe the defector made his contact with those guys, and so his little team was called part of theirs - Miner brought them. As for why the other area, it was indicated and they say it had burn marks at the end (can't be checked and ruled in or out), so they went and it ''appears'' to have been smart. In the other direction, a mention the responsible people are ''from'' there, not even that they fired from there. But at least it's not pulled out of thin air. If there becomes more to support it, I'll consider more. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 22:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::: We may want to put the audio story in order separately, someplace, if it was not done. I was following it initially, but now references are hard to find. <br />
<br />
:::::Agreed. This happens here sometimes. Hoping it helps, I made [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/SBU Audio Evidence|a page for that subject]] and moved comments from both of you guys over there. Hope I didn't mess anything up in the process - please review. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::::You did indeed delete a whole bunch of stuff instead of "moving" it. Restored here. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::As I recall (but do not have links saved), this is Bes recordings, glued together from genuine pieces. (I believe Bes said pieces are genuine early on himself) The first piece, mentioning Enakievo, is about a different earlier episode--as he himself responded. His response about second piece, mentioning Cossacks, was much more evasive, something like 'if every block post has a Buk, than I'll be in Kiev'. But it is clear that at the time of event, he had reason to believe that something was going on over there. That does not say this happened as he thought, Cossacks may be shooting pistols not Buks or whatever; but it may looked like something is launched from there, or whatever the case might be. This does suggest some notable event at that location. I do not see genuine evidence pointing to the current official version; it is more consistent with somebody trying to put a false flag there so that all attention of social networkers go that way. Chasing this flag further is a waste of time in my opinion, and is unlikely to produce anything new which is not known already. Looking the other way, even pointing out there is SOME other way, might. (Actually, it looks like attempts were made to place SEVERAL false flags, and than whatever was picked up , was supported by some further noise). --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 23:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::: (Coincidently) just above I posted [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T34AB6CImTE an alleged proof of audio fakery] of some SBU-released audio, likely from the first batch. As I said, I didn't look into it really closely. Maybe worth doing so. Claim is that it was cut together from several audio tapes. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 23:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::::Bes in the audio (perhaps glued from pieces) does [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJnD1wgofYM say] Cossacks from Chernukhino block post shot the plane down, those Cossacks _standing_ at Cherknukhino. Why everybody is looking the other way just beats me --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 00:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::::: This brief piece on Chernukhino Cossacks is disconnected from the first piece (about Miner, apparently another rebel) and from discussion of discovering that it was a passenger plane and of the bodies. Chernukhino piece is timed at 16.33 on the crash day. First piece (Miner) is timed earlier, actually, at 16:40, and talks about a different location (really bad gluing skill here; this miner thing is most likely from another day, and I recall that was claimed in discussions which followed. ) Gluing is beyond any doubt; but individual pieces sound genuine for my ears. So he does not actually say it was his Cossacks or what they shot was a passenger plane; just that (some) Cossacks standing at Chernukhino shot (some ) plane, and than it cuts off; rebel blame is rather what this gluing order is trying to convey on us. I would certainly check this out. --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 01:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::I've gone back to early things to refresh my memory. And the whole tone of voice was different then. Today it is all propaganda and fantastic stories from everyone.The first 2 days everyone sounded genuine, spoke unthinking,not for effect. So I am thinking, things said early are more likely true. Yes that video with the telephone calls was from 3 separate calls, and at least one maybe not from July 17. The one about Yenaklevo I think is another day. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 00:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Debunked topics ==<br />
:''Moved to [[/Debunked topics]]<br />
<br />
This link http://adam1baum.blogspot.fi/2014/08/another-journalist-exposes-mh17-false.html <br />
<br />
just added to the main page under "Analysis"<br />
is FULL of items already debunked. Are the "analysis" items being added without comment? just to collect them? [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 16:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Yes, basically the main page is for pre-scrutiny source material. Analysis is mainly to collect them. I had a quick look at the blog post, but noticed most of the topics were debunked long ago. Or should be debunked. For example, it seems that MH17 may have flown a different route on previous days, but there were plenty of other Asia flight in the Donetsk airspace. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 20:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Warhead damage ==<br />
:''Moved to [[/Forensics#Warhead damage]]<br />
<br />
== Radar Evidence ==<br />
:''Moved to [[/Map#Radar Evidence]]<br />
<br />
== Cockpit Voice Recorder ==<br />
Thanks for a start, Charles, will review. I was watching for that, gathering a bit of background on the CVR angle. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
* July 23: good condition http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/malaysian-airlines-flight-mh17-cockpit-voice-recorder-in-good-condition-1.2715671<br />
:''The cockpit voice recorder of the Malaysian airliner downed over Ukraine is in good condition, the UN civil aviation body said on Wednesday,'' <br />
:''"The cockpit voice recorder is in good condition ... the digital flight data recorder is still under review," ICAO said in a statement.''<br />
* July 23, downloaded: http://www.eturbonews.com/48306/mh-17-cockpit-voice-recorder-data-downloaded<br />
:''On Tuesday 22 July 2014 at 22:00 inKiev, Ukraine, the flight data and cockpit voice recorders (the 'black boxes') from the Malaysian Airlines flight 17 were taken into custody by the Dutch ambassador and a team of investigators led by the Dutch Safety Board. The Dutch Safety Board requested that the Air Accident Investigation Branch of theUnited Kingdom (AAIB) perform the data download from both the recorders. The recorders were transported to the AAIB's laboratory at Farnborough, arriving 23rd July in the early morning.''<br />
<br />
::I just got a real TinFoil idea. The black boxes were found in the wheatfield where they also found some bodies on day ONE. There were daily reports that they had been found and were going to be sent to Russia. Then on July 21 they were "found" ON CAMERA...and the guy carried it a long way, stuck out in front of him, to a command post of some sort, the camera following him the whole way. Not a rebel but an official Emergency Services guy. Nice "evidence" of chain of possession. BUT there is a 3-day gap there, when something could be taken the 80 miles or so to a place called Rostov, and back again. Black boxes have ports for cables to be attached,they don't need to be pulled apart to be read. What if Russia already has a copy of what was on the black boxes? adding to their confidence? [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 15:21, 26 December 2014 (UTC) <br />
:::If something is doable, but they have not done it, than one can ask, why have not they. But also, propaganda warfare is on (recently seeing ex-official Kudrin interview voicing displeasure over propaganda being on). This is mostly for internal consumption, Channel 1 TV and the like, but it can spill over elsewhere, presumably. [http://www.nytimes.com/video/world/europe/100000003011003/malaysian-planes-black-box-retrieved.html July 20 video (NY Times)] (indeed, looks like staged 'find") --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:43, 26 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== AAIB Analysis ===<br />
Analysis of the CVR from here on should be by the UK Air Accidents Investigation Branch. We shall see. For the record, they came out far less shady in the Lockerbie investigation 25 years ago than the now-fazed out RARDE and its hacks Hayes and Feraday, or the FBI's stumblebum "Tom" Thurman (see [http://lockerbiedivide.blogspot.com/2010/11/political-scientists-of-lockerbie.html The Political Scientists of Lockerbie.] I might have been overly fair - Dr. Morag Kerr could tell you in more detail some of the problems with even the AAIB's work there setting the explosion center. But this was 25 years ago, They're only looking at the flight data this time, not the wreckage. We're on the verge of world war, with this the latest information front. They're in London. They'll tell us the truth only if it fits okay with their narrative. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::The crash investigation of Lockerbie was fine. It was the criminal investigation that was messed up. They didn't do that, FBI got involved, same as in TWA800. Some facts seem to depend a fair bit on who is looking at them. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 03:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== New Straits Times - CVR ===<br />
<br />
THE preliminary analysis of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17’s cockpit voice recorder (CVR) revealed “nothing out of the ordinary”.<br />
<br />
A source close to the international investigation told the New Sunday Times that the CVR downloaded by the United Kingdom’s Air Accidents Investigation Branch had picked up the communications between the Malaysia Airlines’ pilot and an unspecified personnel with an air traffic controller (ATC).<br />
<br />
“So far, from what the team has heard, there was nothing unusual. The last voice heard was not the pilot’s. No, there was no indication that the pilots saw or sensed anything off,” the source said without elaborating further to protect the investigations.<br />
<br />
This may mean that whatever happened was very sudden.<br />
<br />
The CVR records all communications on the flight deck, including transmissions with air traffic controllers, discussions between the flight crew, cabin announcements and conversations with any other crew entering the cabin.<br />
<br />
In this case, it could provide investigators with some insight into the flight crew’s mindset and emotional state if they had to deal with an emergency in the final moments.<br />
<br />
However, it remains unclear if the Dutch-led investigation team had secured the recordings from the Ukrainian air traffic controllers to match the conversations between the ATC staff and the MH17 flight crew.<br />
<br />
Asked about the Ukrainian government’s revelation on Monday that the aircraft was brought down by “a massive explosive decompression”, the source said the statement was “unconfirmed”.<br />
<br />
The source told the NST that the “initial factual findings” of the probes into the shootdown of MH17 were expected to be released next week.<br />
<br />
It is learnt that investigations also centred heavily on the findings provided by the group of three Malaysian investigators, who were among the first to reach the crash site and conduct probes.<br />
<br />
The NST was told that instead of the 200 reported earlier, the experts dissecting the flight data recorder (FDR) were looking at 1,500 parameters of the black box.<br />
<br />
The FDR records essential flight data parametres at least 10 times per second and defines the aircraft’s flight path and motion.<br />
<br />
The data also include primary information, such as position, altitude, airspeed and heading. This allows investigators to reconstruct the aircraft’s flight path.<br />
<br />
Also recorded in the FDR are the aircraft’s aerodynamics and engine parameters, including information from the air data computer and sensors.<br />
<br />
The Dutch Safety Board (DSB), which is leading the international investigation into the downing of the aircraft, had said the findings would likely provide a picture of how the investigation would proceed.<br />
<br />
Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak had said the aircraft’s flight data recorder and the CVR were among the “hard evidence” the investigation team needed to find out what happened.<br />
<br />
DSB spokesman Sara Vernooij was quoted as saying the board would likely say “what it can rule out” and “what it is going to focus on”.<br />
<br />
It is understood that the team of investigators at the crash site in eastern Ukraine would carry out verification of information that had been gathered from other sources.<br />
<br />
This is to allow them to search<br />
for possible new information and collect material for the investigation, such as pieces of the wreckage.<br />
<br />
The Dutch police had earlier this week received 150 photos<br />
and video clips on their server<br />
set up to piece together the mystery.<br />
<br />
The photos were uploaded by eyewitnesses from what has been described as “the world’s biggest crime scene”.<br />
<br />
[http://www.nst.com.my/node/19598 New Straits Times CVR report]<br />
--[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 12:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== ATC recordings ==<br />
Initially it was reported that the SBU confiscated the ATC air-to-ground-communication. After weeks the Malaysians asked the Ukrainian ambassador to their country about this, and he denied that it had happened. He said he had no idea what happened to them and no formal request of any investigating party has been made. The Malaysian Attorney General then announced that he will make a formal request to get the recordings. This according to:<br />
* [http://www.nst.com.my/node/21260 Malaysia wants the ‘missing’ Ukrainian ATC tapes], New Straits Times, August 8, 2014<br />
--[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Investigation==<br />
* [[Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Dutch preliminary report|Dutch preliminary report]] ([[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Dutch preliminary report |talk]])<br />
<br />
talk moved here from accidental location on Main page [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 08:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* [http://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/en/onderzoek/2049/investigation-crash-mh17-17-july-2014/onderzoek/1559/questions-and-answers-concerning-the-investigation-into-flight-mh17 Investigation crash MH17, 17 July 2014 Donetsk – Dutch Safety Board] 21 Aug 2014<br />
<br />
<br />
:Interesting list of countries involved. I wonder how Russia and Germany got on this list? from the above report<br />
<br />
:"The following countries have contributed (to a greater or lesser extent) to the international investigation team into the crash of flight MH17: '''Ukraine, Malaysia, Australia, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States, Germany, France, Italy and Indonesia.''' The ICAO and the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) also contributed to the investigation as organisations. The leadership of the investigation rests with the Dutch Safety Board, which will publish both the preliminary and final report. The countries that have a formal role as participants in the investigation under the ICAO agreement will be given access to the draft reports, and may provide feedback. The country leading the investigation may offer other countries access to the draft reports at its discretion." [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 07:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Germany, maybe just provided radar data for the stretch that flew over them. Russia, maybe because they were asked to tell the federalists to let investigators do their work (a stupid but real way of thinking, as if Putin hired all these people). Maybe they were asked for their own radar data too. Indonesia's connection is not too obvious, but I suppose there is one. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 08:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
:: Buks--which were widely reported to be suspected rocket and which Ukraine is known to have , is designed and manufactured in Russia, and ONLY Russia would know exact technical details, if those are at issue to the investigation. It is NOT having Russia is what would make zero sense. --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 09:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: Good point there. We could use more detailed specs here too (though reliable airliner measures and hole size needs settled first anyway) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::It says " on the days following the incident (when Ukraine was still leading the investigation), several Ukrainian aviation investigators visited the crash site briefly several times for investigative purposes." They must have sneaked in disguise as rescue workers collecting bodies. And maybe it was they responsible for some of the "cutting up and removing evidence" and maybe they decently handed it over to the Dutch, whatever they found useful. <br />
:::: Are you SURE the BUKs are made in Russia? I know they ere designed there, so were the Antonovs and helicopters which Ukraine not only makes but exports to other countries. They make radar and big rockets too. Mostly in the south east...8th largest arms manufacturer in the world.<br />
<br />
<br />
:::::I do not have means to verify that no plant in Ukraine is producing books, but my understanding based on press reports, is that production is in Dolgoprudnyi, Moscow. That makes logical sense and I do not have a reason to think that this report is not accurate . There is no way for me to check this 100 sitting on my chair. Did anybody even claimed that there is a plant based in Ukrain capable of producing Buks? I have not seen such reports. It is possible that some components were normally exported from somewhere else in former SU, but it looks like final assembly at least is near Moscow . (That would also make logical sense, and I do not have grounds to dispute the report [http://www.ibtimes.com/maker-buk-missile-may-have-shot-down-mh17-targeted-recent-us-sanctions-1632698] --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 01:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
::::Anyway this is only Air Safety report. Criminal investigation if any has to be done by different department (but could be in any country involved). There won't be criminal charges. The finding will be "missile fired by persons unknown". [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 12:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
* [http://en.ria.ru/world/20140823/192273535/Russia-Wants-Regular-Transparent-Reports-on-MH17-Crash.html Russia Wants Regular, Transparent Reports on MH17 Crash Probe] – RIA Novosti, 23/08/2014 -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) aug 24 not signed<br />
<br />
:This story looks like for domestic consumption, <br />
<br />
::Maybe in small part, but mostly it is more like you accused us--where is the proof? With intention to have the matter dropped, not to escalate the matter. This is not working very well, it just gets stuck, because the other part is not paying much attention. They are not trying to work together at all, and so it just reflects that there is a lot of unresolved tension. --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 05:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:to make it look like the "West" is hiding something. <br />
::::A bit of that , --certainly they want to recieve as early as possible all available evidence, and they were saying in the past that they had not. But in terms of tone, the reason is concern with insufficient respect to Russia, so the payback is, hey,go bring us some pointless paper. So there are tone problems, not just substance problems, --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 07:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:It refers to <br />
Resolution 2166 adopted by the UN Security Council in July calls for a thorough and impartial investigation into the MH17 tragedy and requires the secretary-general to provide the Security Council with investigation progress reports". which is nonsense, as Security Council has no access, will not do own investigation, and it is being done under international laws by the Dutch. Furthermore, as a member of the investigation panel, Russia knows this. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 22:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::The original story is that separatists shot it down with a BUK. The physical evidence only points to a proximity fuse missile ''of some sort'', several types of these available including air to air ones. USA claims but has not shown satellite evidence of a BUK being fired frm "rebel held territory". This is UNTRUE as satellite would not show the type of evidence they claim to have. So to produce evidence they would have the show what they really have, which must be off a spy plane. Domestically they want to hide that they had enough interest in the area to operate such a plane there, though everyone locally knows. They will not produce this for a criminal case. No criminal case is possible without proof of who (what person or unit) shot it. Anyway the consensus also was that they were aiming at a legitimate military target, so was accidental.<br />
::Several other accidental "wrong target" scenarios are possible, and almost as equally likely. If there WERE Ukrainian aircraft near MH17 (and witnesses said there WAS a fighter there) they may have been the target, of separatists OR RUSSIAN AIRCRAFT which of course are not meant to be in Ukrainian air space -- but would not have to be, to be close enough to shoot a missile at one. Alternatively a Russian one may have been the target of a Ukrainian plane. Either way the much larger and intervening B777 would have captured the attention of the missile. <br />
::The Russian "radar proof" of SUs being there were fake. But based on some knowledge that there WERE some there. If their own planes saw them, they can't admit to that.<br />
::There is enough doubt for all parties to NOT WANT a thorough investigation. Nobody can do one with hopes of blaming the other, without potentially incriminating themselves. <br />
::So it will not happen. Whichever way it was, the missile was aimed at a legitimate target. So at most the charge could only be negligence. Discovering whose negligence would only escalate hostilities. Nobody wants that. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 07:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
:::All signed and should-be-signed chit chat should ideally be on a talk page, not front (article) page. Friendly reminder. (and I say ideally as I and others have done this before and sometimes never fixed it, but it's not ideal) (good talk though) :) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 08:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::sorry, I started it there, fixed now. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 08:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== November 2014 ===<br />
<br />
Dutch experts are back at the scene, this time collecting the wreckage. As [http://www.sputniknews.com/europe/20141111/1014605576.html RIA Novosti reports], an agreement with the DPR has been signed yesterday, but there were some shenanigans with the Dutch delivering a second version of the agreement in which any mention of "DPR" was erased. Grow a spine, cheeseheads, FFS. ''Your'' children died there. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Correspondents in the area say there was shelling of the wreckage area by Ukraine on 10 of November [http://rusvesna.su/news/1415708946 (KP correspondent-rusvesna)] . They have a video from the scene; I don't think shelling is heard there, but it is a very brief clip. They show damage in the metal, a thin crack which goes from the inside out. It may be missile shrapnel shooting the plane through, entering, than exiting on the other side of the plane, there is no problem with that. Cracks looks most consistent with missile shrapnel (which may be a rhombus plate). Woman in the second half does not say things of help to investigation, she heard explosion and seen smoke, but that was about it. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
What are they on about?? they went there weeks ago to pick up luggage and belongings,no problems, no OSCE help either. Left most of it behind.Few days later Graham Phillips showed heaps of stuff still there -- including BONES. They were quietly invited back (BY DPR)went back and found some bones. Few days ago went back, found more remains WITH DPR PEOPLE WITH THEM. Well yeah, it's only about 25 km from Debaltseve, true. Ukies shelling that way on purpose to scare them off, was nothing when they were there secretly. On other hand their PM didn't knows they were there either? he's a snarling venom-spitter agaist Putin. "Rutte has always said he doesn’t want to negotiate with the pro-Russian separatists because he doesn’t recognize their self-proclaimed regional government." what BS you negotiate with whoever is there, who else? the man in the moon? Malaysia negotiated with them and got back all the bodies and the black boxes. Kiev was not going to give them, even if they'd been able to. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 14:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
=== December 2014 ===<br />
At SBU press conference given by Vasilii Vovk, and lasting some 30 minutes, MH17 crashed was mentioned. It was said that final outcome of investigation may be not exactly the same as initially announced, and that investigators have recovered fragments in passengers bodies which may show that the plane was shot by a missile. [http://rusvesna.su/news/1419023898 Reports on this (rusvesna)] came out with a title claiming that SBU admitted that MH17 could be shot from a plane; that seems to be a lot stronger than what SBU actually announced. They did say that [http://112.ua/glavnye-novosti/v-telah-passazhirov-boinga-obnaruzheny-elementy-kotorye-mogut-byt-chastyami-raket-sbu-163012.html "there are many reasons to think that those were missile fragments"]. Here is [http://112.ua/glavnye-novosti/v-sbu-ne-uvereny-chto-iznachalnaya-versiya-krusheniya-samoleta-naydet-100-procentnoe-podtverzhdenie-163013.html 112.ua report, and press conference video (Ukrainian)] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 08:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* http://uatoday.tv/crime/bodies-of-mh17-victims-contain-missile-fragments-sbu-says-398439.html <br />
"Chief of the Investigation Department of the Security Service of Ukraine and the co-chair of the international investigation group into the crash, Vasiliy Vovk." This is one and the same person, then, not a joint statement. UNIAN reports from this "the bodies of some of the passengers killed in the plane crash contain metal objects that were not part of the aircraft," now citing external forces. Apparently, per the above, he said a jet-fired missile was possible, and Russian media latches onto that. UNIAN emphasizes the other half of the options: "One of the main theories being considered is that the plane was shot down by a Buk missile system from territory controlled by terrorist groups," Vovk said." --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Eliot Higgins [https://twitter.com/EliotHiggins/status/546064079350411264 tweets]: Preview of interview with the head of the #MH17 criminal investigation ‘Geen satellietbeelden van neerschieten MH17’ http://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2014/12/19/geen-satellietbeelden-van-neerschieten-mh17/ --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:Translated, Westerbeke basically says there is no video-movie type satellite imagery proof of what happened, as many had come to expect. Makes sense to me. But there should be data that can be read and then presented graphically, that should indicate what happened. Should be forthcoming? To note, new to me, Malaysia has maybe been invited into the JIT (Joint Investigation Team, once a total secret) - the article lists member states as "Oekraïne, Australië, Maleisië, België en Nederland." --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: Malaysia was finally allowed into the club [http://www.nst.com.my/node/60321 on or around December 8]. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===February 2015===<br />
The team of international aviation investigators who investigate the cause and contributing factors of the crash of flight MH17 concluded the investigation meeting at Gilze-Rijen. In the past week they conducted several investigations on the wreckage, including the fractures, the failure mechanisms and the impact patterns. This meeting is part of the procedures prescribed by the ICAO provisions on international aircraft accident and incident investigation.<br />
<br />
The investigators represented the countries involved in the MH17 investigation: Ukraine, Malaysia, Australia, United States, United Kingdom and the Russian Federation. The representatives of Belgium and Germany attended the meeting on February 17. A representative of ICAO was also present.<br />
<br />
Next week preparations will be made for the visit of next of kin to see the recovered wreckage in the first week of March. The planned three-dimensional reconstruction of a part of the aircraft will start soon. The next of kin will be allowed to view this three-dimensional reconstruction at a later time. [http://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/en/onderzoek/2049/investigation-crash-mh17-17-july-2014/onderzoek/1622/international-aviation-investigators-conclude-meeting-at-gilze-rijen#fasen /Dutch Safety Board, 20.02.2015] <br />
: and ...? --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 21:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: The great Alex Thomson has been there lately, finding [https://twitter.com/alextomo/status/566945066284228608 piles of Malaysian Airlines jet wreckage] still around. Guess that's not needed for their 3D reconstruction. All very shady and quite disappointing if one (like me) has held the Dutch in high regard when it comes to thoroughness and integrity. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 21:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===March 2015===<br />
[http://nos.nl/artikel/2027660-justitie-zoekt-getuigen-van-neerhalen-mh17-door-buk-raket.html Something from Netherlands emerged], claimed to be International Investigation team (with Ukraine, but not Russia) with old stuff,+ some (newly?) recorded, some of it at studio quality, zero emotions, suspiciously accented conversation in RUssian about a Buk being moved direct from Russia to somewhere near Snezhnoe by some unknown, but surely opolchenie member, characters --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 16:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
: Some Western operation, announcer quite clearly lived in the West for a while, newly emerged recording of bad guys--something strange about accents (something out of place), and tone (supercalm in presumably tense circumstances, curses with no fire to them appear staged)--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 16:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::[http://www.newsru.com/world/02apr2015/mh17.html Now saying ] [http://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2015/04/01/russische-legerofficier-herkend-op-justitietape-mh17/ (and here)] looking for Petrovskii-Khmuryi, who can be one of the guys on the recording (Do not remember comments from him on the matter...kind of curious) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::Pro-opolchenie blog say that this is old Ukrainian fake presented now as coming from Netherlands. Have not seen Petrovskii comments on the matter. (Manner of speech somewhat reminds him, in a kind of exaggerated way; to me sounds as more likely to be a play-up, --having hard time believing the tone). Recordings attributed to crash day were [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgdqdklrqDA#t=238 published by SBU] on 18 July. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===April 2015===<br />
[http://www.nltimes.nl/2015/04/08/dutch-release-hundreds-of-emails-tied-to-mh17/ Dutch Release Hundreds Of Emails Tied To Mh17]--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Russian demands ===<br />
* [http://en.itar-tass.com/world/750377 Russia proposes appointing UN special envoy for MH17 crash probe — Churkin] – ITAR-TASS, 20 Sept 2014<br />
:''He said that Russian delegation has seen no will on the part of the secretariat to display any initiative to promote international investigation of the crash. “We think it important that the United Nations Secretary General should analyze the state of things on the above problems and deliver a detailed report to the Security Council, including his suggestions about additional measures to promote the investigation,” he said.<br />
:''“It would probably be expedient to look at establishing a post of a secretary general’s envoy on that matter and sending, in collaboration with the OSCE [Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe], a mission to the crash area,” Churkin said.<br />
: Russians are annoyed by disrespect, and by sanctions. [http://itar-tass.com/politika/1455360 During the meeting of the UN Security Council, Churkin urged his colleagues] to work together to clarify the tragic story of the airliner "without any hints and insinuations" and references to the evidence which has not been submitted. "If you do not submit (any proof) than this is not evidence, but just as we say," фига в кармане " ("the 3-finger gesture exhibited in one's own pocket"- basically meaning bullshit). And such things to investigate such serious situations is completely inappropriate," - he stressed. Russians support the official investigation, -but still emit some noise indicating their annoyance. Also, they may have some beliefs regarding the circumstances. <br />
:At the time, it appeared that sanctions and MH17 are [http://time.com/3025173/eu-sanctions-russia-mh17-putin/ linked ] ; and despite a progress towards peace, new sanctions were imposed. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 12:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: [http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1407/18/cnr.04.html UN Ambassador Power Addresses Security Council Meeting] "we cannot rule out technical assistance from Russian personnel" "If indeed Russian-backed separatists were behind this attack on a civilian airliner, they and their backers would have good reason to cover up evidence of their crime. Thus, it is extremely important that an investigation be commenced immediately."--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Germany Decides Rebels Dunnit==<br />
<br />
German Intelligence has decided for definite that the first story was correct - MH17 was downed by a BUK operated by [http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/mh17/prorussian-rebels-downed-mh17-with-ukraine-missile-germans/story-fno88it0-1227095832498 separatists] after all. <br />
Not really surprising, as this is (a) the easiest result based on Occam's Razor and (b) comes at a time Germany would like to do something to help Russia in the sanctions mess but Merkel can't back off yet (and/or different parts of Germany have different degrees of friendship with The Bear). It may also be a smack on the fingers for Ukraine for the neo-nazi mess. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 04:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
We also covered this elsewhere [[Category_talk:Leaks#BND |BND leak]]. (As for positives, they seem to say Ukrainian photos are fake). As for rebel Buk, Bolotov said on 20 July that his Buk is broken, and offered anybody to come and check. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 04:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
:And Kiev also agrees the rebels had no Buk of their own, saying Russia (not Kiev) brought it in on their behalf and fired it. How does BND think it can just make up claims no in the region believes or supports? Will need to have a look, especially at their take on the images used to support Kiev's version of the "not separatists" narrative. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::There's nothing for you to take a look at. This "presentation" was towards a fig leaf secret service control instance, and even [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Ströbele one of the few people on it], a kind of German Ron Paul when it comes to argue against the grain, said he doesn't buy it. And another one of those "kleine Anfragen" made them admit that [https://www.jungewelt.de/schwerpunkt/»keine-eigenen-erkenntnisse« "no own insights" went into that "leaked" statement]. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 23:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/mh17-chief-investigator-says-no-actionable-evidence-yet-in-probe-a-999485.html Chief MH17 Investigator on German Claims: 'We Will Need Evidence'] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 18:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Joost Bosman photos ==<br />
[https://www.flickr.com/photos/33705716@N05/14687945100/sizes/l This one] is interesting. Also [https://www.flickr.com/photos/33705716@N05/14872160254/in/set-72157646326477044 this.] -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 00:14, 12 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Other MH17 analysis ==<br />
<br />
Half-way decent [http://0serg.livejournal.com/146553.html analysis] of the known facts on MH17 in Q & A format. Use Bing translator as google gives up half way through.--[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 01:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== R-27 long-range air-to-air missile? ==<br />
<br />
Work in progress, please leave alone for a an hour. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 15:56, 13 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-27_(air-to-air_missile) R-27 (air-to-air missile)]<br />
* [http://belsat.eu/en/wiadomosci/a,20935,official-russian-military-aircraft-to-blame-for-shooting-down-ukrainian-su25-plane.html Official: Russian military aircraft to blame for shooting down Ukrainian Su-25 plane] – 7 July 2014<br />
* [http://www.ukrinform.ua/eng/news/nsdc_russian_aircraft_shot_down_ukrainian_su_25_plane_323908 NSDC: Russian aircraft shot down Ukrainian Su-25 plane] – July 17, 2014<br />
* [http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/russian-military-plane-shot-down-ukrainian-su-25-aircraft-in-ukraine-356422.html Russian military plane shot down Ukrainian Su-25 aircraft in Ukraine] – Interfax-Ukraine / Kyiv Post, July 17, 2014<br />
<br />
<br />
== R-60 ==<br />
Basic info. Infrared-homing, proximity fuse (radar or optical); range 8 km, altitude 20 km [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/62/Rakiety_R-60_i_R-13M_A381.jpg Photo] (but rods not shown--dummy warhead). [http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-101.html More photos]. Older versions warhead use tungsten expanding rods, newer (R60 M, R60 MK) may use depleted uranium . 3-3.5 kg warhead weight. Exact rod shapes, and whether encasing is suitable to produce fragmentation on top of that, are not found/hard to find.<br />
<br />
It is thought that R 60 rod damage will look similar to [http://s711.photobucket.com/user/smi6086/media/visit61.jpg.html sidewinder,] but straight cut, not L shape --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 23:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 23:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: <s>Here's what R-60 warhead ''allegedly'' [http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/evanesce_girl/8305736/101880/101880_original.jpg looks like] (I can neither confirm nor deny that it is indeed an R-60 warhead, as I simply do not know for sure). If it is true, then there's no way the holes will look even remotely close to Sidewinder damage. (Note that the ruler at the bottom of the photo is in centimeters, not inches).</s> -- [[User:Ed3218|Ed3218]] ([[User talk:Ed3218|talk]]) 17:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::But [http://imperiya.by/news.html?id=139809 other sources] call it anti aircraft shell (artillery) , WW2 times---and it does look like (artillery) shell. patronen.su is a source of the photo (typed on the photo)--, but I could not find that photo there--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 18:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::It got an outer rotating band , those grooves outside. Also material seems to be cast iron, not tungsten-as far as it's possible to tell from the photo --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 18:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::: Looks like you are correct. -- [[User:Ed3218|Ed3218]] ([[User talk:Ed3218|talk]]) 23:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Disinformation? ==<br />
<br />
Chris Harrison [https://www.facebook.com/groups/IOUCO/permalink/631575156955542/ on Facebook:]<br />
* [http://www.discussionist.com/101445081 Overlooked....the mysterious imprisoned US spy who gave the Daily Mail witness testimony about MH-17] – Clarity of Signal, Aug 16, 2014<br />
:''Needing a little help form Novorossiya blogging investigators in regards to this individual who I put a thread up about back in August. He is a very intriguing character that supplied the Daily Mail UK with information that doesn't seem to be mentioned in the ATC to plane transmissions for MH-17 (the ones released by the Dutch Safety Board). The Daily Mail quoted him as saying that the pilots of MH-17 "felt bad". However, this quote and conversation is missing from the DSB's preliminary report. After having performed some minor investigation I found that this same individual was also a key source of misinformation for last years false flag chemical weapons attack in Syria. I'm curious if any other Novorossiya blogging investigators want to attempt to dig deeper on this guy and bring more info to light? He could be somewhat of a 'smoking gun'.<br />
<br />
== Radar jamming and spoofing? ==<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vYaRtY27iY Proof of NATO false flag attack on MH17] – Patrick Roddie, Jul 22, 2014<br />
:''Just one month before the Malaysian airliner was shot down, NATO ran a live exercise using fighter jets to jam the transponders of commercial airliners and spoof them as military jets by broadcasting a military transponder signal at close range. NATO forces seem to have made the doomed Malaysian 777 appear to be a hostile military jet and forced the separatists to open fire. <br />
:''The video evidence of military chaff falling at the crash site reinforces the argument that military fighters were very close to MH17 when it was shot down.<br />
The Russian civilian radar data however shows that the MH17 transponder was not jammed. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 05:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Cause of death? ==<br />
<br />
Up to now it has generally been assumed that the pilots may have died from the "high-energy objects" hitting them while the passengers died almost instantly from hypoxia after the explosive decompression of the cabin. This rapid death might explain the odd "[[/Debunked topics#Bloodless bodies – fake Facebook profiles?|bloodless bodies]]".<br />
<br />
Dutch Foreign Minister Frans Timmermans now says that at least one passenger was found with an oxygen mask on.<br />
* [http://en.itar-tass.com/world/753427 Malaysia Airlines MH17 passenger found with oxygen mask on — Dutch FM] – ITAR-TASS, October 09, 2014<br />
:''The latest finding questions the earlier theory that the 298 victims on board the tragic flight had been killed instantly and indicates that they may have remained conscious after the Boeing aircraft was shot down.<br />
* [http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-10-09/mh-17-false-flag-exposed-after-revelation-passenger-was-wearing-oxygen-mask MH-17 Report False Flag Exposed After Revelation Passenger Was Wearing Oxygen Mask] Zero Hedge, 10/09/2014<br />
:''The mask found around the neck of the unnamed passenger, one of 88 Australian citizens and residents on board, was tested for fingerprints, saliva and DNA but produced no forensic evidence, De Bruin said. "So it is not known how or when that mask got around the neck of the victim," he said.<br />
:''The discovery of the mask and the implications it raised about the passengers' final moments were conveyed to the Australian's family before Timmermans' interview on Wednesday night, the prosecutor's office said. But information was sent out to other family members of the MH-17 victims only on Thursday morning.<br />
-- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 18:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Russia Blames Buk, Secret Info ==<br />
[http://rusvesna.su/news/1413027395 "CyberLeaks" on russvesna] claims 9H314 warhead of 9M38 missile, Buk M1 system. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:11, 11 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* [http://rt.com/news/195128-mh17-crash-cyberberkut-leak/ Kiev secretly received data from MH17 crash investigators – Ukrainian hacktivists] RT Oct. 11<br />
:''Ukrainian CyberBerkut hacktivists claim that they have penetrated the internal network of Ukraine’s Defense Ministry and found proof that Kiev is getting secret data from MH17 crash investigators, including information which implies its involvement.''<br />
<br />
:''A document, posted on the website cyber-berkut.net, and allegedly downloaded from Ukraine’s Defense Ministry network, dates back to August 7 and appears to be signed by Colonel Igor Zorin, the chief of Ukraine’s air defense forces. It is a report which maintains that a fragment of a projectile found together with the debris of the crashed flight MH17 is in fact a damage agent of a 9M38 surface-to-air guided missile belonging to the mobile air defense complex Buk or Buk M1.''<br />
<br />
:''... CyberBerkut claimed that the documents are evidence that the MH17 crash investigation commission and the Ukraine Defense Ministry have “special relations.”'' --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* [http://rt.com/news/194848-mh17-ukrainian-missile-buk/ MH17 crash: Ukraine security chief says missile only Kiev has may be found at crash site] RT Oct. 10 <br />
:''Investigation of the MH17 Boeing-777-200 crash in July will be completed when the remains of the Buk-M air defense missile are found, Valentin Nalivaichenko, head of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), told Ukrainian TV.<br />
::Because:<br />
:''“It will be Russian servicemen who used the Buk-M missile” to take down the passenger jet, he said.''<br />
However, they might have also said it was a certain type - Soviet-era but modernized. I'm not sure if that's so, but if so, Russia's military says they use only "modified" not modernized Buk M-1 and M-2, and only Ukraine has the ones it "modernized." <br />
:''When Mr Nalivaichenko mentions a ‘modernized Buk’ system, he probably means an air defense system that was upgraded by the Ukrainian defense industry. We know that Ukraine has been working in this direction,” the source said, adding that the information about the modernization of Ukrainian Buk systems was confirmed in late June on the Ukrainian Defense Ministry’s website, which reported renovated missile systems becoming operational.''<br />
::And a couple weeks later:<br />
:''On the day that the MH17 was shot down, Ukraine’s 156th SAM regiment carried out an unauthorized missile launch, an emergency situation that is being investigated by the SBU and obviously being hushed up by Kiev authorities, the official said.''<br />
::Therefore:<br />
:''“The confusion and inconsistency of Nalivaichenko’s responses leaves no doubt that he mentioned a plan that definitely had not been developed by the SBU, but rather brought in the other day from their overseas mentors,” the Joint Staff source said. “This is Nalivaichenko and his big mouth blunder.”''<br />
--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
There is no analysis, only conclusion, which is said to be based on the photo. The first question about the photo is where it is coming from. The Netherlands investigation? (Than why it was not also sent to Moscow)? From SBU office? (It is too easy to fake a photo, and with so many fakes already THEY have the burden of proof it is not a fake) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
:There's supposedly analysis behind the match, and my guess is it's all valid. But, that's a guess. Why would it not be sent to Moscow? Apparently its being sent to Ukraine is an issue or scandal, so apparently it's not supposed to be sent to anyone (?) Later it'll be seen by others and us, and our guesses can get better. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 14:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
==Investigation of Buk producer Almaz-Antay==<br />
Russian concern Almaz-Antay held a press conference, aimed at quashing sanctions against them, to say that (if it was Buk, then) it was Buk missile 9M38M or 9M38M1 with missile warhead 9М314 or 9М314М1, because only those have X shape elements. That was taken off production in 1999, while the concern was formed in 2002, so they did not provide this missile to anybody; but Ukraine has it. Their conclusion is based on publicly available photographs; they also participate in the investigation and has exclusive competences. They say that Snezhnoe is inconsistent as that will take cabin off at once; offer to do an [http://rusvesna.su/news/1433241635 experiment] to prove/establish who is responsible (an experiment seems right thing to do-and interesting how you account for movement)- [http://www.interfax.ru/russia/445152 interfax]. They seem to repeat the version given in Novaia Gazeta [[Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17/Forensics#Novaya_Gazeta |(discussion)]], placing launch in Zaroshenskoe. They essentially say that some 40% of elements go perpendicular to the missile and so it needs to be on intersecting course to (have a chance to) account for all the damage. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:33, 2 June 2015 (UTC) <br />
:Severe damage to the flap, illustrated in NG, with less damage to the wing, raises a possibility of a multiple event. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 16:33, 2 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
: Their presentation is on youtube now [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAMY2SpohDA in Russian] and [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsohFzbJ-vs with English translation]. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 15:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Full presentation by Almaz-Antey ( Buk-m2 manufacturer ) about the incident [http://tass.ru/boeing-presentation/vvedenie/2023629#/2023629].<br />
Still only in Russian. Unfortunately even in Russian somebody the diagrams are not self-explanatory. But main arguments are clear. It includes calculations of the attack angle of the rocket in order to cause such damage. - --[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 09:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
They say it was incoming at about 78 degrees; they reject Snezhnoe at 20 degrees; schematically in 2D cones are smth like this, with one extra alternative at -110 degrees shown [[File:Cones.jpg|thumb|Cones for various incoming angles, relative to the plane's frame. MH17: 0.8 Mach, missile: 3 Mach, projectiles 2400 m/s]]--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 05:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
Resup, thanks for shifting my comment to more relevant location. I would like to add here one more analysis. Minimum Distance between Hit point (based on Dutch castrated report) and Snizhne is 24 km (Bellingcat magical tricks placed the launch spot even further). Buk-M1 missile goes at 860m/s, but let's assume 1km/s. Let's also assume that missile immediately travels at highest speed. For such distance the trajectory will be parabolic (slide 49 from Almaz-Antey). Than the time of flight will be way more than 30 sec and it will even intersect the pilot's vertical field of view. Dutch officially declared that there is nothing interesting on black box voice recorder. How is it possible for the pilot not to notice a 5 meters lobg rocket, that ejects violent plume behind, flies directly at him for more than 30 sec and even goes across his vertical field of view? And according to Dutch report, pilot was informed of another airliner in proximity, that he had to watch out for. So he was alert and paying attention to the surroundings. It is just impossible for the pilot not to comment on it, at least WTF. Even cloudy day doesn’t explain the issue.<br />
--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 09:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
:Last radio transmission at 13:19:56-13:19:59 UTC – MH17: ROMEO NOVEMBER DELTA , MALASYAN 17 p15, p29 (MH 17 speaking; RND=waypoint)<br />
:Both flight recordings ended at 13:20:03 UTC-- from the preliminary Dutch report [[Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17/Dutch_preliminary_report#New_Info|(preliminary report discussion link)]]--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 16:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::The BUK missile burns out at around 14-15 seconds (from memory - it may vary but not much, it also depends on model, but I'm talking about the one alleged in this instance). The missile spends much of its flight in an unpowered ballistic trajectory but uses fins to make minor adjustments to strike the target.<br />
::The missile is much smaller than an ordinary aircraft so very hard to see. There have been numerous head-on collisions of large aircraft where the pilots never saw anything despite being on lookout. It's not surprising at all the MH17 pilots didn't see anything. --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 10:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::We are in confused state with this -discussed at the end [[Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17/BUK_Tracking#Contrail|here]]. On some web pages, we can read about 15 seconds engine run, but there is a video out there which looks like old (long fins) model fired, and looks like firing engine for 40 seconds. Antey shows some trajectories which gives some clue, but not saying explicitly. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The 15 second for missile is from Wikipedia that quotes one Russian BUK that is about different military technologies. I've never seen it in some official document. Every source that talks about it eventually boils down to this book. But I strongly suspect that there is a typo.it should be 50 sec. Otherwise it doesn’t make sense. Missile is using proportional navigation and is supposed to chase manuvouting targets with speeds up to 830 m/s, while maximum missile speed of this kind is 860m/s. And it is supposed to catch those targets at distances up to 30 km. It just doesn’t make sense that after 15 seconds it is basically a stone with minor control indirection. Simple wind or requirement for slightly sharp turn will make it useless. <br />
Can you give an example of head on collision of planes? All I can find were either in the thick clouds or when one of the planes was ascending and another one during descending. They never crossed each other's field of view. <br />
Your comment about 5 meter rocket obviously relies on the assumption of 15 sec, meaning no plume behind. Youtube videos of Buk launches show plumes plumes staying way longer than 15 seconds.<br />
--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 13:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
For those who still think that pilot of Boeing 777 is looking at the world through some kind of pinhole [http://m.youtube.com/watch?hl=en-GB&v=-8a6qbF9ECg&gl=SG]<br />
--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 00:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=='Unauthorized launch?' ==<br />
[http://russian.rt.com/article/42405#ixzz38ShRpr00 Such theory appeared] around 25 July 2014. According to quoted source said to be from defense structures of Ukraine, on 17 of July, commander of 156 UAF anti-aircraft defense regiment was ordered to perform training of crews to support ground forces in a Donetsk suburb. They had to deploy batteries, and perform routing of target and all procedures of tracking target and its training destruction with Buk M1. Commanders received unblocking keys for launch, but real launch of 9М38М1 (Buk) was not planned. To participate in the exercise, two SU 25 planes from 229 tactical aviation brigade were sent from Kulbakino airbase in Nikolaev to Dnepropetrovsk. They were charged with aerial reconnaissance and to mark control targets in ATO area to the West from Donetsk. After one of the planes entered detection zone of Buk, it was tracked by a crew of battery located near Zaroshenskoe (Зарощенское). It appears that due to tragic accident after some time, and despite height difference, the azimuth of SU 25 and MH17 coincided, in which case the missile will go after the target with bigger area. The source says that he does not know why accidental launch happened, and this is investigated by SBU. "Battery commander and the whole crew were taken". <br />
<br />
There are some details, but sources are not revealed, and details were neither confirmed nor denied. Location seems a bit suspicious, it suggests a right side hit; not clear how reacquiring target from SU 25 at a coinciding azimuth will result in the other side hit. Not totally impossible, (lost target, overshot to the North, than reacquired). But this is not very likely, on top of unexplained accidental launch. Little solid details makes this theory to be on shaky footing. Apparently was recycled in later versions (Nikolaev air base mentioned in recent film). The worst is that it is unclear what is the source, and could he really know. Otherwise, piece of cake to tell such tale (of 'my aunt told me' sort) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
10.10.2014, 14:05 "Rossiiskaia Gazeta" (official publisher of documents of the Russian Government) [http://www.rg.ru/2014/10/10/buk-site.html says in part:] A week after Boeing (i.e. MH17) catastrophe, a source in the armed forces of Ukraine shared information, definitely not matching the official version of Kiev. This source said: on the day of the tragedy, in the 156th air defense missile regiment of the Ukrainian army, armed with modernized "Buk," there was an unauthorized missile launch, which happened in the course of an exercise . Investigation of the incident involved "impartial" SBU investigators. No need to be a genius to put together elements of a puzzle - said a source in the MoD General Staff of the Russian Federation. " <br />
<br />
The number (156) in this report does not match the number in Bezler account on the video (section below); maybe some mix-up on the way to newspaper; but otherwise it all looks consistent. Bezler was operating in the nearby area, and likely would be more knowledgeable. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 23:48, 5 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Bezler Account==<br />
[http://rusvesna.su/news/1413549200 Bes:] " I do not have weapons to shoot Boeing at 10,000 m. Boeing was shot by 154 anti-aircraft regiment of UAF stationed in Artemovsk, using Buk system. My reconnaissance team has spotted "Buk" as it left. Former Defense Minister Geletey knows about it. It was a provocation. The day before the accident, we shot Ukrainian SU-25, two pilots ejected and we went to look for them. My conversation was intercepted and mis-represented as a talk about the downed Boeing. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 05:35, 18 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: Of all the people making statements in this matter, Bezler was probably the only one actually there on the ground to know what was where. The area he claims is borderline for distance, but not impossible. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 21:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Yes, what he says needs to be taken very seriously --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 22:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
A straight line S-SE to the approximate impact point (as we've narrowed down) is 61.5 km. That's significantly out of range, isn't it? [http://wikimapia.org/#lat=48.4572063&lon=38.2935846&z=10&l=0&m=b&gz=0;380113220;481550929;5094910;0;0;4351413 The line on Wikimapia] for second thoughts on that. Clearly, center of downtown was not the firing spot, but even presuming a bit south of town (and not north) this doesn't readily line up. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 00:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Launcher can drive around easily. While personnel is better of sleeping in a city, not out in the field (even if they do, one would not say 'stationed in a cornfield'). There is nothing to defend in the city itself--Novorossia does not use planes. And also, the range is approximate, it has listed ceiling of 20 km, actual range would depend on height and other things.--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Actual range depends on the actual rocket used, not the launcher. Nobody is suggesting they were defending anything, he's saying it was a provocation,ie deliberate. There have been other reports of Ukies starting to test/train on BUKs,perhaps preparing for a war with Russia directly involved. Now, practice, I've had it from numerous ex-military (various Western nations) that they used civilian planes to practice the BUK type radars on as (a) always available and (b) less likely to knows you've lit them up so won't retaliate. That is meant to be radar practice, not actual shooting, of course.<br />
::There was doubt about why "rebels" would be taking this BUK on a scenic tour, especially in mostly KIEV-held territory. But if it was a Kiev BUK?? carted around on a very conspicuous truck to be later identified as having been stolen by rebels? (in interview with very anti-Russian Lithuania's reporter??)<br />
::The Kiev story was, rebels were going to shoot down an Aeroflot, to fall onto Ukie territory, to give Russia excuse for war. However, if looks like rebels shot down something, falling on their territory, Russia can still be blamed and NATO might come help Kiev obliterate the subhumans. Hitting an actual Aeroflot was too risky in case Russia does come in but NATO doesn't. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 07:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::Oh, as if "stationed in" changes anything from a presumption of "firing from" ... lol. Obviously. I sit corrected on that, unless that is what he means... Good points on Obviously no real reason for air defense to be doing anything. True claim or not, it's worth considering these units were just sitting around with no use, freeing up their schedules for off-the-books work. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 08:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Bezler repeated the claim, 154 anti-aircraft regiment of UAF stationed in Artemovsk, using Buk system, Gelatei as overall commander has to answer eventually. This answer is recorded on video <br />
during an interview with Ukrainian news channel 1+1, starting 2:10:00 of the last, long video on [http://rusvesna.su/news/1414630752 rusvesna]. But 1+1 news report did not have that, they put old known fakes instead (first video in russvesna report). Russvesna responds to claims made by Ukrainian news report in detail, with video time stamps referring to Ukrainian news report; the long tape (last video) was made as a safeguard against false claims. Bezler himself does not have any equipment which can shot a plane even at 7000 m (he than mentions Strela 10 which cannot shoot a plane at such height; listed ceiling for Strela 10 is 3500 m)<br />
::Man in black leather next to Bezler is Василий Будик (Vasilii Budik), who was Bezler prisoner for 88 days (according to Budik himself, a 'guest'), and now is in Ukraine and helping Ruban to release more prisoners. He is listed as "Adviser to Defense Ministry, Ukraine" on the long tape<br />
:: --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 04:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references /></div>Antidyatelhttps://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17&diff=22701Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH172015-06-12T00:11:55Z<p>Antidyatel: /* Investigation of Buk producer Almaz-Antay */ pilot field of view in Boeing 777</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:Ukraine]] [[Category:MH17]]<!-- Cats go to the top on talk pages--><br />
<br />
{{Mainpage}}<br />
== Subpages ==<br />
* [[List of MH17 airframe parts]]<br />
* [[Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Dutch preliminary report|Dutch preliminary report]] ([[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Dutch preliminary report |talk]])<br />
* [[Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Map|Maps]] – ([[/Map|talk]])<br />
* [[/Forensics]]<br />
* [[/Witnesses]]<br />
* [[/Fighter jets]]<br />
* [[/BUK Tracking]]<br />
* [[/Debunked topics]]<br />
* [[/Cyber Berkut leak]]<br />
* [[/SBU Audio Evidence]]<br />
* [[/Archive]]<br />
<br />
== General ACLOS Investigation Thoughts ==<br />
<br />
===Brilliant Analysis of the Propaganda===<br />
American writer on [http://rt.com/op-edge/183132-only-truth-flight-mh17/ RT.com] Brilliant and funny. And sadly true. Well worth a read. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 18:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::I didn't read it all, but it's excellent. A couple steps up from T.B. Hinchey-class writing. I didn't notice any lazy jet-blaming. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Considering Possibilities ===<br />
Only so many theories have been seriously proposed for what happened to MH17. But it seems worthwhile to create a master list of basically all logical possibilities to consider - what has and hasn't been proposed, by whom, why? Anyone can start or add to a sub-section below to conmment on that possibility. I inserted simple notes to many, hoping they're not too controversial - suggest or, hey, make a change as you see fit. I sign here for the initial list and notes only. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''All possibilities:''' Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 was brought down by (A Buk, B Jet, C Other) operated by (1 Russia, 2 Kiev, 3 Rebel) in an attack that was (a accidental, b intended, c intent + error)<br />
<br />
'''A Buk/SA-11''' (supported by some evidence, claimed by Kiev, presumed by Western powers)<br />
* A.1 Russian (Kiev's story - known stocks - border and logic issues)<br />
** A1a - accidental (intended legit/defensive downing - possible)<br />
** A1b - intended (not likely - Russia would stand little to gain and some to lose)<br />
** A1c - intent+error (SBU theory - intended to hit Aeroloft civilian flight, blame Kiev, invade - hit MH17 by mistake)<br />
<br />
* A.2 Kiev (known stocks, alleged movement at the time) (why: make seps/Russia look bad) (how: snuck in totally, approval snuck in too, or fired from outside rebel areas after all) <br />
** A2a - accidental (intended legit/defensive downing - not likely having snuck behind enemy lines to do it)<br />
** A2b - intended (most likely - going behind the lines suggests false flag intent) <br />
** A2c - intent+error (they aimed for the Aeroloft flight, etc. - possible)<br />
<br />
* A.3 Rebel (no known stocks, some evidence for, some against - rebel Buk is/was the Western presumption outside Kiev)<br />
** A3a - accidental (intended legit/defensive downing) (presumed by intelligent outsiders who blame them)<br />
*** (variations: launcher supplied by Russia, seized by separatists, brought by defector - crew came with it, or not - etc.)<br />
*** (variations: sliding scale of culpability from drunk and negligent operators with all blame, to blameless but fooled by false signals and such) <br />
** A3b - intended (not likely, soft implication from Kiev against the "terrorists") <br />
** A3c - intent + error (intent of a criminal kind still seems unlikely, so all error options probably under A3a.)<br />
<br />
'''B Jet''' <br />
(supported by some evidence, promoted by many revisionists) <br />
(var: used air-to-air missile, used auto-cannon/other, or combination)<br />
* B.1 Russian (had to violate Kiev's airspace without being mentioned)<br />
** B1a - accidental (intended legit/defensive downing)<br />
** B1b - intended (not likely - Russia would stand little to gain and some to lose)<br />
** B1c - intent + error (triple unlikely - it's just a possibility slot)<br />
<br />
* B.2 Kiev (denied by Kiev)<br />
** B2a - accidental (intended legit/defensive downing) (of what?)<br />
** B2b - intended (implication of those proposing it - to make seps/Russia look bad)<br />
** B2c - intent + error (possible)<br />
<br />
* B.3 Rebel (no known jet holdings - no one proposes this)<br />
<br />
'''C Other''' nothing seriously suggested. Lets not go digging for all outlying theories, but if one worth listing emerges, it can be option C and Other will be D, etc.<br />
<br />
:moved material to [[Category talk:Ukraine#Ruban's Third Force]] - theories might say "perpetrator unknown," and thus reason and motive ... but this list is all about actual possibilities more than theories. To the truth, the perp is known, and these are all poss. truths. ''Most'' people's theories will fit a slot here... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Questions Raised ===<br />
<br />
In the end of the day, we may not be able to pronounce a forensic conclusion, for the rest of the world to accept, as we may not have full information or all the needed expertise. Perhaps the best to hope for will be to RAISE (a rather short) list of main questions which we hope the official investigation will not ignore. <br />
I think it will be worthwhile to identify such questions (may be followed by voted answers or something of sort and some supporting arguments). <br />
<br />
In my list, it would be questions establishing basic facts, like <br />
<br />
*impact coordinates<br />
*where blast(s) were coming from<br />
*confirmed evidence about launch and launchers (a.k.a " any high-resolution photos with known coordinates and times?") <br />
*navigation and control methods (a.k.a. " can it curl from forward right to back-left?")<br />
* land based or air based launch? (a.k.a "can satellite see well under the cloud?" )<br />
*anything to learn from radar data (publicized or otherwise)?<br />
*and any other relevant confirmed evidence to consider<br />
<br />
Once all of that is in stone, will be good time for theories.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 19:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Question #1, since it's looking like a Buk fired from Snizneh ... what does that really prove as to who was running it? Nothing. That's why the State Dept. has to add on the Youtube and twitter evidence where it doesn't even matter if those are the real people"admitting" it was them. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:17, 11 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: No confirmed evidence for a Buk, or from Snizhne, yet. Knowing who runs that would be perfect. --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 00:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::Definitions of "confirmed" might differ, but I've been recommending people at least prepare for that coming true, in case the SU-25 thing doesn't pan out. There's a burnt field, somewhere quite near where that supposed launch contrail photo was placed to. And that, I just saw, supposedly [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/exif-data-in-mh17-missile-launch-photo.html had its ex/if data verified] as July 17, 16:25:48. So it might be that figuring who runs that becomes totally crucial. So far, just the fact of what it was and where it was fired is supposed to be proof it ''was not'' the party that was equipped for this - physically and morally - and has benefited from it. Anyway, we're on it somewhat - [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/BUK Tracking#Who Has the BUK Launchers in Ukraine?|who controls the Buks,]] whose got moved - [[#A Rebel-Held Area|what does "rebel-held" mean]] when someone's trucking in a anti-aircraft unit just after [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/07/25/snizhne-mh17-and-rebel-held-territory/ Kiev primed the locals with a bombing of civilians in Snizneh two days before]? Stuff like that I think has extra value to develop. I should get to it... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: If there is confirmed photo of launch, that would go under one of already listed items. With electronic evidence on social networks, I am not sufficiently knowledgeable, but presume it is too easy to edit those to fit any agenda, easier than to refute. Government releases, like satellite photos, is different, as they can't change stories overnight and have something to loose if proven fake. Faking hard physical evidence would be fairly impossible. It is good to know who is to blame of course. (But most people would already have their own intuitive answer,which is not likely to change, so how exactly we are going to focus on such an issue? --For myself, the best outcome will be for truth to come out, wherever that may lead).<br />
--[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 19:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== TASS: According to Our Sources ==<br />
23 December, Moscow. "Russian special services are in procession of information, that Malaysian Boeing crash over Donbas in July 2014 may have happened as a result of operation of Ukrainian special services, however it remains unclear whether the plane was the initial target, or a tragic mistake has occurred. This information was conveyed to journalists by a reliable source in one of the Russian competent agencies". <br />
"We can also assume that the operation involved the Ukrainian Air Force and ground air defense, combined". "SBU, which is investigating the accident with the Ukrainian side has already destroyed all the data on the movements of air defense systems in the area of disaster and all the data on the departure of the aircraft". Earlier, the Ukrainian authorities stated that on the day of the crash Ukrainian military aircraft did not leave the airfields in the area of military operation in the south-east of the country. "They did fly - said the source - or yes, they did" [http://itar-tass.com/politika/1667289 TASS] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 20:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==More Remains found ==<br />
<br />
Photo journalist Graham Phillips has found a human bone on the burn site. Doesn't obviously show up on [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0o4SAaCEpk&list=UUbwfUqs5Y6_jblWJwMIfRzA&index=7 this video]. While you're there, from playlist at right you can see he has about 12 videos about the crash scene. They're all just a minute or two long. Meanwhile Zakharchenko is offering for investigators to come back and [http://en.ria.ru/world/20141013/194011115/Donetsk-Ready-to-Grant-Ukrainian-Investigators-Access-to-MH17.html clean up]. Actually he should send a group of people to comb the burned area, not as if he's short on people who cab recognise body parts. Chance to shows up the Dutch who spent a few hours there picking up a token few pieces of luggage and not looking for bones,when they KNOW 12 or 15 people are still missing. HEAPS of belongings they left behind, too.[[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 07:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Story from October 31 from the Dutch, confirming [http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/mh17-dutch-pm-mark-rutte-confirms-more-human-remains-have-been-found/story-fnizu68q-1227109165667 more remains] had been found (in a site visit that had not been publicised). Stories from the current visit also mentioned bodies found but they are wrong -- there are no "bodies" left from MH17. Anything found now that still looks anything like a body is going to be from [http://www.news24.com/World/News/More-remains-of-MH17-passengers-found-20141107 later fighting].[[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 02:51, 8 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Novorossia reported on the visits, [http://rusvesna.su/third_world/1413295402 14.10 (russvesna)], about site exploration (lots of personal belongings found); [http://rusvesna.su/third_world/1415293335 06.11 (russvesna)], agreement is reached on transporting wreckage, 4 open and 1 closed wagon. They did not report pro-Kiev Ukrainian site interested or participating (while news24 report above talks about "A team of Dutch, Ukrainian and Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe workers"). --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 05:25, 8 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Witness Accounts ==<br />
:''Moved to [[/Witnesses]]<br />
<br />
== ANNA News - Crash Scene Imagery ==<br />
=== Jet Wreckage ===<br />
How did we miss this? From mid September, 50 minute video of the crash site, the burn areas substantially [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rt-QIsgjQkg cleaned up]. A lot of close-ups, walking around every angl of pieces (eg broken wing). Boring until about 38 min mark, when gets onto cockpit area. This is first area with voice, too, with someone explaining their theory of what happened (Russian) and showing shrapnel damage from angles we've not seen on any stills. "Ukraine" mentioned a few times, so I'm assuming it's a theory that blames Kiev. Can anyone translate please? [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 15:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
: A shorter video, just the part with the explanation, better audio. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rt-QIsgjQkg#t=2785 [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 15:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: Shorter video: they guy says that the holes are small, and so he thinks it is air-to-air missile. (Well, we now know presumed size of buk shrapnel as it is on a recent photo with a ruler; 15 millimeters or smth; and what he shows appears to be like finger-tip wide; so it is not too much off as far as I can tell, and does not seem to prove or disprove buk). He also says that it is known effect that when pressurized plane is punctured, it falls apart. (Well, that certainly did not happen with Korean Boeing over USSR, so it seems a bit exaggerated) . That's all he has to say, so what we gained is more video evidence --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 16:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::More new footage, taken about Oct 5 or 6 (just before OSCE visit) with someone who was there within first hour, interspersed with some footage be took at the time, never before seen [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5j5Bpa010Q English subs]. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 20:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::: Graham Phillips from the scene on October 16 [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAhqWi5cavY in] two [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAf8PFx3tmY parts]. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 16:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Great find, good quality footage. helps set the spread of things ... hope the section re-org works for everyone (did destroy the original title, but I don't think much was linking here...) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::I posted it before I finished watching it. It has a lot of interviews, rebel leaders, experts. They're saying Kiev stalled and lied to scare off investigators. The rebels took over the bodies by force to make sure they go for proper investigation ie Kiev can't mess things up. The Malaysians came to get the black boxes against Kiev's wishes and got shot at on the way. <br />
:::They say on TV that morning was Andriy Lysenko boasting about planning 8 bombing runs that day; after the crash he said they didn't have a plane up that day. Then they bombed the site to say it's too dangerous for investigators (they show some rocket craters). What were they hiding? [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 20:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
A curious detail is that we are told at 9:34 that UAF was at Nikishino. That would be roughly on the line to Chernukino, so behind-and-left from the crash. That theme featured in ACLOS discussions already; there is nothing new to add. We also hear about two planes, and get some hand waving explanations. That was covered as well; perhaps now there is somewhat better idea where the witness is located. It is curious that a German guy says that Pechora missile system was located in Ukraine; as I remember, what was released was more vague; I am not clear why he says 'Ukraine' now. Indeed, we get a sense that Novorossia side is not trying to hide something; and we do get a sense that pro-Kiev side has something to hide. What is that exactly, would be a speculation. If they are serious about peace, perhaps some PR professionals can advise them as appropriate, that is, likely, to release whatever is there to hide. This appears to be rather popular method employed before elections. (Than after the elections, they can say, we told that already, and got elected anyway; but if something new comes up, somebody may say why it was hidden, and argue that it changes the balance). --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 23:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: The Nikishino reference is meant to show distance, ie that they were not close enough for any fighting to be happening at the crash site, therefore "too dangerous to let in investigators" was just an excuse. Definitely Novorossiya is not trying to hide anything -- they have nothing to hide, and did the right thing all the way through. The video is meant to show how much Kiev was obstructing all the way...this was obvious as soon as shelling started in the area the minute the bodies were gone. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 17:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
For example, one odd thing is that Ukrainian high officials are reported to make recent comments discussing 'that Buk' which shot the plane; and leaked document suggests the same, that they think it is "Buk', moreover very specific info on warhead, missile, and launcher. But how do they even know it was Buk? (if they just have some murky photo of the shrapnel piece? ) If they have shrapnel piece itself, not just the photo, why it was not sent to Netherlands? --Nobody in Netherlands seem to be certain what are those penetrating 'high velocity objects'. And how Ukrainians determined not only the missile type, but also '''launcher type''' just from this warhead shrapnel piece? Finally, after all that, why is that they are saying the launcher used is the one apparently only they have and Russians no longer use?([https://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%91%D1%83%D0%BA_(%D0%B7%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81)&previous=yes#.D0.A1.D0.BE.D1.81.D1.82.D0.B0.D0.B2_.D0.BA.D0.BE.D0.BC.D0.BF.D0.BB.D0.B5.D0.BA.D1.81.D0.B0_9.D0.9A37_.C2.AB.D0.91.D1.83.D0.BA-.D0.9C1.C2.BB Buk M1] they claim is the first and oldest launcher system from around 1979, no computer, etc. Russian Buk would be a more modern version, perhaps some 10 years older, and may use some computer already). So, the impression is, that UAF is, kind of, saying itself, that it is us to blame, and than also keeps this secret for 2 months. But somehow we are supposed to keep believing it was '''not''' them. Well, I dunno, this appears to get harder by the day. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 00:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
::I don't think it's UAF saying about this rocket, the whole movie is from the Russian side. They believe it was a Kiev job; movie stresses how they blocked investigation. There was an interview by Joern Akkermans with the local fire brigade chief which also showed this, how they sabotaged the investigators getting the first responders' detailed notes. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 17:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::Comments in above paragraph is not about the movie, it is about leaked documented dated 2 months ago, we have it elsewhere discussing leaks --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 17:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::On "how did they know from the debris fragment, they'd say they know because they had a bunch of photos of the launcher driving that way, plus the supposed audio of people talking about it as "Buk" (covered in their spots here) Of course, they sure got all that submitted and analyzed a bit too quick, so it seems more of that strange omniscience that suggests they aren't just reading along with the story but actually writing it. In reality I guess they know because it was theirs and used by them, but officially they have at least the video and audio evidence besides the later debris. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 22:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::You lost me there. What fragment do they have? they had no access to the site and who,in that mess, would anyway recognise a fragment the size of a coin? if they have a blurry photo, well, blurry means you can't see what's on it, and still doesn't prove where it came from, so....what are they on about? are they just saying "debris fragment" to mean those few skin sections with the lots of holes in them? from that they claim to know the model number of the BUK?<br />
:::I'm back to thinking about the movie, the women saying the 2 planes. people said that on day one, too. All people used to the idea of planes being SHOT WITH ROCKETS, by then there'd been about 15 or 20 of those, so why would they suddenly invent or imagine this was NOT? [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 22:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::Corrected; they have the audio-visual plus, '''they say,''' this scrap photo. Point was the Buk claim isn't based on the alleged scrap but the other stuff, fake or not, which they had from the start. Numerous potential reasons it isn't what they claim, but again I've always suspected they would know and properly ID the murder weapon, so I'm not very doubtful that they will have consistent evidence sooner or later (and it's been a while now) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Plane spotting story: could not detect any signs it was invented, sounded like simple folks telling what they saw, no signs it was forced on them to say, or tension/second thoughts in saying this, could be detected --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 00:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[http://www.cyber-berkut.org/en/ Leaked document ] is based on the photo, and apparently UAF do not have fragments<br />
:: "остаточний висновок щодо належності .... можливо зробити при наявностi оригінали" means "final conclusion on the association can be done in the presence of the original." <br />
Nalivaichenko (SBU) [http://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=2040949&cid=5 is said] to make this comment recently on 5 channel, Ukraine (Poroshenko channel): "Ukrainian investigators need to execute the plan, developed in collaboration with the Dutch side and the other members of the international investigation, arrive at the scene and find what we need, - fragments of a particular rocket specific "Buk" - said Nalyvaychenko." (The latter comments may possibly belong to the humor section). C-B appears to suggest that photo may be from the Netherlands. <br />
: (Nalyvaychenko has [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentyn_Nalyvaichenko a major in linguistics,] so his "plan" sounds odd).<br />
::[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIpD2eebJ_c Nalivaichenko report] appears essentially accurate, he did talk (in Ukrainian) about the investigation, starting at 7:30 timestamp; he did say "Buk M modernized" at 8:30, and "Buk" is even captured by automatic transcript (more->transcript ; but transcript is not working well overall. )<br />
. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Guys: he said "Ukrainian investigators need to execute the plan, developed in collaboration with the Dutch side and the other members of the international investigation, arrive at the scene and find what we need, - fragments of a particular rocket specific "Buk""<br />
The collaboration part might be along the lines of, "Ukrainians should go there as it seems too dangerous for anyone else" (which Ukies have made sure of all along). Now I'll strip down the rest to the vital parts:<br />
execute the plan...arrive and find...what we NEED<br />
Not search for. '''FIND.'''<br />
How hard is it to find something you just dropped? of course if they now said they found it, the whole world would just belly-laugh. Luckily it's in NR hands so they can't get near the site.<br />
I do believe Russia may be keeping an ace up their sleeve so to speak.[[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 03:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:"Investigation" would be the right word for what one should implement, while "plan" suggests something else, something one hatches in secret... With all this time to have been found and hidden by the separatists, he seems confident the smoking gun is still right there to be found. Maybe Putin's business card as well. Only Kiev's specially rigorous investigators can find it, and only after they've taken full control of the area. Indeed, "search for" would be a better term, if he meant "investigation," which seems hopeless But he said "plan" and apparently one that involves a pre-planned finding of the right clue, and is far from hopeless. Maybe they're just asking for help in conquering this area. No one will expect, need, or want them to follow through on such a plot, just to control more territory and have a fruitless look for good measure. Seems to me the US and allies probably already have enough evidence to blame Russia and carry out whatever punishment they can. It's always more about will than evidence anyway. <br />
:So... is the linguist just this sloppy? Or is he up to something dropping hints like this? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Reminds me of what Putin once said about the Iraqi WMDs: "If I were the Americans, I would have found some". Maybe his CIA overlords told Naliwhatshisname about that... ;oP --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
::: Haha, I didn't know that about Putin. Good on him for saying so out loud, too (tho that's a hint of menace as well). Ukraine police and secret services don't strike me as needing advice about faking evidence. oh, though on second thoughts, they're more used to just saying it and being believed, like the Big Invasion and 2 nukes on airport guys. USA has not said a word about Russia on this matter for ages, ie about the time the black boxes got read.[[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 12:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::: Tried to locate the origin of that quote but failed. Nothing in English and all the references in German indicate that they had it from the same source I have: German "comedians". It is in character though, if you add some "they can't even control their own plots" Russian humour. And I think he really said it, but at the current state of evidence don't reference it to me, please. ;o) --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 19:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Bloodless Bodies, Photo Proof? === <br />
Two days ago ANNA News [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAlC7HhfkrU uploaded a video] of some kind of presentation of photos from the aftermath and clean-up operation. Camera shows a Laptop with an apparently rather large collection of photos, a woman is operating and explaining what is shown (in Russian). As to the nature of it, this is really gruesome stuff showing the victims as they ended up on the ground, and I only made it a good minute in. The video description seems to allege [[Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17/Debunked_topics#Bloodless bodies – fake Facebook profiles?|what Strelkov reported his men reporting]] to the outrage of everyone: Smell of chemicals, many naked, no or very few blood, in decay. <br />
<br />
Doesn't fit there ("debunked topics"), because the photos are certainly not debunked and evidence independent of any conclusions. So it's here. Should be watched by someone who can judge what they see and have a good stomach. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:It might've been flippant to put the theory right into debunked, but it made a fair point that it sounds really dumb on the surface ... but this is presented as evidence, okay. I had a look, indeed some horrible images - people broken and smeared in several different ways (look out esp. from 4:49-5:08). I'm guessing these are mostly next morning photos near the site? Ones further out, found later, will be rotting. I'm not expert enough to settle this, but fresh bodies normally should not have these signs we see: darkening skin, black lips, etc. - lack of visible surface blood - (heard about) bad decay smell. <br />
:But then again, bodies don't normally - suffer massive decompression / oxygen cut-off / etc. - move at high speed as they're torn up (smeared people = wiped clean?) - have all their tussues and guts torn up so badly - and do all this in mass numbers at the peak of summer. No maggots yet - they must have been pre-killed somewhere there were no flies, (or gassed with a pesticide-like poison!) or very quickly before loading ... no, my semi-educated guess is still some combination of these factors will explain what we see, even in these select photos. But at least, this lets us see more of it ourselves for comparison. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Yeah, it sounds bizarre but Strelkov mentioned it himself saying he just relayed what he was told from the ground. Anyway, to speculate about it we first need more details about the claims. Went back to ANNA to see if anybody subtitled it ... but they don't seem to do that the same way as in Syria. But I noticed just recently they have a German team which produces little news shows. Didn't look into it yet. But hey, [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8YycmILC2M there it is], a German version with hardwired subtitles. Which means there is no transcript to copy & paste like with the CC function. Which means I will have to watch at least a bit of it. *sigh* Maybe later, maybe tomorrow. <br />
::From the German description I can already say that the woman alleges to be an eyewitness who arrived "immediately" at the scene. Description is written in sceptical language. Her claims: Very few Europeans (as opposed to Asians, I guess), disgusting smell, rotten bodies. They checked Laptops and USB-Sticks and found "no photos" younger than October 2013. Let me guess (I don't know out of hand), that's when the other MH disappeared? --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 00:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::I'm so not trusting this narrative - these are also people who were (kept alive?) from ... no MH370 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370 wp] was in March this year (that recent?) - All I can find October 2013 related is an alleged Israeli acquisition of the jet's twin (sale in Florida, October 21, 2013 [http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2014/03/malaysian-jet-in-israel-identical-to-hijacked-plane-2927532.html per Chris Bollyn (quack)] He speculates it would be rolled out for another false flag attack, unless maybe people were alerted. So ... maybe passengers bought at the same time at that plane, kept alive but not allowed to take pictures, for nine months, but killed long enough before the July crash date they were just then rotting ... lot of fake families implied for the missing new (alleged) victims ... lot of proof in the rotting bodies and nine-months lack of new photos ... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 08:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: FTR [http://info.kopp-verlag.de/hintergruende/enthuellungen/gerhard-wisnewski/ausfuehrlicher-augenzeugenbericht-passagiere-von-flug-mh-17-definitiv-dosenfleisch-.html here] is a detailed German language article about the claims in the video, which makes them more accessible per autotranslation than the embedded subtitles. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
If you think the subtitles are worth it, you can cover the whole screen besides that and still even get time-stamps. Like, at 0:40 is she saying here are more blood free body parts, and the wet pavement under them is from the day's rain? (tried typing into Google translate - my High School German mostly catches "the ... of ... and" - but still "a "wet" aureole were umwolkt" didn't help enough) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 08:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
::What nonsense. Anyone who would go to this much trouble would surely EASILY put some more recent photos on the USB sticks.<br />
::As well as fake families,they'd have to create fake social media going back years, plus fake old school/work friends and neighbours. In 10 countries. Oh and a fake AIDS conference. <br />
::None of these idiots has yet come up with WHY? what benefit does anyone get from faking all this? If it was meant for putting the blame on one country or another, they could have got THAT bit right and shoot it in a way that 100% identifies that country.<br />
<br />
::Most if not all the passengers would have been killed by the shock wave of the missile detonation, causing internal injuries including mashing of the lungs and intestines. Black lips etc would be from lack of oxygen. Then while the plane was thrashing around/diving/spinning they'd get thrown around, among seats and luggage also flying around. This would cause numerous injuries. These would hardly bleed at all, because the hearts were no longer pumping. Blood in their veins/arteries would be barely liquid by the time they hit the ground a few minutes later. <br />
::This is consistent with what Strelkov's people were reporting - bloated blackening bodies with "no blood" where they expected to see blood. Any mangled bodies these guys would have recently seen were fresh killed in front of their eyes, a different result altogether.[[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 10:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: FWIW Double plus that! Simple explanations win over conspiracy theories every time --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 11:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::: Not worth much without examination of the evidence. As Sir Arthur Conan Doyle once said: "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." Just saying. ;o) --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::: I suppose this one's been well-enough piled on. All points including the last seem totally valid. I'm still not inclined to pursue it, but it might be worth double-checking. If things besides decay can be ruled out or whatever, ... eh, I'll just have to see.--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 00:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==What Can Forensics Prove?==<br />
:''Investigation moved to [[/Forensics]]<br />
We're now getting organized, with [[List of MH17 airframe parts]] - a picture of how the plane was impacted will emerge. The BUK alleged ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buk_missile_system Wikipedia]) has radar guided missiles that can track, turn, change altitude, etc. So I conclude the damage won't tell us if the missile was air-to-air or from the surface, or what direction it was fired from. It's still worth knowing, of course, but ... could use some discussion maybe on what we can/can't/should be aiming for here. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:The damage will tell us it was an air-to-air missile with rod warhead fired from the front, that exploded when its proximity fuse passed the cockpit window. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 23:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
DPR and Netherlands reached [http://rusvesna.su/third_world/1415293335 an agreement] that plain wreckage will be transported to Netherlands by train, using 4 open and one closed wagons. Loading will be done by Netherlands. OSCE will accompany. <br />
'Laying out' wreckage and forensics may help to determine the cause of the crash. This is currently open, with surface-to-air missile 'the most likely' scenario, and military planes involvement not excluded. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 04:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Fighter Jet? ==<br />
:''Moved to [[/Fighter jets]]<br />
<br />
== General Discussion ==<br />
=== Slightly informed comment on air defences ===<br />
<br />
See [http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com.au/2014/07/memories-recollection-guesses-and.html vineyardsaker]. Certainly biased, but internally reasonably consistent --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 02:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I'll just add various rumours / propaganda I've heard so far.<br />
<br />
- US Satellites tracked the missile<br />
<br />
- Russia did it (at least morally)<br />
<br />
- Ukraine did it (for continuing the battle)<br />
<br />
- The plane was deliberately diverted to the location it was shot down<br />
<br />
- There was a storm over Crimea causing the diversion<br />
<br />
- add your rumour here<br />
<br />
What I haven't heard yet is the terrorist bomb theory. If the plan had crashed in say Poland that would have been the only game in town.<br />
--[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 02:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Anton Gerashchenko: case solved in under 3 hours ===<br />
Anton Gerashchenko, adviser to Ukraine's Interior Ministry, must have some serious detective skills. Within 6 hours of the plane's disappearance from radar screens, he already had almost exactly the full official story Kiev is still rolling with 6 months later. This is illustrated by at least these three Facebook posts from July 17 (any other timed sources we find I'd like to add): --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC) <br />
<br />
The earliest I found was [https://www.facebook.com/anton.gerashchenko.7/posts/694787050608145 July 17, 6:20 PM local time] from crash at about 15:19 local = 3 hours after. Auto-translated with repair attempts, he says:<br />
:''Just over the Torez Putin kindly passed to terrorists anti-aircraft missile complex "Buk" that shot down civilian aircraft Kuala Lumpur-Amsterdam.'' <br />
:''This morning local patriots detected this being moved from Thorez to Snezhnoye'' <br />
:''He was flying at an altitude of 10 thousand meters Claimed 280 passengers and 15 crew members.'' <br />
:''There is not limit to the cynicism of Putin and his terrorists!'' <br />
:''Europe, the United States, Canada, the civilized world-open your eyes! Help us all than we can!'' <br />
:''It is a war of good versus evil!''<br />
:''Here's a video of the crash site! Some scoundrels shouted that "beauty! Beautifully lit!"!'' <br />
:''The Inhumans!'' ( Нелюди! )<br />
In less than three hours he was only able to show [http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JhUkqs9CQ0w#t=57 this video of the smoke plume after crash,] but with unexplained prior knowledge, apparently, of a Buk launcher from Russia, moved through Torez to Sneznhnoye. None of that is remotely evident from this video. But somehow he had and was sure of this information and had it all put together into this certain diagnosis of who's "evil" here, in under three hours. Hm. It's noted there was an edit at 6:28, to insert "He was flying at a height of 10 thousand meters." This might be due to the fact that at this point, he wasn't supposed to know for sure it was that Russian Buk that fired, as opposed to a MANPADS or the like, and suggests he or whoever he talked to had deduced that from the altitude (too high for other known weapons). --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
At least two more early posts come from [http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/805272-anton-gerashchenko-buk-missile-photo-ukranian-official-accuses-putin-of-sponsoring-terrorists/<br />
Epoch Times] <br />
<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=694844643935719&set=p.694844643935719&type=1 20:45] = app. 7.5 hours after the crash; by now he has the Torez launch plume photo as well, finally a visual clue giving him a good reason to specify the town the firing was near (if there was time to analyze it). In part: "Putin! You and your cronies did not escape from the International Tribunal. This is a photo ... a few minutes after the launch ... Thousands of people have seen the launch and flight of the rocket, which you kindly handed your sponsored terrorists!"<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=694849760601874&set=p.694849760601874&type=1 20:59,] just 14 minutes later, posting with (?) Gennady Bakalar (Геннадий Бакаляр), he added this post with the launcher driving through Torez, finally confirming the (reports?) he heard earlier that it passed through there. Did "thousands" of people see that too? He says in part "Oh and to permanently close questions about when and who committed this outrageous act of international terrorism is further evidence of the International Tribunal: installing Buk passes through the city of Torez this morning!" But we already heard all about that hours earlier. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The Lugansk launcher video of the next morning was also allegedly handed right over to the SBU for their own publication, by the (tipped-off?) police agent who filmed it passing by just before dawn. But everything else, ostensibly, they had to find themselves from public sources, posted by people with no such SBU/MoI links. But man is that swift work. Almost entirely found - and effectively analyzed for clues, understood and double-checked good enough for them - that they were spouting off complete answers within three hours. Clearly suspect. Suggested: he had it solved instantly, sent in pre-packaged like planned. Even this three hour delay is his way of appearing realistic; considering how blatantly evil Putin is and how friggin' brilliant these Ukie Fascists are, why would it take any longer? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: the most fascinating part of this is, at the 3 hour mark it was still burning...and ALL the bits with the bullet holes in them were at another village, and nobody KNEW it had not just crashed all by itself, like planes do sometimes. The video he posted is the Antonov the day before which had also appeared on Strelkov's VK that was taken as boasting of MH17. Strelkov's was posted at 17.50 local time so about 40 mins after the MH17 crash and HALF HOUR before the expert solved the case, using an image stolen from Strelkovs VK. That was not discovered by SBU until next day, after it had been "hurriedly withdrawn". [http://cdn0.dailydot.com/uploaded/images/original/2014/7/18/Screen_Shot_2014-07-18_at_12.03.03_PM.png screenshot] [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 12:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Just occurred to me. If he decided it was shot down entirely because of Strelkov's badly timed post, and it turned out later it crashed from eg pilot error or onboard hijacking, WOW how silly he would have looked then. But nah, they knew, couldn't believe their good luck when Strelkov put that up. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 12:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::It is well known that Strelkov VK is not managed by Strelkov (he said it explicitly a number of times).That post is not his. He occasionally posts things himself (elsewhere) but this thing was not posted by him, it may be somebody posting far from the battlefield and not having direct knowledge, or confused opolchenie (says it comes from opolchenie in the post). (Strelkov is also accused of other publicity crimes he did not commit, for example having intention to run for President of Russia and other misdemeanors not actually committed. Articles about him are typically such mis-attributions.). --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===What's a Bellingcat?===<br />
[https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2015/05/25/whats-a-bellingcat-anyway/ What’s a Bellingcat Anyway?] --Studied at DeepResource, and reported on 25.5.2015. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 17:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
:Looks like a great piece, and I know it wasn't a question, but to the extent it might be: it refers to "belling the cat," or smthg like "who dare bell the cat," from an old fable about mice who decide to make their world safe by taking on some tyrant (cat) and stringing a bell around his neck so they'll always know before he attacks. But everyone's too afraid to go put the bell on him. Implied: Higgins is not afraid to blame Putin for stuff (or here, to analyze the recordings of a bell already placed? Or...?). In practice, it's more a one-trick bellingpony. Site creation: about a week before MH-17 shootdown, FWIW. Far and away their #1 obsession since then: the geo-location epic of that stupid (irrelevant?) BUK launcher multi-stop field trip. It's only natural - in fact it could hardly be tailor made any better for him and his well-connected team to unravel 'in the open' like that, all on video. Cases not so well-suited to yield his desired results, of course, [http://taldoutruth.blogspot.com/2014/12/brown-moses-on-hook.html he will never have time for,] even when the work's done and all he has to do is review it. No time - there's probably yet another seam of the MH-17 case to discover that these sooper-seekret Russian terrorists just left laying around. And always, there is praises and biscuits to collect. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 08:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
::Number of times bellingcat recently tweeted or retweeted on [https://twitter.com/GeoffPyatt Geofrey Pyatt]: 17/page; while us = 0. 'Russia's finest propagandists are no match for bellingcat, who have picked apart yet more shaky claims about MH17' (now something wrong with Russian MoD satellite photos)--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 12:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
::: Their latest stunt with the "faked" Russian satellite images isn't going well. Not "only" has our friend Charles Wood given it [http://7mei.nl/2015/06/01/about-bellingcats-claim-russian-sat-pics-fake/ a quick treatment], but the man behind the online tool they used [https://twitter.com/hackerfactor/status/605362347616526337 agrees] with a [http://life.lanzone.eu/?p=30 devastating analysis] telling them essentially to read the f... manual. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 18:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::: Had a look at both, well-lodged points. Neither even says the photos must be real, just that bellinputin are clearly not the vaunted "experts" they're getting praised as and the meaningfulness of their findings is open to question. Didn't actually look at the original work. Aside from Charles at least, we're not really qualified experts in much either, might make mistakes too, etc. But when this supposed competence plus clear Putin-blame come together suddenly the media lackeys are amplifying their expertise (or rather shifting it from experts at blaming Putin to experts at how to do it with scientific rigor, which it seems they're not). --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::: [http://life.lanzone.eu/?p=53 Here]'s the promised part 2 of "Myghty"'s analysis. More of the same amateurish errors for pic 5. The real scandal here is that they are still peddled by the "MSM", not that they aren't real experts. But, miracles happen, DER SPIEGEL [http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/mh17-satellitenbilder-bellingcat-betreibt-kaffeesatzleserei-a-1036874.html has an interview] ([http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/expert-criticizes-allegations-of-russian-mh17-manipulation-a-1037125.html English translation] --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)) this morning with a German digital photo forensics expert who says the same as Charles and the others, and they even put disclaimers linking to it on their earlier "praise Brown Noses" articles. Good sign. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::::: Was about to note the Spiegel piece but it's done. Good. So the problem is those who pushed headlines like [http://mashable.com/2015/05/31/russia-fake-mh17-report/ Satellite images show clearly that Russia faked its MH17 report] (Mashable)-[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2836245/Report-slams-new-surveillance-photos-released-Russian-state-broadcaster-MH17-shot-shoddy-fake.html Were MH17 'satellite images' photoshopped? Report slams new surveillance pictures released by Russian state broadcaster as a 'shoddy fake'] (Daily Mail) - [http://www.joinfo.com/world/1002451_British-experts-accuse-Russian-Defense-Ministry.html British experts accuse Russian Defense Ministry of forging photos of MH-17 crash] --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 22:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::::: In case you wondered, [http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/bellingcat-autor-war-hauptamtlicher-stasi-mitarbeiter-a-1037297.html "Timmi Allen" is a former Stasi operative], according to the latest SPIEGEL exposure. I've stacked huge amount of popcorn to make sure to survive the weekend. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 15:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::::: Oh, and [http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10692555#post10692555 I already came up with a conspiracy theory about that]. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 15:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== A Rebel-Held Area ==<br />
The presumption behind blaming separatists at all is that the blamed surface-to-air missile was fired from an area under control of separatist forces. But most people seem to just presume the entire eastern area (past what line, who knows?) is all rebel turf, with no Ukrainian military inroads anywhere. That's part of why it's taken as so obvious, even though no one's sure just where the firing was from. The Russian military presentation took BUK itself as meaning Ukrainian military. They claim satellite images of them in Kien-run army bases as close as 5 km from Donetsk, moved on the 17th to a site closer to the shoot-down area, then moved away again.<ref name="RT10">[http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ 10 more questions Russian military pose to Ukraine, US over MH17 crash] RT. July 21, 2014</ref> It seems the "just where" question is far more important than most presume (that is, if there was a ground launch that even mattered, as I suspect) Does anyone have a good analysis of the general control-accessibility situation on that day? Some nerd might have made a map that's reliable? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
:For the NATO narrative on the Novorossiyan Buk you can look at the Ukraine@war. He will you the exact location in Snizhne (the town that was bombed two days before, with 13 civilians killed inside their apartment block). I am no longer interested. All that interest me is the technical aspects of the of the crash investigation. What hit the MH17 where and when.<br />
:P.S. – There is supposedly a video somewhere of a Buk fired. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 12:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
:WSJ has a crappy map: [http://graphics.wsj.com/mh17-crash-map/?standalone=1 How MH17 Came Apart Over Ukraine] – Fails to show any of what the title claims. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 12:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== The Defector Theory ==<br />
* [http://eyesopenreport.com/u-s-prepares-to-blame-mh17-shoot-down-on-ukrainian-army-defector/#more-13012 U.S. Prepares to Blame MH17 Shoot Down on Ukrainian Army “Defector”] Paul Joseph Watson , July 23<br />
:''In an attempt to explain away the existence of evidence which shows Ukrainian troops firing the missile that brought down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, Washington may be preparing to fix the intelligence by pinning the blame on a “defector” in order to absolve Kiev.''<br />
:''As we reported on Monday, award winning former AP and Newsweek reporter Robert Parry was told by an intelligence source that the U.S. is in possession of images which show men dressed in Ukrainian Army uniforms operating the Buk missile system which shot down MH17. If proven accurate, such information would completely eviscerate Washington and Kiev’s already shaky narrative that Russian-backed separatist rebels were responsible for the attack.''<br />
:''The U.S. State Department now appears to be shifting the emphasis of its narrative to discount the possibility that Kiev itself was responsible for shooting down MH17. As the L.A. Times reported yesterday, “U.S. officials said it was possible the SA-11 [anti-aircraft missile] was launched by a defector from the Ukrainian military who was trained to use similar missile systems.” Blaming the incident on a “defector” would allow the U.S. to explain why the culprit was wearing a Ukrainian Army uniform when he shot down the airliner.''<br />
Sounds intriguing, and Robert Parry is usually pretty reliable.Seems worth a section here to see how it pans out. Skipping the prior Infowars article, [http://consortiumnews.com/2014/07/20/what-did-us-spy-satellites-see-in-ukraine/ This from July 20] seems to be the original explanation by Parry at Consortium News. I'm not encouraged by the details - the images aren't video or photo, but satellite. Parry mentions the limits of what satellites can see, but rightly points out they could see any Buk system component. Russia's satellites saw the ones run by Kiev's pro-America junta, first at their normal base, then somewhere else '''on July 17.''' What you can't as likely see is smaller details like the exact pattern on a person's shirt, or what the label on a bottle says, if even its shape. But he says:<br />
:''What I’ve been told by one source, who has provided accurate information on similar matters in the past, is that U.S. intelligence agencies do have detailed satellite images of the likely missile battery that launched the fateful missile, but the battery appears to have been under the control of Ukrainian government troops dressed in what look like Ukrainian uniforms.''<br />
:''The source said CIA analysts were still not ruling out the possibility that the troops were actually eastern Ukrainian rebels in similar uniforms but the initial assessment was that the troops were Ukrainian soldiers. There also was the suggestion that the soldiers involved were undisciplined and possibly drunk, since the imagery showed what looked like beer bottles scattered around the site, the source said.''<br />
Ooh, bad move when, as John Kerry, knows, it's the separatists that are the drunken ones in the area. As for where the image was taken, the evidence suggests it was a separatist-policed one. It probably was non-defected Kiev soldiers running it, but false claims to that effect make that possible truth harder to see, in the end. I think Parry's source stopped being credible prior to this latest. Anyone else more inclined to accept this evidence? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Everyone is trash talking everyone else. I'm not believing any of it. It was partly cloudy that day and you'd have to be very lucky to have a satellite pass overhead just when a BUK gets launched. It is much more likely that whatever the US has it got from a spy plane, such as the RC-135 they have operating in the area.(On July 18 some Russian MIGs approached it and it had to fly off over Sweden without permission). https://medium.com/war-is-boring/u-s-spy-plane-reportedly-violated-swedish-air-space-to-escape-russian-fighters-424d05e11bd5 Sorry can't find it now, but another story said land radar had locked onto them, which is why they left in such a hurry. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 03:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: [http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ Russian press conference:] "As far as we know, there was indeed a US satellite flying over southeastern Ukraine on July 17 from 17:06 to 17:21 Moscow time." That will be 16.06 to 16.21 local. _If true_, this is likely to show at least part of the trajectory. No need for satellite's beer bottle photos. -- [[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 03:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: As I recall, somewhere on the news there was a claim that there is no US radar data (too far) --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 03:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: US: “We saw the take-off. We saw the trajectory, we saw the hit. We saw this aeroplane disappear from the radar screens. So there is really no mystery about where it came from and where these weapons have come from." [http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/foreign-affairs/we-saw-the-hit-we-saw-plane-disappear-says-john-kerry-on-mh17/story-fn59nm2j-1227022300618?nk=9b529f73960c26d0085eae5193a5b6b7] (Hope not on a fake photo)? --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 05:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::The photo that popped up for me showed lots of flowers and photos of Diana, Princess of Wales, i.e from 1997. So in true ''The Australian'' tradition a fake. FYI ''The Australian'' is one of the least accurate papers in Australia and runs a very heavy anti-Russian and pro-Israel line. --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 05:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== False-Flag Theories ==<br />
=== Andriy Parubiy again? ===<br />
<br />
Pepe Escobar names Andriy Parubiy as a possible suspect.<br />
* [http://rt.com/op-edge/174088-was-it-putin-missile/ It was Putin’s missile!] – ''RT'', July 19, 2014<br />
:''Carlos’s assessment: the missile was fired by the Ukraine military under orders of the Ministry of Interior - NOT the Ministry of Defense. Security matters at the Ministry of the Interior happen to be under Andrey Paruby, who was closely working alongside US neo-cons and Banderastan neo-Nazis on Maidan.<br />
-- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 02:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
::From what I've read on the guy, he's likely enough to be behind this that, really, all Ukraine's airspace should be closed until he's no longer on the loose. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Robert Parry introduces Parubiiy in [http://consortiumnews.com/2014/07/20/what-did-us-spy-satellites-see-in-ukraine/ his July 20 article,] and mentions:<br />
:''It was this same Parubiy whom the Post writers turned to seeking more information condemning the eastern Ukrainian rebels and the Russians regarding the Malaysia Airlines catastrophe. Parubiy accused the rebels in the vicinity of the crash site of destroying evidence and conducting a cover-up, another theme that resonated through the MSM.''<br />
:''Without bothering to inform readers of Parubiy’s unsavory neo-Nazi background, the Post quoted him as a reliable witness declaring: “It will be hard to conduct a full investigation with some of the objects being taken away, but we will do our best.”'' --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
FTR, Andriy Parubiy [http://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/30934.html resigned yesterday]. Same day the following came out. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Valentyn Nalyvaichenko ===<br />
<br />
On August 7, SBU head Valentyn Nalyvaichenko introduced a new narrative ([http://www.sbu.gov.ua/sbu/control/en/publish/article?art_id=129860&cat_id=35317 release on SBU website] / [https://archive.today/KItnx archived snapshot]) apparently contradicting their released audio tapes that early on helped form the narrative of an accidental shoot-down of MH17 by "rebels" who thought it was a military plane. Now the story goes that the Russians planned to shoot down an Aeroflot plane in a false flag operation blaming it on Ukraine, to have a pretext for invasion. But the "Russian mercenaries" moved their Buk to a different location than planned and mistook MH17 for the Aeroflot machine with their own people they wanted to kill. What exactly they prepared to blame it on Ukraine (maybe Ukrainian uniforms or something?), or why a plane full of AIDS researchers and Dutch children couldn't be used as a pretext (Russian people don't care about Dutch children?), is not explained. Nalyvaichenko [[Talk:Ukraine_2014#Mercenaries_commanded_by_Andriy_Parubiy|has been implicated by his predecessor]] in the sniper killings on Maidan, together with Andriy Parubiy.--[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*Human Rights Investigations, Aug. 7 - [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/08/07/in-ukraine-the-lunatics-have-taken-over-the-asylum/ In Ukraine, the lunatics have taken over the asylum] This relates a SBU statement of earlier in the day outlining their latest theory. As said before, Russians did it, with a system they brought in and took right back with them. Most people have presumed there's no motive for Russia to shoot down an airliner into the separatist's area on their behalf, and it must have been an accident. The SBU's thinkers decided it was intentional, but with an accidental part too. '''They meant to shoot down a Russian airliner''', but set themselves up in the wrong town, so they hit MH17 instead. The original plan was to use dead Russians blamed on Kiev as a reason to invade Ukraine, but when it was other people dead, he said never mind. Awesome theory, no? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: Beat you to it, put it here where it belongs... bizarre. Interesting that Parubiy resigned (see above the subheadline) the same day this came out, isn't it?--[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::Awesome, tag-teamed it with similar technique. Parubiy, huh! That gave zero reason, didn't it? It's not 'to spend more time with my family.' No, he notes on the way out, he still belongs at the "forefrongfront." --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]])<br />
:::: FTR [http://rt.com/news/178760-ukraine-security-chief-resigns/ RT says] "On Monday, reports appeared in Ukrainian media about Parubiy’s resignation. The Local Zn.ua website, citing its source, said that the security chief is due to resign due to diverging opinions with the country’s president. The media stated that Parubiy decided to resign after he was ordered to declare another ceasefire in Kiev’s military operation in the southeast of the country, but he refused to do so." --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:22, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::: [http://www.unn.com.ua/ru/news/1374133-p-poroshenko-doruchiv-rozsliduvati-proval-spetsoperatsiyi-na-kordoni-z-rf-zmi This article] announces an investigation into the "Southern Cauldron" disaster and calls Parubiy the "main author" of the plan that led to it. Maybe that's the reason. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 16:47, 10 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/08/ukrainian-sbu-comes-with-conspiracy.html Ukraine@War views the theory favorably] --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:34, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
* And [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/08/debunking-sbu-theory-of-afl2074-mh17.html not impressed with one de-bunk effort] but rather more convinced!<br />
<br />
: Yeah, we got it the first time already. The guy is a knucklehead. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Cyber Berkut leak ===<br />
{{Main|Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Cyber Berkut leak}}<br />
* [http://en.voicesevas.ru/news/analytics/2793-kolomoyskiy-assistants-facebook-account-hacked-the-boeing-downed-by-junta.html Kolomoyskiy assistant’s Facebook account hacked - the Boeing downed by junta!]<br />
<br />
=== SBU wiretap video ===<br />
:''Moved to [[/SBU Audio Evidence]]<br />
<br />
===Corbett report===<br />
Petri just put this on the main page<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWlAARb0fN4<br />
<br />
I ASSUME it is going to be a false flag nonsense. After 8 whole minutes of introductory waffle and advertising, he still has not started on the topic, so I am not watching any more of it. It is titled "MH17 FULLY EXPOSED!! You Won't Believe The SHOCKING TRUTH About the Ukraine FALSE FLAG ". they are right, I won't believed a word of it. Don't bother with it. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 01:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== A False-Flag Defector Theory ==<br />
Here's one way the facts might wind up going: an SA-11 was fired from outside Snizneh, as alleged, and that's what killed MH17. The Buk launcher was even welcomed in by local commanders, heard saying so in audio communications that could prove true (or not), was sent to the spot by them, and then disavowed in embarrassment. And also the launcher came from Kiev's arsenal, the shootdown was not a mistake, and the crime carried out by pro-Kiev false-flaggers in the proud Euromaidan tradition. Here's how that could all be so:<br />
<br />
Some secret Right-winger in the army playing a disgusted defector makes contact with local rebels on July 15. He heard about the apartment bombing that day in Snizneh, and about the junta's plans for another run at the same place two days later. But, he said, he could get access to a launcher at the base north of Donetsk, a disloyal guard who'd take a bribe (small, covered) plus even a couple local defectors trained to run it, and even a truck from his part time job - the boss wouldn't notice it missing, he's such a clueless junta-supporter... Yeah, he could have it all mobile, drive it himself, make all the contacts, have their guys check it out, it works! It'll shoot down anything. They can get it put in place and wait. In this version, the "SBU wiretap" audio was maybe their defector's own phone - he was undercover the whole time, "wearing a wire" - the launcher was a trojan horse, and its crew were evil and knew just what they where they were and just what they were doing. <br />
<br />
On the rebel end, having no clue there will be a mass murder ensuing, and seeing nothing criminal in preventing a second junta air force atrocity, happily waved the thing in. They were supposed to meet someone in Snizneh, but drove off mysteriously. Then MH17 came down and, in dread and shock, the rebels decided to dis-acknowledge the whole deal, and no one's simply come clean about it yet. But the "defector" meme coming out might be spurred by its partial truth, along lines kind of like this, and not from some satellite photos. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: Hey CL, apart from your vivid imagination, do you have even just a whisper to back this up? And if we're speculating, how would you like to forget Snizneh and look at Chornukhyne as the launch site? At the time was on almost no man's land, under Don Cossack Control. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 14:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::: Do I have evidence? Yes. There are these pieces we're considering, supposed to point that way, that might or might not. This theory here is sort of a "worst case scenario" where all those come out true, or an idea for those who believe all those clues, to show how alternate explanations still exist even then. Im am fairly convinced of the core parts, much less on the calls, but this is more a though exercise than "my theory," although it's not far from my working theory and become it if the audio is genuine after all. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 22:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: Yeah, similar to KatKan question is bugging me as well . Why not to look, let's say, perhaps somewhere else? (hopefully without creating sudden burst of fighting or urgent land management work just right exactly there, if possible )? --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 14:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: yeah, early intercepted call said ""These are Chernukhin folks who shot down the plane. From the Chernukhin check point. Those Cossacks who are based in Chernukhino." and nobody's ever looked there. It is same distance as Snizneh and 90 degrees to the flight path so an easy shot. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 15:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: I certainly would not know why a reputable news-maker would pay travel expenses going to Snezhny but not this other well-flagged place nearby. The only new comment I have to make here is that this is a big expensive truck, not a flag costing one grivna/ruble {nor is it a can of some chemicals). It is your best air defense, and there aren't many. So it is either off front line or it is there, somewhere, for a real strong reason. --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 19:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: Okay, the other town being named is one clue for another site, and no one looking could be why there's nothing else. I'm not sure how Chernukin connects - If the burned spot is up there, or there's another one... maybe the defector made his contact with those guys, and so his little team was called part of theirs - Miner brought them. As for why the other area, it was indicated and they say it had burn marks at the end (can't be checked and ruled in or out), so they went and it ''appears'' to have been smart. In the other direction, a mention the responsible people are ''from'' there, not even that they fired from there. But at least it's not pulled out of thin air. If there becomes more to support it, I'll consider more. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 22:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::: We may want to put the audio story in order separately, someplace, if it was not done. I was following it initially, but now references are hard to find. <br />
<br />
:::::Agreed. This happens here sometimes. Hoping it helps, I made [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/SBU Audio Evidence|a page for that subject]] and moved comments from both of you guys over there. Hope I didn't mess anything up in the process - please review. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::::You did indeed delete a whole bunch of stuff instead of "moving" it. Restored here. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::As I recall (but do not have links saved), this is Bes recordings, glued together from genuine pieces. (I believe Bes said pieces are genuine early on himself) The first piece, mentioning Enakievo, is about a different earlier episode--as he himself responded. His response about second piece, mentioning Cossacks, was much more evasive, something like 'if every block post has a Buk, than I'll be in Kiev'. But it is clear that at the time of event, he had reason to believe that something was going on over there. That does not say this happened as he thought, Cossacks may be shooting pistols not Buks or whatever; but it may looked like something is launched from there, or whatever the case might be. This does suggest some notable event at that location. I do not see genuine evidence pointing to the current official version; it is more consistent with somebody trying to put a false flag there so that all attention of social networkers go that way. Chasing this flag further is a waste of time in my opinion, and is unlikely to produce anything new which is not known already. Looking the other way, even pointing out there is SOME other way, might. (Actually, it looks like attempts were made to place SEVERAL false flags, and than whatever was picked up , was supported by some further noise). --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 23:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::: (Coincidently) just above I posted [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T34AB6CImTE an alleged proof of audio fakery] of some SBU-released audio, likely from the first batch. As I said, I didn't look into it really closely. Maybe worth doing so. Claim is that it was cut together from several audio tapes. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 23:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::::Bes in the audio (perhaps glued from pieces) does [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJnD1wgofYM say] Cossacks from Chernukhino block post shot the plane down, those Cossacks _standing_ at Cherknukhino. Why everybody is looking the other way just beats me --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 00:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::::: This brief piece on Chernukhino Cossacks is disconnected from the first piece (about Miner, apparently another rebel) and from discussion of discovering that it was a passenger plane and of the bodies. Chernukhino piece is timed at 16.33 on the crash day. First piece (Miner) is timed earlier, actually, at 16:40, and talks about a different location (really bad gluing skill here; this miner thing is most likely from another day, and I recall that was claimed in discussions which followed. ) Gluing is beyond any doubt; but individual pieces sound genuine for my ears. So he does not actually say it was his Cossacks or what they shot was a passenger plane; just that (some) Cossacks standing at Chernukhino shot (some ) plane, and than it cuts off; rebel blame is rather what this gluing order is trying to convey on us. I would certainly check this out. --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 01:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::I've gone back to early things to refresh my memory. And the whole tone of voice was different then. Today it is all propaganda and fantastic stories from everyone.The first 2 days everyone sounded genuine, spoke unthinking,not for effect. So I am thinking, things said early are more likely true. Yes that video with the telephone calls was from 3 separate calls, and at least one maybe not from July 17. The one about Yenaklevo I think is another day. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 00:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Debunked topics ==<br />
:''Moved to [[/Debunked topics]]<br />
<br />
This link http://adam1baum.blogspot.fi/2014/08/another-journalist-exposes-mh17-false.html <br />
<br />
just added to the main page under "Analysis"<br />
is FULL of items already debunked. Are the "analysis" items being added without comment? just to collect them? [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 16:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Yes, basically the main page is for pre-scrutiny source material. Analysis is mainly to collect them. I had a quick look at the blog post, but noticed most of the topics were debunked long ago. Or should be debunked. For example, it seems that MH17 may have flown a different route on previous days, but there were plenty of other Asia flight in the Donetsk airspace. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 20:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Warhead damage ==<br />
:''Moved to [[/Forensics#Warhead damage]]<br />
<br />
== Radar Evidence ==<br />
:''Moved to [[/Map#Radar Evidence]]<br />
<br />
== Cockpit Voice Recorder ==<br />
Thanks for a start, Charles, will review. I was watching for that, gathering a bit of background on the CVR angle. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
* July 23: good condition http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/malaysian-airlines-flight-mh17-cockpit-voice-recorder-in-good-condition-1.2715671<br />
:''The cockpit voice recorder of the Malaysian airliner downed over Ukraine is in good condition, the UN civil aviation body said on Wednesday,'' <br />
:''"The cockpit voice recorder is in good condition ... the digital flight data recorder is still under review," ICAO said in a statement.''<br />
* July 23, downloaded: http://www.eturbonews.com/48306/mh-17-cockpit-voice-recorder-data-downloaded<br />
:''On Tuesday 22 July 2014 at 22:00 inKiev, Ukraine, the flight data and cockpit voice recorders (the 'black boxes') from the Malaysian Airlines flight 17 were taken into custody by the Dutch ambassador and a team of investigators led by the Dutch Safety Board. The Dutch Safety Board requested that the Air Accident Investigation Branch of theUnited Kingdom (AAIB) perform the data download from both the recorders. The recorders were transported to the AAIB's laboratory at Farnborough, arriving 23rd July in the early morning.''<br />
<br />
::I just got a real TinFoil idea. The black boxes were found in the wheatfield where they also found some bodies on day ONE. There were daily reports that they had been found and were going to be sent to Russia. Then on July 21 they were "found" ON CAMERA...and the guy carried it a long way, stuck out in front of him, to a command post of some sort, the camera following him the whole way. Not a rebel but an official Emergency Services guy. Nice "evidence" of chain of possession. BUT there is a 3-day gap there, when something could be taken the 80 miles or so to a place called Rostov, and back again. Black boxes have ports for cables to be attached,they don't need to be pulled apart to be read. What if Russia already has a copy of what was on the black boxes? adding to their confidence? [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 15:21, 26 December 2014 (UTC) <br />
:::If something is doable, but they have not done it, than one can ask, why have not they. But also, propaganda warfare is on (recently seeing ex-official Kudrin interview voicing displeasure over propaganda being on). This is mostly for internal consumption, Channel 1 TV and the like, but it can spill over elsewhere, presumably. [http://www.nytimes.com/video/world/europe/100000003011003/malaysian-planes-black-box-retrieved.html July 20 video (NY Times)] (indeed, looks like staged 'find") --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:43, 26 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== AAIB Analysis ===<br />
Analysis of the CVR from here on should be by the UK Air Accidents Investigation Branch. We shall see. For the record, they came out far less shady in the Lockerbie investigation 25 years ago than the now-fazed out RARDE and its hacks Hayes and Feraday, or the FBI's stumblebum "Tom" Thurman (see [http://lockerbiedivide.blogspot.com/2010/11/political-scientists-of-lockerbie.html The Political Scientists of Lockerbie.] I might have been overly fair - Dr. Morag Kerr could tell you in more detail some of the problems with even the AAIB's work there setting the explosion center. But this was 25 years ago, They're only looking at the flight data this time, not the wreckage. We're on the verge of world war, with this the latest information front. They're in London. They'll tell us the truth only if it fits okay with their narrative. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::The crash investigation of Lockerbie was fine. It was the criminal investigation that was messed up. They didn't do that, FBI got involved, same as in TWA800. Some facts seem to depend a fair bit on who is looking at them. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 03:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== New Straits Times - CVR ===<br />
<br />
THE preliminary analysis of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17’s cockpit voice recorder (CVR) revealed “nothing out of the ordinary”.<br />
<br />
A source close to the international investigation told the New Sunday Times that the CVR downloaded by the United Kingdom’s Air Accidents Investigation Branch had picked up the communications between the Malaysia Airlines’ pilot and an unspecified personnel with an air traffic controller (ATC).<br />
<br />
“So far, from what the team has heard, there was nothing unusual. The last voice heard was not the pilot’s. No, there was no indication that the pilots saw or sensed anything off,” the source said without elaborating further to protect the investigations.<br />
<br />
This may mean that whatever happened was very sudden.<br />
<br />
The CVR records all communications on the flight deck, including transmissions with air traffic controllers, discussions between the flight crew, cabin announcements and conversations with any other crew entering the cabin.<br />
<br />
In this case, it could provide investigators with some insight into the flight crew’s mindset and emotional state if they had to deal with an emergency in the final moments.<br />
<br />
However, it remains unclear if the Dutch-led investigation team had secured the recordings from the Ukrainian air traffic controllers to match the conversations between the ATC staff and the MH17 flight crew.<br />
<br />
Asked about the Ukrainian government’s revelation on Monday that the aircraft was brought down by “a massive explosive decompression”, the source said the statement was “unconfirmed”.<br />
<br />
The source told the NST that the “initial factual findings” of the probes into the shootdown of MH17 were expected to be released next week.<br />
<br />
It is learnt that investigations also centred heavily on the findings provided by the group of three Malaysian investigators, who were among the first to reach the crash site and conduct probes.<br />
<br />
The NST was told that instead of the 200 reported earlier, the experts dissecting the flight data recorder (FDR) were looking at 1,500 parameters of the black box.<br />
<br />
The FDR records essential flight data parametres at least 10 times per second and defines the aircraft’s flight path and motion.<br />
<br />
The data also include primary information, such as position, altitude, airspeed and heading. This allows investigators to reconstruct the aircraft’s flight path.<br />
<br />
Also recorded in the FDR are the aircraft’s aerodynamics and engine parameters, including information from the air data computer and sensors.<br />
<br />
The Dutch Safety Board (DSB), which is leading the international investigation into the downing of the aircraft, had said the findings would likely provide a picture of how the investigation would proceed.<br />
<br />
Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak had said the aircraft’s flight data recorder and the CVR were among the “hard evidence” the investigation team needed to find out what happened.<br />
<br />
DSB spokesman Sara Vernooij was quoted as saying the board would likely say “what it can rule out” and “what it is going to focus on”.<br />
<br />
It is understood that the team of investigators at the crash site in eastern Ukraine would carry out verification of information that had been gathered from other sources.<br />
<br />
This is to allow them to search<br />
for possible new information and collect material for the investigation, such as pieces of the wreckage.<br />
<br />
The Dutch police had earlier this week received 150 photos<br />
and video clips on their server<br />
set up to piece together the mystery.<br />
<br />
The photos were uploaded by eyewitnesses from what has been described as “the world’s biggest crime scene”.<br />
<br />
[http://www.nst.com.my/node/19598 New Straits Times CVR report]<br />
--[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 12:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== ATC recordings ==<br />
Initially it was reported that the SBU confiscated the ATC air-to-ground-communication. After weeks the Malaysians asked the Ukrainian ambassador to their country about this, and he denied that it had happened. He said he had no idea what happened to them and no formal request of any investigating party has been made. The Malaysian Attorney General then announced that he will make a formal request to get the recordings. This according to:<br />
* [http://www.nst.com.my/node/21260 Malaysia wants the ‘missing’ Ukrainian ATC tapes], New Straits Times, August 8, 2014<br />
--[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Investigation==<br />
* [[Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Dutch preliminary report|Dutch preliminary report]] ([[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Dutch preliminary report |talk]])<br />
<br />
talk moved here from accidental location on Main page [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 08:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* [http://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/en/onderzoek/2049/investigation-crash-mh17-17-july-2014/onderzoek/1559/questions-and-answers-concerning-the-investigation-into-flight-mh17 Investigation crash MH17, 17 July 2014 Donetsk – Dutch Safety Board] 21 Aug 2014<br />
<br />
<br />
:Interesting list of countries involved. I wonder how Russia and Germany got on this list? from the above report<br />
<br />
:"The following countries have contributed (to a greater or lesser extent) to the international investigation team into the crash of flight MH17: '''Ukraine, Malaysia, Australia, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States, Germany, France, Italy and Indonesia.''' The ICAO and the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) also contributed to the investigation as organisations. The leadership of the investigation rests with the Dutch Safety Board, which will publish both the preliminary and final report. The countries that have a formal role as participants in the investigation under the ICAO agreement will be given access to the draft reports, and may provide feedback. The country leading the investigation may offer other countries access to the draft reports at its discretion." [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 07:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Germany, maybe just provided radar data for the stretch that flew over them. Russia, maybe because they were asked to tell the federalists to let investigators do their work (a stupid but real way of thinking, as if Putin hired all these people). Maybe they were asked for their own radar data too. Indonesia's connection is not too obvious, but I suppose there is one. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 08:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
:: Buks--which were widely reported to be suspected rocket and which Ukraine is known to have , is designed and manufactured in Russia, and ONLY Russia would know exact technical details, if those are at issue to the investigation. It is NOT having Russia is what would make zero sense. --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 09:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: Good point there. We could use more detailed specs here too (though reliable airliner measures and hole size needs settled first anyway) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::It says " on the days following the incident (when Ukraine was still leading the investigation), several Ukrainian aviation investigators visited the crash site briefly several times for investigative purposes." They must have sneaked in disguise as rescue workers collecting bodies. And maybe it was they responsible for some of the "cutting up and removing evidence" and maybe they decently handed it over to the Dutch, whatever they found useful. <br />
:::: Are you SURE the BUKs are made in Russia? I know they ere designed there, so were the Antonovs and helicopters which Ukraine not only makes but exports to other countries. They make radar and big rockets too. Mostly in the south east...8th largest arms manufacturer in the world.<br />
<br />
<br />
:::::I do not have means to verify that no plant in Ukraine is producing books, but my understanding based on press reports, is that production is in Dolgoprudnyi, Moscow. That makes logical sense and I do not have a reason to think that this report is not accurate . There is no way for me to check this 100 sitting on my chair. Did anybody even claimed that there is a plant based in Ukrain capable of producing Buks? I have not seen such reports. It is possible that some components were normally exported from somewhere else in former SU, but it looks like final assembly at least is near Moscow . (That would also make logical sense, and I do not have grounds to dispute the report [http://www.ibtimes.com/maker-buk-missile-may-have-shot-down-mh17-targeted-recent-us-sanctions-1632698] --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 01:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
::::Anyway this is only Air Safety report. Criminal investigation if any has to be done by different department (but could be in any country involved). There won't be criminal charges. The finding will be "missile fired by persons unknown". [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 12:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
* [http://en.ria.ru/world/20140823/192273535/Russia-Wants-Regular-Transparent-Reports-on-MH17-Crash.html Russia Wants Regular, Transparent Reports on MH17 Crash Probe] – RIA Novosti, 23/08/2014 -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) aug 24 not signed<br />
<br />
:This story looks like for domestic consumption, <br />
<br />
::Maybe in small part, but mostly it is more like you accused us--where is the proof? With intention to have the matter dropped, not to escalate the matter. This is not working very well, it just gets stuck, because the other part is not paying much attention. They are not trying to work together at all, and so it just reflects that there is a lot of unresolved tension. --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 05:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:to make it look like the "West" is hiding something. <br />
::::A bit of that , --certainly they want to recieve as early as possible all available evidence, and they were saying in the past that they had not. But in terms of tone, the reason is concern with insufficient respect to Russia, so the payback is, hey,go bring us some pointless paper. So there are tone problems, not just substance problems, --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 07:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:It refers to <br />
Resolution 2166 adopted by the UN Security Council in July calls for a thorough and impartial investigation into the MH17 tragedy and requires the secretary-general to provide the Security Council with investigation progress reports". which is nonsense, as Security Council has no access, will not do own investigation, and it is being done under international laws by the Dutch. Furthermore, as a member of the investigation panel, Russia knows this. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 22:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::The original story is that separatists shot it down with a BUK. The physical evidence only points to a proximity fuse missile ''of some sort'', several types of these available including air to air ones. USA claims but has not shown satellite evidence of a BUK being fired frm "rebel held territory". This is UNTRUE as satellite would not show the type of evidence they claim to have. So to produce evidence they would have the show what they really have, which must be off a spy plane. Domestically they want to hide that they had enough interest in the area to operate such a plane there, though everyone locally knows. They will not produce this for a criminal case. No criminal case is possible without proof of who (what person or unit) shot it. Anyway the consensus also was that they were aiming at a legitimate military target, so was accidental.<br />
::Several other accidental "wrong target" scenarios are possible, and almost as equally likely. If there WERE Ukrainian aircraft near MH17 (and witnesses said there WAS a fighter there) they may have been the target, of separatists OR RUSSIAN AIRCRAFT which of course are not meant to be in Ukrainian air space -- but would not have to be, to be close enough to shoot a missile at one. Alternatively a Russian one may have been the target of a Ukrainian plane. Either way the much larger and intervening B777 would have captured the attention of the missile. <br />
::The Russian "radar proof" of SUs being there were fake. But based on some knowledge that there WERE some there. If their own planes saw them, they can't admit to that.<br />
::There is enough doubt for all parties to NOT WANT a thorough investigation. Nobody can do one with hopes of blaming the other, without potentially incriminating themselves. <br />
::So it will not happen. Whichever way it was, the missile was aimed at a legitimate target. So at most the charge could only be negligence. Discovering whose negligence would only escalate hostilities. Nobody wants that. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 07:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
:::All signed and should-be-signed chit chat should ideally be on a talk page, not front (article) page. Friendly reminder. (and I say ideally as I and others have done this before and sometimes never fixed it, but it's not ideal) (good talk though) :) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 08:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::sorry, I started it there, fixed now. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 08:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== November 2014 ===<br />
<br />
Dutch experts are back at the scene, this time collecting the wreckage. As [http://www.sputniknews.com/europe/20141111/1014605576.html RIA Novosti reports], an agreement with the DPR has been signed yesterday, but there were some shenanigans with the Dutch delivering a second version of the agreement in which any mention of "DPR" was erased. Grow a spine, cheeseheads, FFS. ''Your'' children died there. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Correspondents in the area say there was shelling of the wreckage area by Ukraine on 10 of November [http://rusvesna.su/news/1415708946 (KP correspondent-rusvesna)] . They have a video from the scene; I don't think shelling is heard there, but it is a very brief clip. They show damage in the metal, a thin crack which goes from the inside out. It may be missile shrapnel shooting the plane through, entering, than exiting on the other side of the plane, there is no problem with that. Cracks looks most consistent with missile shrapnel (which may be a rhombus plate). Woman in the second half does not say things of help to investigation, she heard explosion and seen smoke, but that was about it. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
What are they on about?? they went there weeks ago to pick up luggage and belongings,no problems, no OSCE help either. Left most of it behind.Few days later Graham Phillips showed heaps of stuff still there -- including BONES. They were quietly invited back (BY DPR)went back and found some bones. Few days ago went back, found more remains WITH DPR PEOPLE WITH THEM. Well yeah, it's only about 25 km from Debaltseve, true. Ukies shelling that way on purpose to scare them off, was nothing when they were there secretly. On other hand their PM didn't knows they were there either? he's a snarling venom-spitter agaist Putin. "Rutte has always said he doesn’t want to negotiate with the pro-Russian separatists because he doesn’t recognize their self-proclaimed regional government." what BS you negotiate with whoever is there, who else? the man in the moon? Malaysia negotiated with them and got back all the bodies and the black boxes. Kiev was not going to give them, even if they'd been able to. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 14:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
=== December 2014 ===<br />
At SBU press conference given by Vasilii Vovk, and lasting some 30 minutes, MH17 crashed was mentioned. It was said that final outcome of investigation may be not exactly the same as initially announced, and that investigators have recovered fragments in passengers bodies which may show that the plane was shot by a missile. [http://rusvesna.su/news/1419023898 Reports on this (rusvesna)] came out with a title claiming that SBU admitted that MH17 could be shot from a plane; that seems to be a lot stronger than what SBU actually announced. They did say that [http://112.ua/glavnye-novosti/v-telah-passazhirov-boinga-obnaruzheny-elementy-kotorye-mogut-byt-chastyami-raket-sbu-163012.html "there are many reasons to think that those were missile fragments"]. Here is [http://112.ua/glavnye-novosti/v-sbu-ne-uvereny-chto-iznachalnaya-versiya-krusheniya-samoleta-naydet-100-procentnoe-podtverzhdenie-163013.html 112.ua report, and press conference video (Ukrainian)] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 08:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* http://uatoday.tv/crime/bodies-of-mh17-victims-contain-missile-fragments-sbu-says-398439.html <br />
"Chief of the Investigation Department of the Security Service of Ukraine and the co-chair of the international investigation group into the crash, Vasiliy Vovk." This is one and the same person, then, not a joint statement. UNIAN reports from this "the bodies of some of the passengers killed in the plane crash contain metal objects that were not part of the aircraft," now citing external forces. Apparently, per the above, he said a jet-fired missile was possible, and Russian media latches onto that. UNIAN emphasizes the other half of the options: "One of the main theories being considered is that the plane was shot down by a Buk missile system from territory controlled by terrorist groups," Vovk said." --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Eliot Higgins [https://twitter.com/EliotHiggins/status/546064079350411264 tweets]: Preview of interview with the head of the #MH17 criminal investigation ‘Geen satellietbeelden van neerschieten MH17’ http://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2014/12/19/geen-satellietbeelden-van-neerschieten-mh17/ --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:Translated, Westerbeke basically says there is no video-movie type satellite imagery proof of what happened, as many had come to expect. Makes sense to me. But there should be data that can be read and then presented graphically, that should indicate what happened. Should be forthcoming? To note, new to me, Malaysia has maybe been invited into the JIT (Joint Investigation Team, once a total secret) - the article lists member states as "Oekraïne, Australië, Maleisië, België en Nederland." --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: Malaysia was finally allowed into the club [http://www.nst.com.my/node/60321 on or around December 8]. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===February 2015===<br />
The team of international aviation investigators who investigate the cause and contributing factors of the crash of flight MH17 concluded the investigation meeting at Gilze-Rijen. In the past week they conducted several investigations on the wreckage, including the fractures, the failure mechanisms and the impact patterns. This meeting is part of the procedures prescribed by the ICAO provisions on international aircraft accident and incident investigation.<br />
<br />
The investigators represented the countries involved in the MH17 investigation: Ukraine, Malaysia, Australia, United States, United Kingdom and the Russian Federation. The representatives of Belgium and Germany attended the meeting on February 17. A representative of ICAO was also present.<br />
<br />
Next week preparations will be made for the visit of next of kin to see the recovered wreckage in the first week of March. The planned three-dimensional reconstruction of a part of the aircraft will start soon. The next of kin will be allowed to view this three-dimensional reconstruction at a later time. [http://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/en/onderzoek/2049/investigation-crash-mh17-17-july-2014/onderzoek/1622/international-aviation-investigators-conclude-meeting-at-gilze-rijen#fasen /Dutch Safety Board, 20.02.2015] <br />
: and ...? --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 21:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: The great Alex Thomson has been there lately, finding [https://twitter.com/alextomo/status/566945066284228608 piles of Malaysian Airlines jet wreckage] still around. Guess that's not needed for their 3D reconstruction. All very shady and quite disappointing if one (like me) has held the Dutch in high regard when it comes to thoroughness and integrity. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 21:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===March 2015===<br />
[http://nos.nl/artikel/2027660-justitie-zoekt-getuigen-van-neerhalen-mh17-door-buk-raket.html Something from Netherlands emerged], claimed to be International Investigation team (with Ukraine, but not Russia) with old stuff,+ some (newly?) recorded, some of it at studio quality, zero emotions, suspiciously accented conversation in RUssian about a Buk being moved direct from Russia to somewhere near Snezhnoe by some unknown, but surely opolchenie member, characters --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 16:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
: Some Western operation, announcer quite clearly lived in the West for a while, newly emerged recording of bad guys--something strange about accents (something out of place), and tone (supercalm in presumably tense circumstances, curses with no fire to them appear staged)--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 16:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::[http://www.newsru.com/world/02apr2015/mh17.html Now saying ] [http://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2015/04/01/russische-legerofficier-herkend-op-justitietape-mh17/ (and here)] looking for Petrovskii-Khmuryi, who can be one of the guys on the recording (Do not remember comments from him on the matter...kind of curious) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::Pro-opolchenie blog say that this is old Ukrainian fake presented now as coming from Netherlands. Have not seen Petrovskii comments on the matter. (Manner of speech somewhat reminds him, in a kind of exaggerated way; to me sounds as more likely to be a play-up, --having hard time believing the tone). Recordings attributed to crash day were [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgdqdklrqDA#t=238 published by SBU] on 18 July. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===April 2015===<br />
[http://www.nltimes.nl/2015/04/08/dutch-release-hundreds-of-emails-tied-to-mh17/ Dutch Release Hundreds Of Emails Tied To Mh17]--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Russian demands ===<br />
* [http://en.itar-tass.com/world/750377 Russia proposes appointing UN special envoy for MH17 crash probe — Churkin] – ITAR-TASS, 20 Sept 2014<br />
:''He said that Russian delegation has seen no will on the part of the secretariat to display any initiative to promote international investigation of the crash. “We think it important that the United Nations Secretary General should analyze the state of things on the above problems and deliver a detailed report to the Security Council, including his suggestions about additional measures to promote the investigation,” he said.<br />
:''“It would probably be expedient to look at establishing a post of a secretary general’s envoy on that matter and sending, in collaboration with the OSCE [Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe], a mission to the crash area,” Churkin said.<br />
: Russians are annoyed by disrespect, and by sanctions. [http://itar-tass.com/politika/1455360 During the meeting of the UN Security Council, Churkin urged his colleagues] to work together to clarify the tragic story of the airliner "without any hints and insinuations" and references to the evidence which has not been submitted. "If you do not submit (any proof) than this is not evidence, but just as we say," фига в кармане " ("the 3-finger gesture exhibited in one's own pocket"- basically meaning bullshit). And such things to investigate such serious situations is completely inappropriate," - he stressed. Russians support the official investigation, -but still emit some noise indicating their annoyance. Also, they may have some beliefs regarding the circumstances. <br />
:At the time, it appeared that sanctions and MH17 are [http://time.com/3025173/eu-sanctions-russia-mh17-putin/ linked ] ; and despite a progress towards peace, new sanctions were imposed. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 12:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: [http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1407/18/cnr.04.html UN Ambassador Power Addresses Security Council Meeting] "we cannot rule out technical assistance from Russian personnel" "If indeed Russian-backed separatists were behind this attack on a civilian airliner, they and their backers would have good reason to cover up evidence of their crime. Thus, it is extremely important that an investigation be commenced immediately."--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Germany Decides Rebels Dunnit==<br />
<br />
German Intelligence has decided for definite that the first story was correct - MH17 was downed by a BUK operated by [http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/mh17/prorussian-rebels-downed-mh17-with-ukraine-missile-germans/story-fno88it0-1227095832498 separatists] after all. <br />
Not really surprising, as this is (a) the easiest result based on Occam's Razor and (b) comes at a time Germany would like to do something to help Russia in the sanctions mess but Merkel can't back off yet (and/or different parts of Germany have different degrees of friendship with The Bear). It may also be a smack on the fingers for Ukraine for the neo-nazi mess. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 04:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
We also covered this elsewhere [[Category_talk:Leaks#BND |BND leak]]. (As for positives, they seem to say Ukrainian photos are fake). As for rebel Buk, Bolotov said on 20 July that his Buk is broken, and offered anybody to come and check. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 04:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
:And Kiev also agrees the rebels had no Buk of their own, saying Russia (not Kiev) brought it in on their behalf and fired it. How does BND think it can just make up claims no in the region believes or supports? Will need to have a look, especially at their take on the images used to support Kiev's version of the "not separatists" narrative. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::There's nothing for you to take a look at. This "presentation" was towards a fig leaf secret service control instance, and even [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Ströbele one of the few people on it], a kind of German Ron Paul when it comes to argue against the grain, said he doesn't buy it. And another one of those "kleine Anfragen" made them admit that [https://www.jungewelt.de/schwerpunkt/»keine-eigenen-erkenntnisse« "no own insights" went into that "leaked" statement]. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 23:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/mh17-chief-investigator-says-no-actionable-evidence-yet-in-probe-a-999485.html Chief MH17 Investigator on German Claims: 'We Will Need Evidence'] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 18:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Joost Bosman photos ==<br />
[https://www.flickr.com/photos/33705716@N05/14687945100/sizes/l This one] is interesting. Also [https://www.flickr.com/photos/33705716@N05/14872160254/in/set-72157646326477044 this.] -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 00:14, 12 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Other MH17 analysis ==<br />
<br />
Half-way decent [http://0serg.livejournal.com/146553.html analysis] of the known facts on MH17 in Q & A format. Use Bing translator as google gives up half way through.--[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 01:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== R-27 long-range air-to-air missile? ==<br />
<br />
Work in progress, please leave alone for a an hour. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 15:56, 13 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-27_(air-to-air_missile) R-27 (air-to-air missile)]<br />
* [http://belsat.eu/en/wiadomosci/a,20935,official-russian-military-aircraft-to-blame-for-shooting-down-ukrainian-su25-plane.html Official: Russian military aircraft to blame for shooting down Ukrainian Su-25 plane] – 7 July 2014<br />
* [http://www.ukrinform.ua/eng/news/nsdc_russian_aircraft_shot_down_ukrainian_su_25_plane_323908 NSDC: Russian aircraft shot down Ukrainian Su-25 plane] – July 17, 2014<br />
* [http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/russian-military-plane-shot-down-ukrainian-su-25-aircraft-in-ukraine-356422.html Russian military plane shot down Ukrainian Su-25 aircraft in Ukraine] – Interfax-Ukraine / Kyiv Post, July 17, 2014<br />
<br />
<br />
== R-60 ==<br />
Basic info. Infrared-homing, proximity fuse (radar or optical); range 8 km, altitude 20 km [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/62/Rakiety_R-60_i_R-13M_A381.jpg Photo] (but rods not shown--dummy warhead). [http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-101.html More photos]. Older versions warhead use tungsten expanding rods, newer (R60 M, R60 MK) may use depleted uranium . 3-3.5 kg warhead weight. Exact rod shapes, and whether encasing is suitable to produce fragmentation on top of that, are not found/hard to find.<br />
<br />
It is thought that R 60 rod damage will look similar to [http://s711.photobucket.com/user/smi6086/media/visit61.jpg.html sidewinder,] but straight cut, not L shape --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 23:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 23:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: <s>Here's what R-60 warhead ''allegedly'' [http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/evanesce_girl/8305736/101880/101880_original.jpg looks like] (I can neither confirm nor deny that it is indeed an R-60 warhead, as I simply do not know for sure). If it is true, then there's no way the holes will look even remotely close to Sidewinder damage. (Note that the ruler at the bottom of the photo is in centimeters, not inches).</s> -- [[User:Ed3218|Ed3218]] ([[User talk:Ed3218|talk]]) 17:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::But [http://imperiya.by/news.html?id=139809 other sources] call it anti aircraft shell (artillery) , WW2 times---and it does look like (artillery) shell. patronen.su is a source of the photo (typed on the photo)--, but I could not find that photo there--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 18:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::It got an outer rotating band , those grooves outside. Also material seems to be cast iron, not tungsten-as far as it's possible to tell from the photo --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 18:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::: Looks like you are correct. -- [[User:Ed3218|Ed3218]] ([[User talk:Ed3218|talk]]) 23:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Disinformation? ==<br />
<br />
Chris Harrison [https://www.facebook.com/groups/IOUCO/permalink/631575156955542/ on Facebook:]<br />
* [http://www.discussionist.com/101445081 Overlooked....the mysterious imprisoned US spy who gave the Daily Mail witness testimony about MH-17] – Clarity of Signal, Aug 16, 2014<br />
:''Needing a little help form Novorossiya blogging investigators in regards to this individual who I put a thread up about back in August. He is a very intriguing character that supplied the Daily Mail UK with information that doesn't seem to be mentioned in the ATC to plane transmissions for MH-17 (the ones released by the Dutch Safety Board). The Daily Mail quoted him as saying that the pilots of MH-17 "felt bad". However, this quote and conversation is missing from the DSB's preliminary report. After having performed some minor investigation I found that this same individual was also a key source of misinformation for last years false flag chemical weapons attack in Syria. I'm curious if any other Novorossiya blogging investigators want to attempt to dig deeper on this guy and bring more info to light? He could be somewhat of a 'smoking gun'.<br />
<br />
== Radar jamming and spoofing? ==<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vYaRtY27iY Proof of NATO false flag attack on MH17] – Patrick Roddie, Jul 22, 2014<br />
:''Just one month before the Malaysian airliner was shot down, NATO ran a live exercise using fighter jets to jam the transponders of commercial airliners and spoof them as military jets by broadcasting a military transponder signal at close range. NATO forces seem to have made the doomed Malaysian 777 appear to be a hostile military jet and forced the separatists to open fire. <br />
:''The video evidence of military chaff falling at the crash site reinforces the argument that military fighters were very close to MH17 when it was shot down.<br />
The Russian civilian radar data however shows that the MH17 transponder was not jammed. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 05:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Cause of death? ==<br />
<br />
Up to now it has generally been assumed that the pilots may have died from the "high-energy objects" hitting them while the passengers died almost instantly from hypoxia after the explosive decompression of the cabin. This rapid death might explain the odd "[[/Debunked topics#Bloodless bodies – fake Facebook profiles?|bloodless bodies]]".<br />
<br />
Dutch Foreign Minister Frans Timmermans now says that at least one passenger was found with an oxygen mask on.<br />
* [http://en.itar-tass.com/world/753427 Malaysia Airlines MH17 passenger found with oxygen mask on — Dutch FM] – ITAR-TASS, October 09, 2014<br />
:''The latest finding questions the earlier theory that the 298 victims on board the tragic flight had been killed instantly and indicates that they may have remained conscious after the Boeing aircraft was shot down.<br />
* [http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-10-09/mh-17-false-flag-exposed-after-revelation-passenger-was-wearing-oxygen-mask MH-17 Report False Flag Exposed After Revelation Passenger Was Wearing Oxygen Mask] Zero Hedge, 10/09/2014<br />
:''The mask found around the neck of the unnamed passenger, one of 88 Australian citizens and residents on board, was tested for fingerprints, saliva and DNA but produced no forensic evidence, De Bruin said. "So it is not known how or when that mask got around the neck of the victim," he said.<br />
:''The discovery of the mask and the implications it raised about the passengers' final moments were conveyed to the Australian's family before Timmermans' interview on Wednesday night, the prosecutor's office said. But information was sent out to other family members of the MH-17 victims only on Thursday morning.<br />
-- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 18:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Russia Blames Buk, Secret Info ==<br />
[http://rusvesna.su/news/1413027395 "CyberLeaks" on russvesna] claims 9H314 warhead of 9M38 missile, Buk M1 system. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:11, 11 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* [http://rt.com/news/195128-mh17-crash-cyberberkut-leak/ Kiev secretly received data from MH17 crash investigators – Ukrainian hacktivists] RT Oct. 11<br />
:''Ukrainian CyberBerkut hacktivists claim that they have penetrated the internal network of Ukraine’s Defense Ministry and found proof that Kiev is getting secret data from MH17 crash investigators, including information which implies its involvement.''<br />
<br />
:''A document, posted on the website cyber-berkut.net, and allegedly downloaded from Ukraine’s Defense Ministry network, dates back to August 7 and appears to be signed by Colonel Igor Zorin, the chief of Ukraine’s air defense forces. It is a report which maintains that a fragment of a projectile found together with the debris of the crashed flight MH17 is in fact a damage agent of a 9M38 surface-to-air guided missile belonging to the mobile air defense complex Buk or Buk M1.''<br />
<br />
:''... CyberBerkut claimed that the documents are evidence that the MH17 crash investigation commission and the Ukraine Defense Ministry have “special relations.”'' --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* [http://rt.com/news/194848-mh17-ukrainian-missile-buk/ MH17 crash: Ukraine security chief says missile only Kiev has may be found at crash site] RT Oct. 10 <br />
:''Investigation of the MH17 Boeing-777-200 crash in July will be completed when the remains of the Buk-M air defense missile are found, Valentin Nalivaichenko, head of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), told Ukrainian TV.<br />
::Because:<br />
:''“It will be Russian servicemen who used the Buk-M missile” to take down the passenger jet, he said.''<br />
However, they might have also said it was a certain type - Soviet-era but modernized. I'm not sure if that's so, but if so, Russia's military says they use only "modified" not modernized Buk M-1 and M-2, and only Ukraine has the ones it "modernized." <br />
:''When Mr Nalivaichenko mentions a ‘modernized Buk’ system, he probably means an air defense system that was upgraded by the Ukrainian defense industry. We know that Ukraine has been working in this direction,” the source said, adding that the information about the modernization of Ukrainian Buk systems was confirmed in late June on the Ukrainian Defense Ministry’s website, which reported renovated missile systems becoming operational.''<br />
::And a couple weeks later:<br />
:''On the day that the MH17 was shot down, Ukraine’s 156th SAM regiment carried out an unauthorized missile launch, an emergency situation that is being investigated by the SBU and obviously being hushed up by Kiev authorities, the official said.''<br />
::Therefore:<br />
:''“The confusion and inconsistency of Nalivaichenko’s responses leaves no doubt that he mentioned a plan that definitely had not been developed by the SBU, but rather brought in the other day from their overseas mentors,” the Joint Staff source said. “This is Nalivaichenko and his big mouth blunder.”''<br />
--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
There is no analysis, only conclusion, which is said to be based on the photo. The first question about the photo is where it is coming from. The Netherlands investigation? (Than why it was not also sent to Moscow)? From SBU office? (It is too easy to fake a photo, and with so many fakes already THEY have the burden of proof it is not a fake) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
:There's supposedly analysis behind the match, and my guess is it's all valid. But, that's a guess. Why would it not be sent to Moscow? Apparently its being sent to Ukraine is an issue or scandal, so apparently it's not supposed to be sent to anyone (?) Later it'll be seen by others and us, and our guesses can get better. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 14:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
==Investigation of Buk producer Almaz-Antay==<br />
Russian concern Almaz-Antay held a press conference, aimed at quashing sanctions against them, to say that (if it was Buk, then) it was Buk missile 9M38M or 9M38M1 with missile warhead 9М314 or 9М314М1, because only those have X shape elements. That was taken off production in 1999, while the concern was formed in 2002, so they did not provide this missile to anybody; but Ukraine has it. Their conclusion is based on publicly available photographs; they also participate in the investigation and has exclusive competences. They say that Snezhnoe is inconsistent as that will take cabin off at once; offer to do an [http://rusvesna.su/news/1433241635 experiment] to prove/establish who is responsible (an experiment seems right thing to do-and interesting how you account for movement)- [http://www.interfax.ru/russia/445152 interfax]. They seem to repeat the version given in Novaia Gazeta [[Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17/Forensics#Novaya_Gazeta |(discussion)]], placing launch in Zaroshenskoe. They essentially say that some 40% of elements go perpendicular to the missile and so it needs to be on intersecting course to (have a chance to) account for all the damage. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:33, 2 June 2015 (UTC) <br />
:Severe damage to the flap, illustrated in NG, with less damage to the wing, raises a possibility of a multiple event. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 16:33, 2 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
: Their presentation is on youtube now [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAMY2SpohDA in Russian] and [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsohFzbJ-vs with English translation]. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 15:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Full presentation by Almaz-Antey ( Buk-m2 manufacturer ) about the incident [http://tass.ru/boeing-presentation/vvedenie/2023629#/2023629].<br />
Still only in Russian. Unfortunately even in Russian somebody the diagrams are not self-explanatory. But main arguments are clear. It includes calculations of the attack angle of the rocket in order to cause such damage. - --[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 09:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
They say it was incoming at about 78 degrees; they reject Snezhnoe at 20 degrees; schematically in 2D cones are smth like this, with one extra alternative at -110 degrees shown [[File:Cones.jpg|thumb|Cones for various incoming angles, relative to the plane's frame. MH17: 0.8 Mach, missile: 3 Mach, projectiles 2400 m/s]]--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 05:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
Resup, thanks for shifting my comment to more relevant location. I would like to add here one more analysis. Minimum Distance between Hit point (based on Dutch castrated report) and Snizhne is 24 km (Bellingcat magical tricks placed the launch spot even further). Buk-M1 missile goes at 860m/s, but let's assume 1km/s. Let's also assume that missile immediately travels at highest speed. For such distance the trajectory will be parabolic (slide 49 from Almaz-Antey). Than the time of flight will be way more than 30 sec and it will even intersect the pilot's vertical field of view. Dutch officially declared that there is nothing interesting on black box voice recorder. How is it possible for the pilot not to notice a 5 meters lobg rocket, that ejects violent plume behind, flies directly at him for more than 30 sec and even goes across his vertical field of view? And according to Dutch report, pilot was informed of another airliner in proximity, that he had to watch out for. So he was alert and paying attention to the surroundings. It is just impossible for the pilot not to comment on it, at least WTF. Even cloudy day doesn’t explain the issue.<br />
--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 09:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
:Last radio transmission at 13:19:56-13:19:59 UTC – MH17: ROMEO NOVEMBER DELTA , MALASYAN 17 p15, p29 (MH 17 speaking; RND=waypoint)<br />
:Both flight recordings ended at 13:20:03 UTC-- from the preliminary Dutch report [[Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17/Dutch_preliminary_report#New_Info|(preliminary report discussion link)]]--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 16:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::The BUK missile burns out at around 14-15 seconds (from memory - it may vary but not much, it also depends on model, but I'm talking about the one alleged in this instance). The missile spends much of its flight in an unpowered ballistic trajectory but uses fins to make minor adjustments to strike the target.<br />
::The missile is much smaller than an ordinary aircraft so very hard to see. There have been numerous head-on collisions of large aircraft where the pilots never saw anything despite being on lookout. It's not surprising at all the MH17 pilots didn't see anything. --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 10:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::We are in confused state with this -discussed at the end [[Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17/BUK_Tracking#Contrail|here]]. On some web pages, we can read about 15 seconds engine run, but there is a video out there which looks like old (long fins) model fired, and looks like firing engine for 40 seconds. Antey shows some trajectories which gives some clue, but not saying explicitly. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The 15 second for missile is from Wikipedia that quotes one Russian BUK that is about different military technologies. I've never seen it in some official document. Every source that talks about it eventually boils down to this book. But I strongly suspect that there is a typo.it should be 50 sec. Otherwise it doesn’t make sense. Missile is using proportional navigation and is supposed to chase manuvouting targets with speeds up to 830 m/s, while maximum missile speed of this kind is 860m/s. And it is supposed to catch those targets at distances up to 30 km. It just doesn’t make sense that after 15 seconds it is basically a stone with minor control indirection. Simple wind or requirement for slightly sharp turn will make it useless. <br />
Can you give an example of head on collision of planes? All I can find were either in the thick clouds or when one of the planes was ascending and another one during descending. They never crossed each other's field of view. <br />
Your comment about 5 meter rocket obviously relies on the assumption of 15 sec, meaning no plume behind. Youtube videos of Buk launches show plumes plumes staying way longer than 15 seconds.<br />
--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 13:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
For those who still think that pilot of Boeing 777 is looking at the world through some kind of pinhole [http://m.youtube.com/watch?hl=en-GB&v=-8a6qbF9ECg&gl=SG]<br />
<br />
=='Unauthorized launch?' ==<br />
[http://russian.rt.com/article/42405#ixzz38ShRpr00 Such theory appeared] around 25 July 2014. According to quoted source said to be from defense structures of Ukraine, on 17 of July, commander of 156 UAF anti-aircraft defense regiment was ordered to perform training of crews to support ground forces in a Donetsk suburb. They had to deploy batteries, and perform routing of target and all procedures of tracking target and its training destruction with Buk M1. Commanders received unblocking keys for launch, but real launch of 9М38М1 (Buk) was not planned. To participate in the exercise, two SU 25 planes from 229 tactical aviation brigade were sent from Kulbakino airbase in Nikolaev to Dnepropetrovsk. They were charged with aerial reconnaissance and to mark control targets in ATO area to the West from Donetsk. After one of the planes entered detection zone of Buk, it was tracked by a crew of battery located near Zaroshenskoe (Зарощенское). It appears that due to tragic accident after some time, and despite height difference, the azimuth of SU 25 and MH17 coincided, in which case the missile will go after the target with bigger area. The source says that he does not know why accidental launch happened, and this is investigated by SBU. "Battery commander and the whole crew were taken". <br />
<br />
There are some details, but sources are not revealed, and details were neither confirmed nor denied. Location seems a bit suspicious, it suggests a right side hit; not clear how reacquiring target from SU 25 at a coinciding azimuth will result in the other side hit. Not totally impossible, (lost target, overshot to the North, than reacquired). But this is not very likely, on top of unexplained accidental launch. Little solid details makes this theory to be on shaky footing. Apparently was recycled in later versions (Nikolaev air base mentioned in recent film). The worst is that it is unclear what is the source, and could he really know. Otherwise, piece of cake to tell such tale (of 'my aunt told me' sort) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
10.10.2014, 14:05 "Rossiiskaia Gazeta" (official publisher of documents of the Russian Government) [http://www.rg.ru/2014/10/10/buk-site.html says in part:] A week after Boeing (i.e. MH17) catastrophe, a source in the armed forces of Ukraine shared information, definitely not matching the official version of Kiev. This source said: on the day of the tragedy, in the 156th air defense missile regiment of the Ukrainian army, armed with modernized "Buk," there was an unauthorized missile launch, which happened in the course of an exercise . Investigation of the incident involved "impartial" SBU investigators. No need to be a genius to put together elements of a puzzle - said a source in the MoD General Staff of the Russian Federation. " <br />
<br />
The number (156) in this report does not match the number in Bezler account on the video (section below); maybe some mix-up on the way to newspaper; but otherwise it all looks consistent. Bezler was operating in the nearby area, and likely would be more knowledgeable. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 23:48, 5 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Bezler Account==<br />
[http://rusvesna.su/news/1413549200 Bes:] " I do not have weapons to shoot Boeing at 10,000 m. Boeing was shot by 154 anti-aircraft regiment of UAF stationed in Artemovsk, using Buk system. My reconnaissance team has spotted "Buk" as it left. Former Defense Minister Geletey knows about it. It was a provocation. The day before the accident, we shot Ukrainian SU-25, two pilots ejected and we went to look for them. My conversation was intercepted and mis-represented as a talk about the downed Boeing. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 05:35, 18 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: Of all the people making statements in this matter, Bezler was probably the only one actually there on the ground to know what was where. The area he claims is borderline for distance, but not impossible. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 21:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Yes, what he says needs to be taken very seriously --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 22:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
A straight line S-SE to the approximate impact point (as we've narrowed down) is 61.5 km. That's significantly out of range, isn't it? [http://wikimapia.org/#lat=48.4572063&lon=38.2935846&z=10&l=0&m=b&gz=0;380113220;481550929;5094910;0;0;4351413 The line on Wikimapia] for second thoughts on that. Clearly, center of downtown was not the firing spot, but even presuming a bit south of town (and not north) this doesn't readily line up. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 00:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Launcher can drive around easily. While personnel is better of sleeping in a city, not out in the field (even if they do, one would not say 'stationed in a cornfield'). There is nothing to defend in the city itself--Novorossia does not use planes. And also, the range is approximate, it has listed ceiling of 20 km, actual range would depend on height and other things.--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Actual range depends on the actual rocket used, not the launcher. Nobody is suggesting they were defending anything, he's saying it was a provocation,ie deliberate. There have been other reports of Ukies starting to test/train on BUKs,perhaps preparing for a war with Russia directly involved. Now, practice, I've had it from numerous ex-military (various Western nations) that they used civilian planes to practice the BUK type radars on as (a) always available and (b) less likely to knows you've lit them up so won't retaliate. That is meant to be radar practice, not actual shooting, of course.<br />
::There was doubt about why "rebels" would be taking this BUK on a scenic tour, especially in mostly KIEV-held territory. But if it was a Kiev BUK?? carted around on a very conspicuous truck to be later identified as having been stolen by rebels? (in interview with very anti-Russian Lithuania's reporter??)<br />
::The Kiev story was, rebels were going to shoot down an Aeroflot, to fall onto Ukie territory, to give Russia excuse for war. However, if looks like rebels shot down something, falling on their territory, Russia can still be blamed and NATO might come help Kiev obliterate the subhumans. Hitting an actual Aeroflot was too risky in case Russia does come in but NATO doesn't. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 07:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::Oh, as if "stationed in" changes anything from a presumption of "firing from" ... lol. Obviously. I sit corrected on that, unless that is what he means... Good points on Obviously no real reason for air defense to be doing anything. True claim or not, it's worth considering these units were just sitting around with no use, freeing up their schedules for off-the-books work. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 08:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Bezler repeated the claim, 154 anti-aircraft regiment of UAF stationed in Artemovsk, using Buk system, Gelatei as overall commander has to answer eventually. This answer is recorded on video <br />
during an interview with Ukrainian news channel 1+1, starting 2:10:00 of the last, long video on [http://rusvesna.su/news/1414630752 rusvesna]. But 1+1 news report did not have that, they put old known fakes instead (first video in russvesna report). Russvesna responds to claims made by Ukrainian news report in detail, with video time stamps referring to Ukrainian news report; the long tape (last video) was made as a safeguard against false claims. Bezler himself does not have any equipment which can shot a plane even at 7000 m (he than mentions Strela 10 which cannot shoot a plane at such height; listed ceiling for Strela 10 is 3500 m)<br />
::Man in black leather next to Bezler is Василий Будик (Vasilii Budik), who was Bezler prisoner for 88 days (according to Budik himself, a 'guest'), and now is in Ukraine and helping Ruban to release more prisoners. He is listed as "Adviser to Defense Ministry, Ukraine" on the long tape<br />
:: --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 04:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references /></div>Antidyatelhttps://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17&diff=22686Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH172015-06-11T13:41:49Z<p>Antidyatel: /* Investigation of Buk producer Almaz-Antay */ reply on Buk missile engine time and ability by pilot to notice incoming plane</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:Ukraine]] [[Category:MH17]]<!-- Cats go to the top on talk pages--><br />
<br />
{{Mainpage}}<br />
== Subpages ==<br />
* [[List of MH17 airframe parts]]<br />
* [[Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Dutch preliminary report|Dutch preliminary report]] ([[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Dutch preliminary report |talk]])<br />
* [[Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Map|Maps]] – ([[/Map|talk]])<br />
* [[/Forensics]]<br />
* [[/Witnesses]]<br />
* [[/Fighter jets]]<br />
* [[/BUK Tracking]]<br />
* [[/Debunked topics]]<br />
* [[/Cyber Berkut leak]]<br />
* [[/SBU Audio Evidence]]<br />
* [[/Archive]]<br />
<br />
== General ACLOS Investigation Thoughts ==<br />
<br />
===Brilliant Analysis of the Propaganda===<br />
American writer on [http://rt.com/op-edge/183132-only-truth-flight-mh17/ RT.com] Brilliant and funny. And sadly true. Well worth a read. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 18:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::I didn't read it all, but it's excellent. A couple steps up from T.B. Hinchey-class writing. I didn't notice any lazy jet-blaming. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Considering Possibilities ===<br />
Only so many theories have been seriously proposed for what happened to MH17. But it seems worthwhile to create a master list of basically all logical possibilities to consider - what has and hasn't been proposed, by whom, why? Anyone can start or add to a sub-section below to conmment on that possibility. I inserted simple notes to many, hoping they're not too controversial - suggest or, hey, make a change as you see fit. I sign here for the initial list and notes only. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''All possibilities:''' Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 was brought down by (A Buk, B Jet, C Other) operated by (1 Russia, 2 Kiev, 3 Rebel) in an attack that was (a accidental, b intended, c intent + error)<br />
<br />
'''A Buk/SA-11''' (supported by some evidence, claimed by Kiev, presumed by Western powers)<br />
* A.1 Russian (Kiev's story - known stocks - border and logic issues)<br />
** A1a - accidental (intended legit/defensive downing - possible)<br />
** A1b - intended (not likely - Russia would stand little to gain and some to lose)<br />
** A1c - intent+error (SBU theory - intended to hit Aeroloft civilian flight, blame Kiev, invade - hit MH17 by mistake)<br />
<br />
* A.2 Kiev (known stocks, alleged movement at the time) (why: make seps/Russia look bad) (how: snuck in totally, approval snuck in too, or fired from outside rebel areas after all) <br />
** A2a - accidental (intended legit/defensive downing - not likely having snuck behind enemy lines to do it)<br />
** A2b - intended (most likely - going behind the lines suggests false flag intent) <br />
** A2c - intent+error (they aimed for the Aeroloft flight, etc. - possible)<br />
<br />
* A.3 Rebel (no known stocks, some evidence for, some against - rebel Buk is/was the Western presumption outside Kiev)<br />
** A3a - accidental (intended legit/defensive downing) (presumed by intelligent outsiders who blame them)<br />
*** (variations: launcher supplied by Russia, seized by separatists, brought by defector - crew came with it, or not - etc.)<br />
*** (variations: sliding scale of culpability from drunk and negligent operators with all blame, to blameless but fooled by false signals and such) <br />
** A3b - intended (not likely, soft implication from Kiev against the "terrorists") <br />
** A3c - intent + error (intent of a criminal kind still seems unlikely, so all error options probably under A3a.)<br />
<br />
'''B Jet''' <br />
(supported by some evidence, promoted by many revisionists) <br />
(var: used air-to-air missile, used auto-cannon/other, or combination)<br />
* B.1 Russian (had to violate Kiev's airspace without being mentioned)<br />
** B1a - accidental (intended legit/defensive downing)<br />
** B1b - intended (not likely - Russia would stand little to gain and some to lose)<br />
** B1c - intent + error (triple unlikely - it's just a possibility slot)<br />
<br />
* B.2 Kiev (denied by Kiev)<br />
** B2a - accidental (intended legit/defensive downing) (of what?)<br />
** B2b - intended (implication of those proposing it - to make seps/Russia look bad)<br />
** B2c - intent + error (possible)<br />
<br />
* B.3 Rebel (no known jet holdings - no one proposes this)<br />
<br />
'''C Other''' nothing seriously suggested. Lets not go digging for all outlying theories, but if one worth listing emerges, it can be option C and Other will be D, etc.<br />
<br />
:moved material to [[Category talk:Ukraine#Ruban's Third Force]] - theories might say "perpetrator unknown," and thus reason and motive ... but this list is all about actual possibilities more than theories. To the truth, the perp is known, and these are all poss. truths. ''Most'' people's theories will fit a slot here... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Questions Raised ===<br />
<br />
In the end of the day, we may not be able to pronounce a forensic conclusion, for the rest of the world to accept, as we may not have full information or all the needed expertise. Perhaps the best to hope for will be to RAISE (a rather short) list of main questions which we hope the official investigation will not ignore. <br />
I think it will be worthwhile to identify such questions (may be followed by voted answers or something of sort and some supporting arguments). <br />
<br />
In my list, it would be questions establishing basic facts, like <br />
<br />
*impact coordinates<br />
*where blast(s) were coming from<br />
*confirmed evidence about launch and launchers (a.k.a " any high-resolution photos with known coordinates and times?") <br />
*navigation and control methods (a.k.a. " can it curl from forward right to back-left?")<br />
* land based or air based launch? (a.k.a "can satellite see well under the cloud?" )<br />
*anything to learn from radar data (publicized or otherwise)?<br />
*and any other relevant confirmed evidence to consider<br />
<br />
Once all of that is in stone, will be good time for theories.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 19:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Question #1, since it's looking like a Buk fired from Snizneh ... what does that really prove as to who was running it? Nothing. That's why the State Dept. has to add on the Youtube and twitter evidence where it doesn't even matter if those are the real people"admitting" it was them. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:17, 11 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: No confirmed evidence for a Buk, or from Snizhne, yet. Knowing who runs that would be perfect. --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 00:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::Definitions of "confirmed" might differ, but I've been recommending people at least prepare for that coming true, in case the SU-25 thing doesn't pan out. There's a burnt field, somewhere quite near where that supposed launch contrail photo was placed to. And that, I just saw, supposedly [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/exif-data-in-mh17-missile-launch-photo.html had its ex/if data verified] as July 17, 16:25:48. So it might be that figuring who runs that becomes totally crucial. So far, just the fact of what it was and where it was fired is supposed to be proof it ''was not'' the party that was equipped for this - physically and morally - and has benefited from it. Anyway, we're on it somewhat - [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/BUK Tracking#Who Has the BUK Launchers in Ukraine?|who controls the Buks,]] whose got moved - [[#A Rebel-Held Area|what does "rebel-held" mean]] when someone's trucking in a anti-aircraft unit just after [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/07/25/snizhne-mh17-and-rebel-held-territory/ Kiev primed the locals with a bombing of civilians in Snizneh two days before]? Stuff like that I think has extra value to develop. I should get to it... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: If there is confirmed photo of launch, that would go under one of already listed items. With electronic evidence on social networks, I am not sufficiently knowledgeable, but presume it is too easy to edit those to fit any agenda, easier than to refute. Government releases, like satellite photos, is different, as they can't change stories overnight and have something to loose if proven fake. Faking hard physical evidence would be fairly impossible. It is good to know who is to blame of course. (But most people would already have their own intuitive answer,which is not likely to change, so how exactly we are going to focus on such an issue? --For myself, the best outcome will be for truth to come out, wherever that may lead).<br />
--[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 19:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== TASS: According to Our Sources ==<br />
23 December, Moscow. "Russian special services are in procession of information, that Malaysian Boeing crash over Donbas in July 2014 may have happened as a result of operation of Ukrainian special services, however it remains unclear whether the plane was the initial target, or a tragic mistake has occurred. This information was conveyed to journalists by a reliable source in one of the Russian competent agencies". <br />
"We can also assume that the operation involved the Ukrainian Air Force and ground air defense, combined". "SBU, which is investigating the accident with the Ukrainian side has already destroyed all the data on the movements of air defense systems in the area of disaster and all the data on the departure of the aircraft". Earlier, the Ukrainian authorities stated that on the day of the crash Ukrainian military aircraft did not leave the airfields in the area of military operation in the south-east of the country. "They did fly - said the source - or yes, they did" [http://itar-tass.com/politika/1667289 TASS] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 20:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==More Remains found ==<br />
<br />
Photo journalist Graham Phillips has found a human bone on the burn site. Doesn't obviously show up on [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0o4SAaCEpk&list=UUbwfUqs5Y6_jblWJwMIfRzA&index=7 this video]. While you're there, from playlist at right you can see he has about 12 videos about the crash scene. They're all just a minute or two long. Meanwhile Zakharchenko is offering for investigators to come back and [http://en.ria.ru/world/20141013/194011115/Donetsk-Ready-to-Grant-Ukrainian-Investigators-Access-to-MH17.html clean up]. Actually he should send a group of people to comb the burned area, not as if he's short on people who cab recognise body parts. Chance to shows up the Dutch who spent a few hours there picking up a token few pieces of luggage and not looking for bones,when they KNOW 12 or 15 people are still missing. HEAPS of belongings they left behind, too.[[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 07:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Story from October 31 from the Dutch, confirming [http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/mh17-dutch-pm-mark-rutte-confirms-more-human-remains-have-been-found/story-fnizu68q-1227109165667 more remains] had been found (in a site visit that had not been publicised). Stories from the current visit also mentioned bodies found but they are wrong -- there are no "bodies" left from MH17. Anything found now that still looks anything like a body is going to be from [http://www.news24.com/World/News/More-remains-of-MH17-passengers-found-20141107 later fighting].[[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 02:51, 8 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Novorossia reported on the visits, [http://rusvesna.su/third_world/1413295402 14.10 (russvesna)], about site exploration (lots of personal belongings found); [http://rusvesna.su/third_world/1415293335 06.11 (russvesna)], agreement is reached on transporting wreckage, 4 open and 1 closed wagon. They did not report pro-Kiev Ukrainian site interested or participating (while news24 report above talks about "A team of Dutch, Ukrainian and Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe workers"). --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 05:25, 8 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Witness Accounts ==<br />
:''Moved to [[/Witnesses]]<br />
<br />
== ANNA News - Crash Scene Imagery ==<br />
=== Jet Wreckage ===<br />
How did we miss this? From mid September, 50 minute video of the crash site, the burn areas substantially [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rt-QIsgjQkg cleaned up]. A lot of close-ups, walking around every angl of pieces (eg broken wing). Boring until about 38 min mark, when gets onto cockpit area. This is first area with voice, too, with someone explaining their theory of what happened (Russian) and showing shrapnel damage from angles we've not seen on any stills. "Ukraine" mentioned a few times, so I'm assuming it's a theory that blames Kiev. Can anyone translate please? [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 15:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
: A shorter video, just the part with the explanation, better audio. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rt-QIsgjQkg#t=2785 [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 15:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: Shorter video: they guy says that the holes are small, and so he thinks it is air-to-air missile. (Well, we now know presumed size of buk shrapnel as it is on a recent photo with a ruler; 15 millimeters or smth; and what he shows appears to be like finger-tip wide; so it is not too much off as far as I can tell, and does not seem to prove or disprove buk). He also says that it is known effect that when pressurized plane is punctured, it falls apart. (Well, that certainly did not happen with Korean Boeing over USSR, so it seems a bit exaggerated) . That's all he has to say, so what we gained is more video evidence --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 16:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::More new footage, taken about Oct 5 or 6 (just before OSCE visit) with someone who was there within first hour, interspersed with some footage be took at the time, never before seen [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5j5Bpa010Q English subs]. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 20:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::: Graham Phillips from the scene on October 16 [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAhqWi5cavY in] two [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAf8PFx3tmY parts]. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 16:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Great find, good quality footage. helps set the spread of things ... hope the section re-org works for everyone (did destroy the original title, but I don't think much was linking here...) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::I posted it before I finished watching it. It has a lot of interviews, rebel leaders, experts. They're saying Kiev stalled and lied to scare off investigators. The rebels took over the bodies by force to make sure they go for proper investigation ie Kiev can't mess things up. The Malaysians came to get the black boxes against Kiev's wishes and got shot at on the way. <br />
:::They say on TV that morning was Andriy Lysenko boasting about planning 8 bombing runs that day; after the crash he said they didn't have a plane up that day. Then they bombed the site to say it's too dangerous for investigators (they show some rocket craters). What were they hiding? [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 20:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
A curious detail is that we are told at 9:34 that UAF was at Nikishino. That would be roughly on the line to Chernukino, so behind-and-left from the crash. That theme featured in ACLOS discussions already; there is nothing new to add. We also hear about two planes, and get some hand waving explanations. That was covered as well; perhaps now there is somewhat better idea where the witness is located. It is curious that a German guy says that Pechora missile system was located in Ukraine; as I remember, what was released was more vague; I am not clear why he says 'Ukraine' now. Indeed, we get a sense that Novorossia side is not trying to hide something; and we do get a sense that pro-Kiev side has something to hide. What is that exactly, would be a speculation. If they are serious about peace, perhaps some PR professionals can advise them as appropriate, that is, likely, to release whatever is there to hide. This appears to be rather popular method employed before elections. (Than after the elections, they can say, we told that already, and got elected anyway; but if something new comes up, somebody may say why it was hidden, and argue that it changes the balance). --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 23:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: The Nikishino reference is meant to show distance, ie that they were not close enough for any fighting to be happening at the crash site, therefore "too dangerous to let in investigators" was just an excuse. Definitely Novorossiya is not trying to hide anything -- they have nothing to hide, and did the right thing all the way through. The video is meant to show how much Kiev was obstructing all the way...this was obvious as soon as shelling started in the area the minute the bodies were gone. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 17:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
For example, one odd thing is that Ukrainian high officials are reported to make recent comments discussing 'that Buk' which shot the plane; and leaked document suggests the same, that they think it is "Buk', moreover very specific info on warhead, missile, and launcher. But how do they even know it was Buk? (if they just have some murky photo of the shrapnel piece? ) If they have shrapnel piece itself, not just the photo, why it was not sent to Netherlands? --Nobody in Netherlands seem to be certain what are those penetrating 'high velocity objects'. And how Ukrainians determined not only the missile type, but also '''launcher type''' just from this warhead shrapnel piece? Finally, after all that, why is that they are saying the launcher used is the one apparently only they have and Russians no longer use?([https://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%91%D1%83%D0%BA_(%D0%B7%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81)&previous=yes#.D0.A1.D0.BE.D1.81.D1.82.D0.B0.D0.B2_.D0.BA.D0.BE.D0.BC.D0.BF.D0.BB.D0.B5.D0.BA.D1.81.D0.B0_9.D0.9A37_.C2.AB.D0.91.D1.83.D0.BA-.D0.9C1.C2.BB Buk M1] they claim is the first and oldest launcher system from around 1979, no computer, etc. Russian Buk would be a more modern version, perhaps some 10 years older, and may use some computer already). So, the impression is, that UAF is, kind of, saying itself, that it is us to blame, and than also keeps this secret for 2 months. But somehow we are supposed to keep believing it was '''not''' them. Well, I dunno, this appears to get harder by the day. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 00:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
::I don't think it's UAF saying about this rocket, the whole movie is from the Russian side. They believe it was a Kiev job; movie stresses how they blocked investigation. There was an interview by Joern Akkermans with the local fire brigade chief which also showed this, how they sabotaged the investigators getting the first responders' detailed notes. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 17:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::Comments in above paragraph is not about the movie, it is about leaked documented dated 2 months ago, we have it elsewhere discussing leaks --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 17:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::On "how did they know from the debris fragment, they'd say they know because they had a bunch of photos of the launcher driving that way, plus the supposed audio of people talking about it as "Buk" (covered in their spots here) Of course, they sure got all that submitted and analyzed a bit too quick, so it seems more of that strange omniscience that suggests they aren't just reading along with the story but actually writing it. In reality I guess they know because it was theirs and used by them, but officially they have at least the video and audio evidence besides the later debris. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 22:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::You lost me there. What fragment do they have? they had no access to the site and who,in that mess, would anyway recognise a fragment the size of a coin? if they have a blurry photo, well, blurry means you can't see what's on it, and still doesn't prove where it came from, so....what are they on about? are they just saying "debris fragment" to mean those few skin sections with the lots of holes in them? from that they claim to know the model number of the BUK?<br />
:::I'm back to thinking about the movie, the women saying the 2 planes. people said that on day one, too. All people used to the idea of planes being SHOT WITH ROCKETS, by then there'd been about 15 or 20 of those, so why would they suddenly invent or imagine this was NOT? [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 22:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::Corrected; they have the audio-visual plus, '''they say,''' this scrap photo. Point was the Buk claim isn't based on the alleged scrap but the other stuff, fake or not, which they had from the start. Numerous potential reasons it isn't what they claim, but again I've always suspected they would know and properly ID the murder weapon, so I'm not very doubtful that they will have consistent evidence sooner or later (and it's been a while now) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Plane spotting story: could not detect any signs it was invented, sounded like simple folks telling what they saw, no signs it was forced on them to say, or tension/second thoughts in saying this, could be detected --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 00:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[http://www.cyber-berkut.org/en/ Leaked document ] is based on the photo, and apparently UAF do not have fragments<br />
:: "остаточний висновок щодо належності .... можливо зробити при наявностi оригінали" means "final conclusion on the association can be done in the presence of the original." <br />
Nalivaichenko (SBU) [http://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=2040949&cid=5 is said] to make this comment recently on 5 channel, Ukraine (Poroshenko channel): "Ukrainian investigators need to execute the plan, developed in collaboration with the Dutch side and the other members of the international investigation, arrive at the scene and find what we need, - fragments of a particular rocket specific "Buk" - said Nalyvaychenko." (The latter comments may possibly belong to the humor section). C-B appears to suggest that photo may be from the Netherlands. <br />
: (Nalyvaychenko has [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentyn_Nalyvaichenko a major in linguistics,] so his "plan" sounds odd).<br />
::[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIpD2eebJ_c Nalivaichenko report] appears essentially accurate, he did talk (in Ukrainian) about the investigation, starting at 7:30 timestamp; he did say "Buk M modernized" at 8:30, and "Buk" is even captured by automatic transcript (more->transcript ; but transcript is not working well overall. )<br />
. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Guys: he said "Ukrainian investigators need to execute the plan, developed in collaboration with the Dutch side and the other members of the international investigation, arrive at the scene and find what we need, - fragments of a particular rocket specific "Buk""<br />
The collaboration part might be along the lines of, "Ukrainians should go there as it seems too dangerous for anyone else" (which Ukies have made sure of all along). Now I'll strip down the rest to the vital parts:<br />
execute the plan...arrive and find...what we NEED<br />
Not search for. '''FIND.'''<br />
How hard is it to find something you just dropped? of course if they now said they found it, the whole world would just belly-laugh. Luckily it's in NR hands so they can't get near the site.<br />
I do believe Russia may be keeping an ace up their sleeve so to speak.[[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 03:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:"Investigation" would be the right word for what one should implement, while "plan" suggests something else, something one hatches in secret... With all this time to have been found and hidden by the separatists, he seems confident the smoking gun is still right there to be found. Maybe Putin's business card as well. Only Kiev's specially rigorous investigators can find it, and only after they've taken full control of the area. Indeed, "search for" would be a better term, if he meant "investigation," which seems hopeless But he said "plan" and apparently one that involves a pre-planned finding of the right clue, and is far from hopeless. Maybe they're just asking for help in conquering this area. No one will expect, need, or want them to follow through on such a plot, just to control more territory and have a fruitless look for good measure. Seems to me the US and allies probably already have enough evidence to blame Russia and carry out whatever punishment they can. It's always more about will than evidence anyway. <br />
:So... is the linguist just this sloppy? Or is he up to something dropping hints like this? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Reminds me of what Putin once said about the Iraqi WMDs: "If I were the Americans, I would have found some". Maybe his CIA overlords told Naliwhatshisname about that... ;oP --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
::: Haha, I didn't know that about Putin. Good on him for saying so out loud, too (tho that's a hint of menace as well). Ukraine police and secret services don't strike me as needing advice about faking evidence. oh, though on second thoughts, they're more used to just saying it and being believed, like the Big Invasion and 2 nukes on airport guys. USA has not said a word about Russia on this matter for ages, ie about the time the black boxes got read.[[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 12:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::: Tried to locate the origin of that quote but failed. Nothing in English and all the references in German indicate that they had it from the same source I have: German "comedians". It is in character though, if you add some "they can't even control their own plots" Russian humour. And I think he really said it, but at the current state of evidence don't reference it to me, please. ;o) --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 19:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Bloodless Bodies, Photo Proof? === <br />
Two days ago ANNA News [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAlC7HhfkrU uploaded a video] of some kind of presentation of photos from the aftermath and clean-up operation. Camera shows a Laptop with an apparently rather large collection of photos, a woman is operating and explaining what is shown (in Russian). As to the nature of it, this is really gruesome stuff showing the victims as they ended up on the ground, and I only made it a good minute in. The video description seems to allege [[Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17/Debunked_topics#Bloodless bodies – fake Facebook profiles?|what Strelkov reported his men reporting]] to the outrage of everyone: Smell of chemicals, many naked, no or very few blood, in decay. <br />
<br />
Doesn't fit there ("debunked topics"), because the photos are certainly not debunked and evidence independent of any conclusions. So it's here. Should be watched by someone who can judge what they see and have a good stomach. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:It might've been flippant to put the theory right into debunked, but it made a fair point that it sounds really dumb on the surface ... but this is presented as evidence, okay. I had a look, indeed some horrible images - people broken and smeared in several different ways (look out esp. from 4:49-5:08). I'm guessing these are mostly next morning photos near the site? Ones further out, found later, will be rotting. I'm not expert enough to settle this, but fresh bodies normally should not have these signs we see: darkening skin, black lips, etc. - lack of visible surface blood - (heard about) bad decay smell. <br />
:But then again, bodies don't normally - suffer massive decompression / oxygen cut-off / etc. - move at high speed as they're torn up (smeared people = wiped clean?) - have all their tussues and guts torn up so badly - and do all this in mass numbers at the peak of summer. No maggots yet - they must have been pre-killed somewhere there were no flies, (or gassed with a pesticide-like poison!) or very quickly before loading ... no, my semi-educated guess is still some combination of these factors will explain what we see, even in these select photos. But at least, this lets us see more of it ourselves for comparison. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Yeah, it sounds bizarre but Strelkov mentioned it himself saying he just relayed what he was told from the ground. Anyway, to speculate about it we first need more details about the claims. Went back to ANNA to see if anybody subtitled it ... but they don't seem to do that the same way as in Syria. But I noticed just recently they have a German team which produces little news shows. Didn't look into it yet. But hey, [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8YycmILC2M there it is], a German version with hardwired subtitles. Which means there is no transcript to copy & paste like with the CC function. Which means I will have to watch at least a bit of it. *sigh* Maybe later, maybe tomorrow. <br />
::From the German description I can already say that the woman alleges to be an eyewitness who arrived "immediately" at the scene. Description is written in sceptical language. Her claims: Very few Europeans (as opposed to Asians, I guess), disgusting smell, rotten bodies. They checked Laptops and USB-Sticks and found "no photos" younger than October 2013. Let me guess (I don't know out of hand), that's when the other MH disappeared? --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 00:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::I'm so not trusting this narrative - these are also people who were (kept alive?) from ... no MH370 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370 wp] was in March this year (that recent?) - All I can find October 2013 related is an alleged Israeli acquisition of the jet's twin (sale in Florida, October 21, 2013 [http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2014/03/malaysian-jet-in-israel-identical-to-hijacked-plane-2927532.html per Chris Bollyn (quack)] He speculates it would be rolled out for another false flag attack, unless maybe people were alerted. So ... maybe passengers bought at the same time at that plane, kept alive but not allowed to take pictures, for nine months, but killed long enough before the July crash date they were just then rotting ... lot of fake families implied for the missing new (alleged) victims ... lot of proof in the rotting bodies and nine-months lack of new photos ... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 08:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: FTR [http://info.kopp-verlag.de/hintergruende/enthuellungen/gerhard-wisnewski/ausfuehrlicher-augenzeugenbericht-passagiere-von-flug-mh-17-definitiv-dosenfleisch-.html here] is a detailed German language article about the claims in the video, which makes them more accessible per autotranslation than the embedded subtitles. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
If you think the subtitles are worth it, you can cover the whole screen besides that and still even get time-stamps. Like, at 0:40 is she saying here are more blood free body parts, and the wet pavement under them is from the day's rain? (tried typing into Google translate - my High School German mostly catches "the ... of ... and" - but still "a "wet" aureole were umwolkt" didn't help enough) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 08:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
::What nonsense. Anyone who would go to this much trouble would surely EASILY put some more recent photos on the USB sticks.<br />
::As well as fake families,they'd have to create fake social media going back years, plus fake old school/work friends and neighbours. In 10 countries. Oh and a fake AIDS conference. <br />
::None of these idiots has yet come up with WHY? what benefit does anyone get from faking all this? If it was meant for putting the blame on one country or another, they could have got THAT bit right and shoot it in a way that 100% identifies that country.<br />
<br />
::Most if not all the passengers would have been killed by the shock wave of the missile detonation, causing internal injuries including mashing of the lungs and intestines. Black lips etc would be from lack of oxygen. Then while the plane was thrashing around/diving/spinning they'd get thrown around, among seats and luggage also flying around. This would cause numerous injuries. These would hardly bleed at all, because the hearts were no longer pumping. Blood in their veins/arteries would be barely liquid by the time they hit the ground a few minutes later. <br />
::This is consistent with what Strelkov's people were reporting - bloated blackening bodies with "no blood" where they expected to see blood. Any mangled bodies these guys would have recently seen were fresh killed in front of their eyes, a different result altogether.[[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 10:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: FWIW Double plus that! Simple explanations win over conspiracy theories every time --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 11:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::: Not worth much without examination of the evidence. As Sir Arthur Conan Doyle once said: "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." Just saying. ;o) --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::: I suppose this one's been well-enough piled on. All points including the last seem totally valid. I'm still not inclined to pursue it, but it might be worth double-checking. If things besides decay can be ruled out or whatever, ... eh, I'll just have to see.--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 00:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==What Can Forensics Prove?==<br />
:''Investigation moved to [[/Forensics]]<br />
We're now getting organized, with [[List of MH17 airframe parts]] - a picture of how the plane was impacted will emerge. The BUK alleged ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buk_missile_system Wikipedia]) has radar guided missiles that can track, turn, change altitude, etc. So I conclude the damage won't tell us if the missile was air-to-air or from the surface, or what direction it was fired from. It's still worth knowing, of course, but ... could use some discussion maybe on what we can/can't/should be aiming for here. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:The damage will tell us it was an air-to-air missile with rod warhead fired from the front, that exploded when its proximity fuse passed the cockpit window. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 23:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
DPR and Netherlands reached [http://rusvesna.su/third_world/1415293335 an agreement] that plain wreckage will be transported to Netherlands by train, using 4 open and one closed wagons. Loading will be done by Netherlands. OSCE will accompany. <br />
'Laying out' wreckage and forensics may help to determine the cause of the crash. This is currently open, with surface-to-air missile 'the most likely' scenario, and military planes involvement not excluded. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 04:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Fighter Jet? ==<br />
:''Moved to [[/Fighter jets]]<br />
<br />
== General Discussion ==<br />
=== Slightly informed comment on air defences ===<br />
<br />
See [http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com.au/2014/07/memories-recollection-guesses-and.html vineyardsaker]. Certainly biased, but internally reasonably consistent --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 02:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I'll just add various rumours / propaganda I've heard so far.<br />
<br />
- US Satellites tracked the missile<br />
<br />
- Russia did it (at least morally)<br />
<br />
- Ukraine did it (for continuing the battle)<br />
<br />
- The plane was deliberately diverted to the location it was shot down<br />
<br />
- There was a storm over Crimea causing the diversion<br />
<br />
- add your rumour here<br />
<br />
What I haven't heard yet is the terrorist bomb theory. If the plan had crashed in say Poland that would have been the only game in town.<br />
--[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 02:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Anton Gerashchenko: case solved in under 3 hours ===<br />
Anton Gerashchenko, adviser to Ukraine's Interior Ministry, must have some serious detective skills. Within 6 hours of the plane's disappearance from radar screens, he already had almost exactly the full official story Kiev is still rolling with 6 months later. This is illustrated by at least these three Facebook posts from July 17 (any other timed sources we find I'd like to add): --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC) <br />
<br />
The earliest I found was [https://www.facebook.com/anton.gerashchenko.7/posts/694787050608145 July 17, 6:20 PM local time] from crash at about 15:19 local = 3 hours after. Auto-translated with repair attempts, he says:<br />
:''Just over the Torez Putin kindly passed to terrorists anti-aircraft missile complex "Buk" that shot down civilian aircraft Kuala Lumpur-Amsterdam.'' <br />
:''This morning local patriots detected this being moved from Thorez to Snezhnoye'' <br />
:''He was flying at an altitude of 10 thousand meters Claimed 280 passengers and 15 crew members.'' <br />
:''There is not limit to the cynicism of Putin and his terrorists!'' <br />
:''Europe, the United States, Canada, the civilized world-open your eyes! Help us all than we can!'' <br />
:''It is a war of good versus evil!''<br />
:''Here's a video of the crash site! Some scoundrels shouted that "beauty! Beautifully lit!"!'' <br />
:''The Inhumans!'' ( Нелюди! )<br />
In less than three hours he was only able to show [http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JhUkqs9CQ0w#t=57 this video of the smoke plume after crash,] but with unexplained prior knowledge, apparently, of a Buk launcher from Russia, moved through Torez to Sneznhnoye. None of that is remotely evident from this video. But somehow he had and was sure of this information and had it all put together into this certain diagnosis of who's "evil" here, in under three hours. Hm. It's noted there was an edit at 6:28, to insert "He was flying at a height of 10 thousand meters." This might be due to the fact that at this point, he wasn't supposed to know for sure it was that Russian Buk that fired, as opposed to a MANPADS or the like, and suggests he or whoever he talked to had deduced that from the altitude (too high for other known weapons). --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
At least two more early posts come from [http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/805272-anton-gerashchenko-buk-missile-photo-ukranian-official-accuses-putin-of-sponsoring-terrorists/<br />
Epoch Times] <br />
<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=694844643935719&set=p.694844643935719&type=1 20:45] = app. 7.5 hours after the crash; by now he has the Torez launch plume photo as well, finally a visual clue giving him a good reason to specify the town the firing was near (if there was time to analyze it). In part: "Putin! You and your cronies did not escape from the International Tribunal. This is a photo ... a few minutes after the launch ... Thousands of people have seen the launch and flight of the rocket, which you kindly handed your sponsored terrorists!"<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=694849760601874&set=p.694849760601874&type=1 20:59,] just 14 minutes later, posting with (?) Gennady Bakalar (Геннадий Бакаляр), he added this post with the launcher driving through Torez, finally confirming the (reports?) he heard earlier that it passed through there. Did "thousands" of people see that too? He says in part "Oh and to permanently close questions about when and who committed this outrageous act of international terrorism is further evidence of the International Tribunal: installing Buk passes through the city of Torez this morning!" But we already heard all about that hours earlier. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The Lugansk launcher video of the next morning was also allegedly handed right over to the SBU for their own publication, by the (tipped-off?) police agent who filmed it passing by just before dawn. But everything else, ostensibly, they had to find themselves from public sources, posted by people with no such SBU/MoI links. But man is that swift work. Almost entirely found - and effectively analyzed for clues, understood and double-checked good enough for them - that they were spouting off complete answers within three hours. Clearly suspect. Suggested: he had it solved instantly, sent in pre-packaged like planned. Even this three hour delay is his way of appearing realistic; considering how blatantly evil Putin is and how friggin' brilliant these Ukie Fascists are, why would it take any longer? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: the most fascinating part of this is, at the 3 hour mark it was still burning...and ALL the bits with the bullet holes in them were at another village, and nobody KNEW it had not just crashed all by itself, like planes do sometimes. The video he posted is the Antonov the day before which had also appeared on Strelkov's VK that was taken as boasting of MH17. Strelkov's was posted at 17.50 local time so about 40 mins after the MH17 crash and HALF HOUR before the expert solved the case, using an image stolen from Strelkovs VK. That was not discovered by SBU until next day, after it had been "hurriedly withdrawn". [http://cdn0.dailydot.com/uploaded/images/original/2014/7/18/Screen_Shot_2014-07-18_at_12.03.03_PM.png screenshot] [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 12:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Just occurred to me. If he decided it was shot down entirely because of Strelkov's badly timed post, and it turned out later it crashed from eg pilot error or onboard hijacking, WOW how silly he would have looked then. But nah, they knew, couldn't believe their good luck when Strelkov put that up. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 12:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::It is well known that Strelkov VK is not managed by Strelkov (he said it explicitly a number of times).That post is not his. He occasionally posts things himself (elsewhere) but this thing was not posted by him, it may be somebody posting far from the battlefield and not having direct knowledge, or confused opolchenie (says it comes from opolchenie in the post). (Strelkov is also accused of other publicity crimes he did not commit, for example having intention to run for President of Russia and other misdemeanors not actually committed. Articles about him are typically such mis-attributions.). --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===What's a Bellingcat?===<br />
[https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2015/05/25/whats-a-bellingcat-anyway/ What’s a Bellingcat Anyway?] --Studied at DeepResource, and reported on 25.5.2015. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 17:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
:Looks like a great piece, and I know it wasn't a question, but to the extent it might be: it refers to "belling the cat," or smthg like "who dare bell the cat," from an old fable about mice who decide to make their world safe by taking on some tyrant (cat) and stringing a bell around his neck so they'll always know before he attacks. But everyone's too afraid to go put the bell on him. Implied: Higgins is not afraid to blame Putin for stuff (or here, to analyze the recordings of a bell already placed? Or...?). In practice, it's more a one-trick bellingpony. Site creation: about a week before MH-17 shootdown, FWIW. Far and away their #1 obsession since then: the geo-location epic of that stupid (irrelevant?) BUK launcher multi-stop field trip. It's only natural - in fact it could hardly be tailor made any better for him and his well-connected team to unravel 'in the open' like that, all on video. Cases not so well-suited to yield his desired results, of course, [http://taldoutruth.blogspot.com/2014/12/brown-moses-on-hook.html he will never have time for,] even when the work's done and all he has to do is review it. No time - there's probably yet another seam of the MH-17 case to discover that these sooper-seekret Russian terrorists just left laying around. And always, there is praises and biscuits to collect. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 08:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
::Number of times bellingcat recently tweeted or retweeted on [https://twitter.com/GeoffPyatt Geofrey Pyatt]: 17/page; while us = 0. 'Russia's finest propagandists are no match for bellingcat, who have picked apart yet more shaky claims about MH17' (now something wrong with Russian MoD satellite photos)--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 12:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
::: Their latest stunt with the "faked" Russian satellite images isn't going well. Not "only" has our friend Charles Wood given it [http://7mei.nl/2015/06/01/about-bellingcats-claim-russian-sat-pics-fake/ a quick treatment], but the man behind the online tool they used [https://twitter.com/hackerfactor/status/605362347616526337 agrees] with a [http://life.lanzone.eu/?p=30 devastating analysis] telling them essentially to read the f... manual. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 18:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::: Had a look at both, well-lodged points. Neither even says the photos must be real, just that bellinputin are clearly not the vaunted "experts" they're getting praised as and the meaningfulness of their findings is open to question. Didn't actually look at the original work. Aside from Charles at least, we're not really qualified experts in much either, might make mistakes too, etc. But when this supposed competence plus clear Putin-blame come together suddenly the media lackeys are amplifying their expertise (or rather shifting it from experts at blaming Putin to experts at how to do it with scientific rigor, which it seems they're not). --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::: [http://life.lanzone.eu/?p=53 Here]'s the promised part 2 of "Myghty"'s analysis. More of the same amateurish errors for pic 5. The real scandal here is that they are still peddled by the "MSM", not that they aren't real experts. But, miracles happen, DER SPIEGEL [http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/mh17-satellitenbilder-bellingcat-betreibt-kaffeesatzleserei-a-1036874.html has an interview] ([http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/expert-criticizes-allegations-of-russian-mh17-manipulation-a-1037125.html English translation] --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)) this morning with a German digital photo forensics expert who says the same as Charles and the others, and they even put disclaimers linking to it on their earlier "praise Brown Noses" articles. Good sign. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::::: Was about to note the Spiegel piece but it's done. Good. So the problem is those who pushed headlines like [http://mashable.com/2015/05/31/russia-fake-mh17-report/ Satellite images show clearly that Russia faked its MH17 report] (Mashable)-[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2836245/Report-slams-new-surveillance-photos-released-Russian-state-broadcaster-MH17-shot-shoddy-fake.html Were MH17 'satellite images' photoshopped? Report slams new surveillance pictures released by Russian state broadcaster as a 'shoddy fake'] (Daily Mail) - [http://www.joinfo.com/world/1002451_British-experts-accuse-Russian-Defense-Ministry.html British experts accuse Russian Defense Ministry of forging photos of MH-17 crash] --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 22:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::::: In case you wondered, [http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/bellingcat-autor-war-hauptamtlicher-stasi-mitarbeiter-a-1037297.html "Timmi Allen" is a former Stasi operative], according to the latest SPIEGEL exposure. I've stacked huge amount of popcorn to make sure to survive the weekend. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 15:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::::: Oh, and [http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10692555#post10692555 I already came up with a conspiracy theory about that]. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 15:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== A Rebel-Held Area ==<br />
The presumption behind blaming separatists at all is that the blamed surface-to-air missile was fired from an area under control of separatist forces. But most people seem to just presume the entire eastern area (past what line, who knows?) is all rebel turf, with no Ukrainian military inroads anywhere. That's part of why it's taken as so obvious, even though no one's sure just where the firing was from. The Russian military presentation took BUK itself as meaning Ukrainian military. They claim satellite images of them in Kien-run army bases as close as 5 km from Donetsk, moved on the 17th to a site closer to the shoot-down area, then moved away again.<ref name="RT10">[http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ 10 more questions Russian military pose to Ukraine, US over MH17 crash] RT. July 21, 2014</ref> It seems the "just where" question is far more important than most presume (that is, if there was a ground launch that even mattered, as I suspect) Does anyone have a good analysis of the general control-accessibility situation on that day? Some nerd might have made a map that's reliable? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
:For the NATO narrative on the Novorossiyan Buk you can look at the Ukraine@war. He will you the exact location in Snizhne (the town that was bombed two days before, with 13 civilians killed inside their apartment block). I am no longer interested. All that interest me is the technical aspects of the of the crash investigation. What hit the MH17 where and when.<br />
:P.S. – There is supposedly a video somewhere of a Buk fired. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 12:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
:WSJ has a crappy map: [http://graphics.wsj.com/mh17-crash-map/?standalone=1 How MH17 Came Apart Over Ukraine] – Fails to show any of what the title claims. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 12:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== The Defector Theory ==<br />
* [http://eyesopenreport.com/u-s-prepares-to-blame-mh17-shoot-down-on-ukrainian-army-defector/#more-13012 U.S. Prepares to Blame MH17 Shoot Down on Ukrainian Army “Defector”] Paul Joseph Watson , July 23<br />
:''In an attempt to explain away the existence of evidence which shows Ukrainian troops firing the missile that brought down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, Washington may be preparing to fix the intelligence by pinning the blame on a “defector” in order to absolve Kiev.''<br />
:''As we reported on Monday, award winning former AP and Newsweek reporter Robert Parry was told by an intelligence source that the U.S. is in possession of images which show men dressed in Ukrainian Army uniforms operating the Buk missile system which shot down MH17. If proven accurate, such information would completely eviscerate Washington and Kiev’s already shaky narrative that Russian-backed separatist rebels were responsible for the attack.''<br />
:''The U.S. State Department now appears to be shifting the emphasis of its narrative to discount the possibility that Kiev itself was responsible for shooting down MH17. As the L.A. Times reported yesterday, “U.S. officials said it was possible the SA-11 [anti-aircraft missile] was launched by a defector from the Ukrainian military who was trained to use similar missile systems.” Blaming the incident on a “defector” would allow the U.S. to explain why the culprit was wearing a Ukrainian Army uniform when he shot down the airliner.''<br />
Sounds intriguing, and Robert Parry is usually pretty reliable.Seems worth a section here to see how it pans out. Skipping the prior Infowars article, [http://consortiumnews.com/2014/07/20/what-did-us-spy-satellites-see-in-ukraine/ This from July 20] seems to be the original explanation by Parry at Consortium News. I'm not encouraged by the details - the images aren't video or photo, but satellite. Parry mentions the limits of what satellites can see, but rightly points out they could see any Buk system component. Russia's satellites saw the ones run by Kiev's pro-America junta, first at their normal base, then somewhere else '''on July 17.''' What you can't as likely see is smaller details like the exact pattern on a person's shirt, or what the label on a bottle says, if even its shape. But he says:<br />
:''What I’ve been told by one source, who has provided accurate information on similar matters in the past, is that U.S. intelligence agencies do have detailed satellite images of the likely missile battery that launched the fateful missile, but the battery appears to have been under the control of Ukrainian government troops dressed in what look like Ukrainian uniforms.''<br />
:''The source said CIA analysts were still not ruling out the possibility that the troops were actually eastern Ukrainian rebels in similar uniforms but the initial assessment was that the troops were Ukrainian soldiers. There also was the suggestion that the soldiers involved were undisciplined and possibly drunk, since the imagery showed what looked like beer bottles scattered around the site, the source said.''<br />
Ooh, bad move when, as John Kerry, knows, it's the separatists that are the drunken ones in the area. As for where the image was taken, the evidence suggests it was a separatist-policed one. It probably was non-defected Kiev soldiers running it, but false claims to that effect make that possible truth harder to see, in the end. I think Parry's source stopped being credible prior to this latest. Anyone else more inclined to accept this evidence? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Everyone is trash talking everyone else. I'm not believing any of it. It was partly cloudy that day and you'd have to be very lucky to have a satellite pass overhead just when a BUK gets launched. It is much more likely that whatever the US has it got from a spy plane, such as the RC-135 they have operating in the area.(On July 18 some Russian MIGs approached it and it had to fly off over Sweden without permission). https://medium.com/war-is-boring/u-s-spy-plane-reportedly-violated-swedish-air-space-to-escape-russian-fighters-424d05e11bd5 Sorry can't find it now, but another story said land radar had locked onto them, which is why they left in such a hurry. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 03:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: [http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ Russian press conference:] "As far as we know, there was indeed a US satellite flying over southeastern Ukraine on July 17 from 17:06 to 17:21 Moscow time." That will be 16.06 to 16.21 local. _If true_, this is likely to show at least part of the trajectory. No need for satellite's beer bottle photos. -- [[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 03:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: As I recall, somewhere on the news there was a claim that there is no US radar data (too far) --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 03:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: US: “We saw the take-off. We saw the trajectory, we saw the hit. We saw this aeroplane disappear from the radar screens. So there is really no mystery about where it came from and where these weapons have come from." [http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/foreign-affairs/we-saw-the-hit-we-saw-plane-disappear-says-john-kerry-on-mh17/story-fn59nm2j-1227022300618?nk=9b529f73960c26d0085eae5193a5b6b7] (Hope not on a fake photo)? --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 05:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::The photo that popped up for me showed lots of flowers and photos of Diana, Princess of Wales, i.e from 1997. So in true ''The Australian'' tradition a fake. FYI ''The Australian'' is one of the least accurate papers in Australia and runs a very heavy anti-Russian and pro-Israel line. --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 05:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== False-Flag Theories ==<br />
=== Andriy Parubiy again? ===<br />
<br />
Pepe Escobar names Andriy Parubiy as a possible suspect.<br />
* [http://rt.com/op-edge/174088-was-it-putin-missile/ It was Putin’s missile!] – ''RT'', July 19, 2014<br />
:''Carlos’s assessment: the missile was fired by the Ukraine military under orders of the Ministry of Interior - NOT the Ministry of Defense. Security matters at the Ministry of the Interior happen to be under Andrey Paruby, who was closely working alongside US neo-cons and Banderastan neo-Nazis on Maidan.<br />
-- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 02:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
::From what I've read on the guy, he's likely enough to be behind this that, really, all Ukraine's airspace should be closed until he's no longer on the loose. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Robert Parry introduces Parubiiy in [http://consortiumnews.com/2014/07/20/what-did-us-spy-satellites-see-in-ukraine/ his July 20 article,] and mentions:<br />
:''It was this same Parubiy whom the Post writers turned to seeking more information condemning the eastern Ukrainian rebels and the Russians regarding the Malaysia Airlines catastrophe. Parubiy accused the rebels in the vicinity of the crash site of destroying evidence and conducting a cover-up, another theme that resonated through the MSM.''<br />
:''Without bothering to inform readers of Parubiy’s unsavory neo-Nazi background, the Post quoted him as a reliable witness declaring: “It will be hard to conduct a full investigation with some of the objects being taken away, but we will do our best.”'' --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
FTR, Andriy Parubiy [http://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/30934.html resigned yesterday]. Same day the following came out. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Valentyn Nalyvaichenko ===<br />
<br />
On August 7, SBU head Valentyn Nalyvaichenko introduced a new narrative ([http://www.sbu.gov.ua/sbu/control/en/publish/article?art_id=129860&cat_id=35317 release on SBU website] / [https://archive.today/KItnx archived snapshot]) apparently contradicting their released audio tapes that early on helped form the narrative of an accidental shoot-down of MH17 by "rebels" who thought it was a military plane. Now the story goes that the Russians planned to shoot down an Aeroflot plane in a false flag operation blaming it on Ukraine, to have a pretext for invasion. But the "Russian mercenaries" moved their Buk to a different location than planned and mistook MH17 for the Aeroflot machine with their own people they wanted to kill. What exactly they prepared to blame it on Ukraine (maybe Ukrainian uniforms or something?), or why a plane full of AIDS researchers and Dutch children couldn't be used as a pretext (Russian people don't care about Dutch children?), is not explained. Nalyvaichenko [[Talk:Ukraine_2014#Mercenaries_commanded_by_Andriy_Parubiy|has been implicated by his predecessor]] in the sniper killings on Maidan, together with Andriy Parubiy.--[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*Human Rights Investigations, Aug. 7 - [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/08/07/in-ukraine-the-lunatics-have-taken-over-the-asylum/ In Ukraine, the lunatics have taken over the asylum] This relates a SBU statement of earlier in the day outlining their latest theory. As said before, Russians did it, with a system they brought in and took right back with them. Most people have presumed there's no motive for Russia to shoot down an airliner into the separatist's area on their behalf, and it must have been an accident. The SBU's thinkers decided it was intentional, but with an accidental part too. '''They meant to shoot down a Russian airliner''', but set themselves up in the wrong town, so they hit MH17 instead. The original plan was to use dead Russians blamed on Kiev as a reason to invade Ukraine, but when it was other people dead, he said never mind. Awesome theory, no? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: Beat you to it, put it here where it belongs... bizarre. Interesting that Parubiy resigned (see above the subheadline) the same day this came out, isn't it?--[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::Awesome, tag-teamed it with similar technique. Parubiy, huh! That gave zero reason, didn't it? It's not 'to spend more time with my family.' No, he notes on the way out, he still belongs at the "forefrongfront." --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]])<br />
:::: FTR [http://rt.com/news/178760-ukraine-security-chief-resigns/ RT says] "On Monday, reports appeared in Ukrainian media about Parubiy’s resignation. The Local Zn.ua website, citing its source, said that the security chief is due to resign due to diverging opinions with the country’s president. The media stated that Parubiy decided to resign after he was ordered to declare another ceasefire in Kiev’s military operation in the southeast of the country, but he refused to do so." --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:22, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::: [http://www.unn.com.ua/ru/news/1374133-p-poroshenko-doruchiv-rozsliduvati-proval-spetsoperatsiyi-na-kordoni-z-rf-zmi This article] announces an investigation into the "Southern Cauldron" disaster and calls Parubiy the "main author" of the plan that led to it. Maybe that's the reason. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 16:47, 10 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/08/ukrainian-sbu-comes-with-conspiracy.html Ukraine@War views the theory favorably] --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:34, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
* And [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/08/debunking-sbu-theory-of-afl2074-mh17.html not impressed with one de-bunk effort] but rather more convinced!<br />
<br />
: Yeah, we got it the first time already. The guy is a knucklehead. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Cyber Berkut leak ===<br />
{{Main|Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Cyber Berkut leak}}<br />
* [http://en.voicesevas.ru/news/analytics/2793-kolomoyskiy-assistants-facebook-account-hacked-the-boeing-downed-by-junta.html Kolomoyskiy assistant’s Facebook account hacked - the Boeing downed by junta!]<br />
<br />
=== SBU wiretap video ===<br />
:''Moved to [[/SBU Audio Evidence]]<br />
<br />
===Corbett report===<br />
Petri just put this on the main page<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWlAARb0fN4<br />
<br />
I ASSUME it is going to be a false flag nonsense. After 8 whole minutes of introductory waffle and advertising, he still has not started on the topic, so I am not watching any more of it. It is titled "MH17 FULLY EXPOSED!! You Won't Believe The SHOCKING TRUTH About the Ukraine FALSE FLAG ". they are right, I won't believed a word of it. Don't bother with it. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 01:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== A False-Flag Defector Theory ==<br />
Here's one way the facts might wind up going: an SA-11 was fired from outside Snizneh, as alleged, and that's what killed MH17. The Buk launcher was even welcomed in by local commanders, heard saying so in audio communications that could prove true (or not), was sent to the spot by them, and then disavowed in embarrassment. And also the launcher came from Kiev's arsenal, the shootdown was not a mistake, and the crime carried out by pro-Kiev false-flaggers in the proud Euromaidan tradition. Here's how that could all be so:<br />
<br />
Some secret Right-winger in the army playing a disgusted defector makes contact with local rebels on July 15. He heard about the apartment bombing that day in Snizneh, and about the junta's plans for another run at the same place two days later. But, he said, he could get access to a launcher at the base north of Donetsk, a disloyal guard who'd take a bribe (small, covered) plus even a couple local defectors trained to run it, and even a truck from his part time job - the boss wouldn't notice it missing, he's such a clueless junta-supporter... Yeah, he could have it all mobile, drive it himself, make all the contacts, have their guys check it out, it works! It'll shoot down anything. They can get it put in place and wait. In this version, the "SBU wiretap" audio was maybe their defector's own phone - he was undercover the whole time, "wearing a wire" - the launcher was a trojan horse, and its crew were evil and knew just what they where they were and just what they were doing. <br />
<br />
On the rebel end, having no clue there will be a mass murder ensuing, and seeing nothing criminal in preventing a second junta air force atrocity, happily waved the thing in. They were supposed to meet someone in Snizneh, but drove off mysteriously. Then MH17 came down and, in dread and shock, the rebels decided to dis-acknowledge the whole deal, and no one's simply come clean about it yet. But the "defector" meme coming out might be spurred by its partial truth, along lines kind of like this, and not from some satellite photos. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: Hey CL, apart from your vivid imagination, do you have even just a whisper to back this up? And if we're speculating, how would you like to forget Snizneh and look at Chornukhyne as the launch site? At the time was on almost no man's land, under Don Cossack Control. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 14:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::: Do I have evidence? Yes. There are these pieces we're considering, supposed to point that way, that might or might not. This theory here is sort of a "worst case scenario" where all those come out true, or an idea for those who believe all those clues, to show how alternate explanations still exist even then. Im am fairly convinced of the core parts, much less on the calls, but this is more a though exercise than "my theory," although it's not far from my working theory and become it if the audio is genuine after all. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 22:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: Yeah, similar to KatKan question is bugging me as well . Why not to look, let's say, perhaps somewhere else? (hopefully without creating sudden burst of fighting or urgent land management work just right exactly there, if possible )? --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 14:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: yeah, early intercepted call said ""These are Chernukhin folks who shot down the plane. From the Chernukhin check point. Those Cossacks who are based in Chernukhino." and nobody's ever looked there. It is same distance as Snizneh and 90 degrees to the flight path so an easy shot. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 15:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: I certainly would not know why a reputable news-maker would pay travel expenses going to Snezhny but not this other well-flagged place nearby. The only new comment I have to make here is that this is a big expensive truck, not a flag costing one grivna/ruble {nor is it a can of some chemicals). It is your best air defense, and there aren't many. So it is either off front line or it is there, somewhere, for a real strong reason. --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 19:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: Okay, the other town being named is one clue for another site, and no one looking could be why there's nothing else. I'm not sure how Chernukin connects - If the burned spot is up there, or there's another one... maybe the defector made his contact with those guys, and so his little team was called part of theirs - Miner brought them. As for why the other area, it was indicated and they say it had burn marks at the end (can't be checked and ruled in or out), so they went and it ''appears'' to have been smart. In the other direction, a mention the responsible people are ''from'' there, not even that they fired from there. But at least it's not pulled out of thin air. If there becomes more to support it, I'll consider more. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 22:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::: We may want to put the audio story in order separately, someplace, if it was not done. I was following it initially, but now references are hard to find. <br />
<br />
:::::Agreed. This happens here sometimes. Hoping it helps, I made [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/SBU Audio Evidence|a page for that subject]] and moved comments from both of you guys over there. Hope I didn't mess anything up in the process - please review. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::::You did indeed delete a whole bunch of stuff instead of "moving" it. Restored here. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::As I recall (but do not have links saved), this is Bes recordings, glued together from genuine pieces. (I believe Bes said pieces are genuine early on himself) The first piece, mentioning Enakievo, is about a different earlier episode--as he himself responded. His response about second piece, mentioning Cossacks, was much more evasive, something like 'if every block post has a Buk, than I'll be in Kiev'. But it is clear that at the time of event, he had reason to believe that something was going on over there. That does not say this happened as he thought, Cossacks may be shooting pistols not Buks or whatever; but it may looked like something is launched from there, or whatever the case might be. This does suggest some notable event at that location. I do not see genuine evidence pointing to the current official version; it is more consistent with somebody trying to put a false flag there so that all attention of social networkers go that way. Chasing this flag further is a waste of time in my opinion, and is unlikely to produce anything new which is not known already. Looking the other way, even pointing out there is SOME other way, might. (Actually, it looks like attempts were made to place SEVERAL false flags, and than whatever was picked up , was supported by some further noise). --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 23:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::: (Coincidently) just above I posted [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T34AB6CImTE an alleged proof of audio fakery] of some SBU-released audio, likely from the first batch. As I said, I didn't look into it really closely. Maybe worth doing so. Claim is that it was cut together from several audio tapes. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 23:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::::Bes in the audio (perhaps glued from pieces) does [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJnD1wgofYM say] Cossacks from Chernukhino block post shot the plane down, those Cossacks _standing_ at Cherknukhino. Why everybody is looking the other way just beats me --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 00:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::::: This brief piece on Chernukhino Cossacks is disconnected from the first piece (about Miner, apparently another rebel) and from discussion of discovering that it was a passenger plane and of the bodies. Chernukhino piece is timed at 16.33 on the crash day. First piece (Miner) is timed earlier, actually, at 16:40, and talks about a different location (really bad gluing skill here; this miner thing is most likely from another day, and I recall that was claimed in discussions which followed. ) Gluing is beyond any doubt; but individual pieces sound genuine for my ears. So he does not actually say it was his Cossacks or what they shot was a passenger plane; just that (some) Cossacks standing at Chernukhino shot (some ) plane, and than it cuts off; rebel blame is rather what this gluing order is trying to convey on us. I would certainly check this out. --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 01:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::I've gone back to early things to refresh my memory. And the whole tone of voice was different then. Today it is all propaganda and fantastic stories from everyone.The first 2 days everyone sounded genuine, spoke unthinking,not for effect. So I am thinking, things said early are more likely true. Yes that video with the telephone calls was from 3 separate calls, and at least one maybe not from July 17. The one about Yenaklevo I think is another day. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 00:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Debunked topics ==<br />
:''Moved to [[/Debunked topics]]<br />
<br />
This link http://adam1baum.blogspot.fi/2014/08/another-journalist-exposes-mh17-false.html <br />
<br />
just added to the main page under "Analysis"<br />
is FULL of items already debunked. Are the "analysis" items being added without comment? just to collect them? [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 16:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Yes, basically the main page is for pre-scrutiny source material. Analysis is mainly to collect them. I had a quick look at the blog post, but noticed most of the topics were debunked long ago. Or should be debunked. For example, it seems that MH17 may have flown a different route on previous days, but there were plenty of other Asia flight in the Donetsk airspace. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 20:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Warhead damage ==<br />
:''Moved to [[/Forensics#Warhead damage]]<br />
<br />
== Radar Evidence ==<br />
:''Moved to [[/Map#Radar Evidence]]<br />
<br />
== Cockpit Voice Recorder ==<br />
Thanks for a start, Charles, will review. I was watching for that, gathering a bit of background on the CVR angle. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
* July 23: good condition http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/malaysian-airlines-flight-mh17-cockpit-voice-recorder-in-good-condition-1.2715671<br />
:''The cockpit voice recorder of the Malaysian airliner downed over Ukraine is in good condition, the UN civil aviation body said on Wednesday,'' <br />
:''"The cockpit voice recorder is in good condition ... the digital flight data recorder is still under review," ICAO said in a statement.''<br />
* July 23, downloaded: http://www.eturbonews.com/48306/mh-17-cockpit-voice-recorder-data-downloaded<br />
:''On Tuesday 22 July 2014 at 22:00 inKiev, Ukraine, the flight data and cockpit voice recorders (the 'black boxes') from the Malaysian Airlines flight 17 were taken into custody by the Dutch ambassador and a team of investigators led by the Dutch Safety Board. The Dutch Safety Board requested that the Air Accident Investigation Branch of theUnited Kingdom (AAIB) perform the data download from both the recorders. The recorders were transported to the AAIB's laboratory at Farnborough, arriving 23rd July in the early morning.''<br />
<br />
::I just got a real TinFoil idea. The black boxes were found in the wheatfield where they also found some bodies on day ONE. There were daily reports that they had been found and were going to be sent to Russia. Then on July 21 they were "found" ON CAMERA...and the guy carried it a long way, stuck out in front of him, to a command post of some sort, the camera following him the whole way. Not a rebel but an official Emergency Services guy. Nice "evidence" of chain of possession. BUT there is a 3-day gap there, when something could be taken the 80 miles or so to a place called Rostov, and back again. Black boxes have ports for cables to be attached,they don't need to be pulled apart to be read. What if Russia already has a copy of what was on the black boxes? adding to their confidence? [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 15:21, 26 December 2014 (UTC) <br />
:::If something is doable, but they have not done it, than one can ask, why have not they. But also, propaganda warfare is on (recently seeing ex-official Kudrin interview voicing displeasure over propaganda being on). This is mostly for internal consumption, Channel 1 TV and the like, but it can spill over elsewhere, presumably. [http://www.nytimes.com/video/world/europe/100000003011003/malaysian-planes-black-box-retrieved.html July 20 video (NY Times)] (indeed, looks like staged 'find") --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:43, 26 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== AAIB Analysis ===<br />
Analysis of the CVR from here on should be by the UK Air Accidents Investigation Branch. We shall see. For the record, they came out far less shady in the Lockerbie investigation 25 years ago than the now-fazed out RARDE and its hacks Hayes and Feraday, or the FBI's stumblebum "Tom" Thurman (see [http://lockerbiedivide.blogspot.com/2010/11/political-scientists-of-lockerbie.html The Political Scientists of Lockerbie.] I might have been overly fair - Dr. Morag Kerr could tell you in more detail some of the problems with even the AAIB's work there setting the explosion center. But this was 25 years ago, They're only looking at the flight data this time, not the wreckage. We're on the verge of world war, with this the latest information front. They're in London. They'll tell us the truth only if it fits okay with their narrative. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::The crash investigation of Lockerbie was fine. It was the criminal investigation that was messed up. They didn't do that, FBI got involved, same as in TWA800. Some facts seem to depend a fair bit on who is looking at them. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 03:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== New Straits Times - CVR ===<br />
<br />
THE preliminary analysis of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17’s cockpit voice recorder (CVR) revealed “nothing out of the ordinary”.<br />
<br />
A source close to the international investigation told the New Sunday Times that the CVR downloaded by the United Kingdom’s Air Accidents Investigation Branch had picked up the communications between the Malaysia Airlines’ pilot and an unspecified personnel with an air traffic controller (ATC).<br />
<br />
“So far, from what the team has heard, there was nothing unusual. The last voice heard was not the pilot’s. No, there was no indication that the pilots saw or sensed anything off,” the source said without elaborating further to protect the investigations.<br />
<br />
This may mean that whatever happened was very sudden.<br />
<br />
The CVR records all communications on the flight deck, including transmissions with air traffic controllers, discussions between the flight crew, cabin announcements and conversations with any other crew entering the cabin.<br />
<br />
In this case, it could provide investigators with some insight into the flight crew’s mindset and emotional state if they had to deal with an emergency in the final moments.<br />
<br />
However, it remains unclear if the Dutch-led investigation team had secured the recordings from the Ukrainian air traffic controllers to match the conversations between the ATC staff and the MH17 flight crew.<br />
<br />
Asked about the Ukrainian government’s revelation on Monday that the aircraft was brought down by “a massive explosive decompression”, the source said the statement was “unconfirmed”.<br />
<br />
The source told the NST that the “initial factual findings” of the probes into the shootdown of MH17 were expected to be released next week.<br />
<br />
It is learnt that investigations also centred heavily on the findings provided by the group of three Malaysian investigators, who were among the first to reach the crash site and conduct probes.<br />
<br />
The NST was told that instead of the 200 reported earlier, the experts dissecting the flight data recorder (FDR) were looking at 1,500 parameters of the black box.<br />
<br />
The FDR records essential flight data parametres at least 10 times per second and defines the aircraft’s flight path and motion.<br />
<br />
The data also include primary information, such as position, altitude, airspeed and heading. This allows investigators to reconstruct the aircraft’s flight path.<br />
<br />
Also recorded in the FDR are the aircraft’s aerodynamics and engine parameters, including information from the air data computer and sensors.<br />
<br />
The Dutch Safety Board (DSB), which is leading the international investigation into the downing of the aircraft, had said the findings would likely provide a picture of how the investigation would proceed.<br />
<br />
Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak had said the aircraft’s flight data recorder and the CVR were among the “hard evidence” the investigation team needed to find out what happened.<br />
<br />
DSB spokesman Sara Vernooij was quoted as saying the board would likely say “what it can rule out” and “what it is going to focus on”.<br />
<br />
It is understood that the team of investigators at the crash site in eastern Ukraine would carry out verification of information that had been gathered from other sources.<br />
<br />
This is to allow them to search<br />
for possible new information and collect material for the investigation, such as pieces of the wreckage.<br />
<br />
The Dutch police had earlier this week received 150 photos<br />
and video clips on their server<br />
set up to piece together the mystery.<br />
<br />
The photos were uploaded by eyewitnesses from what has been described as “the world’s biggest crime scene”.<br />
<br />
[http://www.nst.com.my/node/19598 New Straits Times CVR report]<br />
--[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 12:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== ATC recordings ==<br />
Initially it was reported that the SBU confiscated the ATC air-to-ground-communication. After weeks the Malaysians asked the Ukrainian ambassador to their country about this, and he denied that it had happened. He said he had no idea what happened to them and no formal request of any investigating party has been made. The Malaysian Attorney General then announced that he will make a formal request to get the recordings. This according to:<br />
* [http://www.nst.com.my/node/21260 Malaysia wants the ‘missing’ Ukrainian ATC tapes], New Straits Times, August 8, 2014<br />
--[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Investigation==<br />
* [[Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Dutch preliminary report|Dutch preliminary report]] ([[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Dutch preliminary report |talk]])<br />
<br />
talk moved here from accidental location on Main page [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 08:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* [http://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/en/onderzoek/2049/investigation-crash-mh17-17-july-2014/onderzoek/1559/questions-and-answers-concerning-the-investigation-into-flight-mh17 Investigation crash MH17, 17 July 2014 Donetsk – Dutch Safety Board] 21 Aug 2014<br />
<br />
<br />
:Interesting list of countries involved. I wonder how Russia and Germany got on this list? from the above report<br />
<br />
:"The following countries have contributed (to a greater or lesser extent) to the international investigation team into the crash of flight MH17: '''Ukraine, Malaysia, Australia, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States, Germany, France, Italy and Indonesia.''' The ICAO and the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) also contributed to the investigation as organisations. The leadership of the investigation rests with the Dutch Safety Board, which will publish both the preliminary and final report. The countries that have a formal role as participants in the investigation under the ICAO agreement will be given access to the draft reports, and may provide feedback. The country leading the investigation may offer other countries access to the draft reports at its discretion." [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 07:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Germany, maybe just provided radar data for the stretch that flew over them. Russia, maybe because they were asked to tell the federalists to let investigators do their work (a stupid but real way of thinking, as if Putin hired all these people). Maybe they were asked for their own radar data too. Indonesia's connection is not too obvious, but I suppose there is one. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 08:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
:: Buks--which were widely reported to be suspected rocket and which Ukraine is known to have , is designed and manufactured in Russia, and ONLY Russia would know exact technical details, if those are at issue to the investigation. It is NOT having Russia is what would make zero sense. --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 09:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: Good point there. We could use more detailed specs here too (though reliable airliner measures and hole size needs settled first anyway) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::It says " on the days following the incident (when Ukraine was still leading the investigation), several Ukrainian aviation investigators visited the crash site briefly several times for investigative purposes." They must have sneaked in disguise as rescue workers collecting bodies. And maybe it was they responsible for some of the "cutting up and removing evidence" and maybe they decently handed it over to the Dutch, whatever they found useful. <br />
:::: Are you SURE the BUKs are made in Russia? I know they ere designed there, so were the Antonovs and helicopters which Ukraine not only makes but exports to other countries. They make radar and big rockets too. Mostly in the south east...8th largest arms manufacturer in the world.<br />
<br />
<br />
:::::I do not have means to verify that no plant in Ukraine is producing books, but my understanding based on press reports, is that production is in Dolgoprudnyi, Moscow. That makes logical sense and I do not have a reason to think that this report is not accurate . There is no way for me to check this 100 sitting on my chair. Did anybody even claimed that there is a plant based in Ukrain capable of producing Buks? I have not seen such reports. It is possible that some components were normally exported from somewhere else in former SU, but it looks like final assembly at least is near Moscow . (That would also make logical sense, and I do not have grounds to dispute the report [http://www.ibtimes.com/maker-buk-missile-may-have-shot-down-mh17-targeted-recent-us-sanctions-1632698] --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 01:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
::::Anyway this is only Air Safety report. Criminal investigation if any has to be done by different department (but could be in any country involved). There won't be criminal charges. The finding will be "missile fired by persons unknown". [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 12:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
* [http://en.ria.ru/world/20140823/192273535/Russia-Wants-Regular-Transparent-Reports-on-MH17-Crash.html Russia Wants Regular, Transparent Reports on MH17 Crash Probe] – RIA Novosti, 23/08/2014 -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) aug 24 not signed<br />
<br />
:This story looks like for domestic consumption, <br />
<br />
::Maybe in small part, but mostly it is more like you accused us--where is the proof? With intention to have the matter dropped, not to escalate the matter. This is not working very well, it just gets stuck, because the other part is not paying much attention. They are not trying to work together at all, and so it just reflects that there is a lot of unresolved tension. --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 05:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:to make it look like the "West" is hiding something. <br />
::::A bit of that , --certainly they want to recieve as early as possible all available evidence, and they were saying in the past that they had not. But in terms of tone, the reason is concern with insufficient respect to Russia, so the payback is, hey,go bring us some pointless paper. So there are tone problems, not just substance problems, --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 07:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:It refers to <br />
Resolution 2166 adopted by the UN Security Council in July calls for a thorough and impartial investigation into the MH17 tragedy and requires the secretary-general to provide the Security Council with investigation progress reports". which is nonsense, as Security Council has no access, will not do own investigation, and it is being done under international laws by the Dutch. Furthermore, as a member of the investigation panel, Russia knows this. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 22:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::The original story is that separatists shot it down with a BUK. The physical evidence only points to a proximity fuse missile ''of some sort'', several types of these available including air to air ones. USA claims but has not shown satellite evidence of a BUK being fired frm "rebel held territory". This is UNTRUE as satellite would not show the type of evidence they claim to have. So to produce evidence they would have the show what they really have, which must be off a spy plane. Domestically they want to hide that they had enough interest in the area to operate such a plane there, though everyone locally knows. They will not produce this for a criminal case. No criminal case is possible without proof of who (what person or unit) shot it. Anyway the consensus also was that they were aiming at a legitimate military target, so was accidental.<br />
::Several other accidental "wrong target" scenarios are possible, and almost as equally likely. If there WERE Ukrainian aircraft near MH17 (and witnesses said there WAS a fighter there) they may have been the target, of separatists OR RUSSIAN AIRCRAFT which of course are not meant to be in Ukrainian air space -- but would not have to be, to be close enough to shoot a missile at one. Alternatively a Russian one may have been the target of a Ukrainian plane. Either way the much larger and intervening B777 would have captured the attention of the missile. <br />
::The Russian "radar proof" of SUs being there were fake. But based on some knowledge that there WERE some there. If their own planes saw them, they can't admit to that.<br />
::There is enough doubt for all parties to NOT WANT a thorough investigation. Nobody can do one with hopes of blaming the other, without potentially incriminating themselves. <br />
::So it will not happen. Whichever way it was, the missile was aimed at a legitimate target. So at most the charge could only be negligence. Discovering whose negligence would only escalate hostilities. Nobody wants that. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 07:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
:::All signed and should-be-signed chit chat should ideally be on a talk page, not front (article) page. Friendly reminder. (and I say ideally as I and others have done this before and sometimes never fixed it, but it's not ideal) (good talk though) :) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 08:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::sorry, I started it there, fixed now. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 08:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== November 2014 ===<br />
<br />
Dutch experts are back at the scene, this time collecting the wreckage. As [http://www.sputniknews.com/europe/20141111/1014605576.html RIA Novosti reports], an agreement with the DPR has been signed yesterday, but there were some shenanigans with the Dutch delivering a second version of the agreement in which any mention of "DPR" was erased. Grow a spine, cheeseheads, FFS. ''Your'' children died there. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Correspondents in the area say there was shelling of the wreckage area by Ukraine on 10 of November [http://rusvesna.su/news/1415708946 (KP correspondent-rusvesna)] . They have a video from the scene; I don't think shelling is heard there, but it is a very brief clip. They show damage in the metal, a thin crack which goes from the inside out. It may be missile shrapnel shooting the plane through, entering, than exiting on the other side of the plane, there is no problem with that. Cracks looks most consistent with missile shrapnel (which may be a rhombus plate). Woman in the second half does not say things of help to investigation, she heard explosion and seen smoke, but that was about it. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
What are they on about?? they went there weeks ago to pick up luggage and belongings,no problems, no OSCE help either. Left most of it behind.Few days later Graham Phillips showed heaps of stuff still there -- including BONES. They were quietly invited back (BY DPR)went back and found some bones. Few days ago went back, found more remains WITH DPR PEOPLE WITH THEM. Well yeah, it's only about 25 km from Debaltseve, true. Ukies shelling that way on purpose to scare them off, was nothing when they were there secretly. On other hand their PM didn't knows they were there either? he's a snarling venom-spitter agaist Putin. "Rutte has always said he doesn’t want to negotiate with the pro-Russian separatists because he doesn’t recognize their self-proclaimed regional government." what BS you negotiate with whoever is there, who else? the man in the moon? Malaysia negotiated with them and got back all the bodies and the black boxes. Kiev was not going to give them, even if they'd been able to. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 14:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
=== December 2014 ===<br />
At SBU press conference given by Vasilii Vovk, and lasting some 30 minutes, MH17 crashed was mentioned. It was said that final outcome of investigation may be not exactly the same as initially announced, and that investigators have recovered fragments in passengers bodies which may show that the plane was shot by a missile. [http://rusvesna.su/news/1419023898 Reports on this (rusvesna)] came out with a title claiming that SBU admitted that MH17 could be shot from a plane; that seems to be a lot stronger than what SBU actually announced. They did say that [http://112.ua/glavnye-novosti/v-telah-passazhirov-boinga-obnaruzheny-elementy-kotorye-mogut-byt-chastyami-raket-sbu-163012.html "there are many reasons to think that those were missile fragments"]. Here is [http://112.ua/glavnye-novosti/v-sbu-ne-uvereny-chto-iznachalnaya-versiya-krusheniya-samoleta-naydet-100-procentnoe-podtverzhdenie-163013.html 112.ua report, and press conference video (Ukrainian)] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 08:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* http://uatoday.tv/crime/bodies-of-mh17-victims-contain-missile-fragments-sbu-says-398439.html <br />
"Chief of the Investigation Department of the Security Service of Ukraine and the co-chair of the international investigation group into the crash, Vasiliy Vovk." This is one and the same person, then, not a joint statement. UNIAN reports from this "the bodies of some of the passengers killed in the plane crash contain metal objects that were not part of the aircraft," now citing external forces. Apparently, per the above, he said a jet-fired missile was possible, and Russian media latches onto that. UNIAN emphasizes the other half of the options: "One of the main theories being considered is that the plane was shot down by a Buk missile system from territory controlled by terrorist groups," Vovk said." --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Eliot Higgins [https://twitter.com/EliotHiggins/status/546064079350411264 tweets]: Preview of interview with the head of the #MH17 criminal investigation ‘Geen satellietbeelden van neerschieten MH17’ http://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2014/12/19/geen-satellietbeelden-van-neerschieten-mh17/ --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:Translated, Westerbeke basically says there is no video-movie type satellite imagery proof of what happened, as many had come to expect. Makes sense to me. But there should be data that can be read and then presented graphically, that should indicate what happened. Should be forthcoming? To note, new to me, Malaysia has maybe been invited into the JIT (Joint Investigation Team, once a total secret) - the article lists member states as "Oekraïne, Australië, Maleisië, België en Nederland." --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: Malaysia was finally allowed into the club [http://www.nst.com.my/node/60321 on or around December 8]. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===February 2015===<br />
The team of international aviation investigators who investigate the cause and contributing factors of the crash of flight MH17 concluded the investigation meeting at Gilze-Rijen. In the past week they conducted several investigations on the wreckage, including the fractures, the failure mechanisms and the impact patterns. This meeting is part of the procedures prescribed by the ICAO provisions on international aircraft accident and incident investigation.<br />
<br />
The investigators represented the countries involved in the MH17 investigation: Ukraine, Malaysia, Australia, United States, United Kingdom and the Russian Federation. The representatives of Belgium and Germany attended the meeting on February 17. A representative of ICAO was also present.<br />
<br />
Next week preparations will be made for the visit of next of kin to see the recovered wreckage in the first week of March. The planned three-dimensional reconstruction of a part of the aircraft will start soon. The next of kin will be allowed to view this three-dimensional reconstruction at a later time. [http://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/en/onderzoek/2049/investigation-crash-mh17-17-july-2014/onderzoek/1622/international-aviation-investigators-conclude-meeting-at-gilze-rijen#fasen /Dutch Safety Board, 20.02.2015] <br />
: and ...? --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 21:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: The great Alex Thomson has been there lately, finding [https://twitter.com/alextomo/status/566945066284228608 piles of Malaysian Airlines jet wreckage] still around. Guess that's not needed for their 3D reconstruction. All very shady and quite disappointing if one (like me) has held the Dutch in high regard when it comes to thoroughness and integrity. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 21:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===March 2015===<br />
[http://nos.nl/artikel/2027660-justitie-zoekt-getuigen-van-neerhalen-mh17-door-buk-raket.html Something from Netherlands emerged], claimed to be International Investigation team (with Ukraine, but not Russia) with old stuff,+ some (newly?) recorded, some of it at studio quality, zero emotions, suspiciously accented conversation in RUssian about a Buk being moved direct from Russia to somewhere near Snezhnoe by some unknown, but surely opolchenie member, characters --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 16:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
: Some Western operation, announcer quite clearly lived in the West for a while, newly emerged recording of bad guys--something strange about accents (something out of place), and tone (supercalm in presumably tense circumstances, curses with no fire to them appear staged)--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 16:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::[http://www.newsru.com/world/02apr2015/mh17.html Now saying ] [http://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2015/04/01/russische-legerofficier-herkend-op-justitietape-mh17/ (and here)] looking for Petrovskii-Khmuryi, who can be one of the guys on the recording (Do not remember comments from him on the matter...kind of curious) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::Pro-opolchenie blog say that this is old Ukrainian fake presented now as coming from Netherlands. Have not seen Petrovskii comments on the matter. (Manner of speech somewhat reminds him, in a kind of exaggerated way; to me sounds as more likely to be a play-up, --having hard time believing the tone). Recordings attributed to crash day were [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgdqdklrqDA#t=238 published by SBU] on 18 July. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===April 2015===<br />
[http://www.nltimes.nl/2015/04/08/dutch-release-hundreds-of-emails-tied-to-mh17/ Dutch Release Hundreds Of Emails Tied To Mh17]--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Russian demands ===<br />
* [http://en.itar-tass.com/world/750377 Russia proposes appointing UN special envoy for MH17 crash probe — Churkin] – ITAR-TASS, 20 Sept 2014<br />
:''He said that Russian delegation has seen no will on the part of the secretariat to display any initiative to promote international investigation of the crash. “We think it important that the United Nations Secretary General should analyze the state of things on the above problems and deliver a detailed report to the Security Council, including his suggestions about additional measures to promote the investigation,” he said.<br />
:''“It would probably be expedient to look at establishing a post of a secretary general’s envoy on that matter and sending, in collaboration with the OSCE [Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe], a mission to the crash area,” Churkin said.<br />
: Russians are annoyed by disrespect, and by sanctions. [http://itar-tass.com/politika/1455360 During the meeting of the UN Security Council, Churkin urged his colleagues] to work together to clarify the tragic story of the airliner "without any hints and insinuations" and references to the evidence which has not been submitted. "If you do not submit (any proof) than this is not evidence, but just as we say," фига в кармане " ("the 3-finger gesture exhibited in one's own pocket"- basically meaning bullshit). And such things to investigate such serious situations is completely inappropriate," - he stressed. Russians support the official investigation, -but still emit some noise indicating their annoyance. Also, they may have some beliefs regarding the circumstances. <br />
:At the time, it appeared that sanctions and MH17 are [http://time.com/3025173/eu-sanctions-russia-mh17-putin/ linked ] ; and despite a progress towards peace, new sanctions were imposed. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 12:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: [http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1407/18/cnr.04.html UN Ambassador Power Addresses Security Council Meeting] "we cannot rule out technical assistance from Russian personnel" "If indeed Russian-backed separatists were behind this attack on a civilian airliner, they and their backers would have good reason to cover up evidence of their crime. Thus, it is extremely important that an investigation be commenced immediately."--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Germany Decides Rebels Dunnit==<br />
<br />
German Intelligence has decided for definite that the first story was correct - MH17 was downed by a BUK operated by [http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/mh17/prorussian-rebels-downed-mh17-with-ukraine-missile-germans/story-fno88it0-1227095832498 separatists] after all. <br />
Not really surprising, as this is (a) the easiest result based on Occam's Razor and (b) comes at a time Germany would like to do something to help Russia in the sanctions mess but Merkel can't back off yet (and/or different parts of Germany have different degrees of friendship with The Bear). It may also be a smack on the fingers for Ukraine for the neo-nazi mess. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 04:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
We also covered this elsewhere [[Category_talk:Leaks#BND |BND leak]]. (As for positives, they seem to say Ukrainian photos are fake). As for rebel Buk, Bolotov said on 20 July that his Buk is broken, and offered anybody to come and check. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 04:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
:And Kiev also agrees the rebels had no Buk of their own, saying Russia (not Kiev) brought it in on their behalf and fired it. How does BND think it can just make up claims no in the region believes or supports? Will need to have a look, especially at their take on the images used to support Kiev's version of the "not separatists" narrative. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::There's nothing for you to take a look at. This "presentation" was towards a fig leaf secret service control instance, and even [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Ströbele one of the few people on it], a kind of German Ron Paul when it comes to argue against the grain, said he doesn't buy it. And another one of those "kleine Anfragen" made them admit that [https://www.jungewelt.de/schwerpunkt/»keine-eigenen-erkenntnisse« "no own insights" went into that "leaked" statement]. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 23:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/mh17-chief-investigator-says-no-actionable-evidence-yet-in-probe-a-999485.html Chief MH17 Investigator on German Claims: 'We Will Need Evidence'] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 18:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Joost Bosman photos ==<br />
[https://www.flickr.com/photos/33705716@N05/14687945100/sizes/l This one] is interesting. Also [https://www.flickr.com/photos/33705716@N05/14872160254/in/set-72157646326477044 this.] -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 00:14, 12 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Other MH17 analysis ==<br />
<br />
Half-way decent [http://0serg.livejournal.com/146553.html analysis] of the known facts on MH17 in Q & A format. Use Bing translator as google gives up half way through.--[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 01:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== R-27 long-range air-to-air missile? ==<br />
<br />
Work in progress, please leave alone for a an hour. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 15:56, 13 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-27_(air-to-air_missile) R-27 (air-to-air missile)]<br />
* [http://belsat.eu/en/wiadomosci/a,20935,official-russian-military-aircraft-to-blame-for-shooting-down-ukrainian-su25-plane.html Official: Russian military aircraft to blame for shooting down Ukrainian Su-25 plane] – 7 July 2014<br />
* [http://www.ukrinform.ua/eng/news/nsdc_russian_aircraft_shot_down_ukrainian_su_25_plane_323908 NSDC: Russian aircraft shot down Ukrainian Su-25 plane] – July 17, 2014<br />
* [http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/russian-military-plane-shot-down-ukrainian-su-25-aircraft-in-ukraine-356422.html Russian military plane shot down Ukrainian Su-25 aircraft in Ukraine] – Interfax-Ukraine / Kyiv Post, July 17, 2014<br />
<br />
<br />
== R-60 ==<br />
Basic info. Infrared-homing, proximity fuse (radar or optical); range 8 km, altitude 20 km [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/62/Rakiety_R-60_i_R-13M_A381.jpg Photo] (but rods not shown--dummy warhead). [http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-101.html More photos]. Older versions warhead use tungsten expanding rods, newer (R60 M, R60 MK) may use depleted uranium . 3-3.5 kg warhead weight. Exact rod shapes, and whether encasing is suitable to produce fragmentation on top of that, are not found/hard to find.<br />
<br />
It is thought that R 60 rod damage will look similar to [http://s711.photobucket.com/user/smi6086/media/visit61.jpg.html sidewinder,] but straight cut, not L shape --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 23:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 23:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: <s>Here's what R-60 warhead ''allegedly'' [http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/evanesce_girl/8305736/101880/101880_original.jpg looks like] (I can neither confirm nor deny that it is indeed an R-60 warhead, as I simply do not know for sure). If it is true, then there's no way the holes will look even remotely close to Sidewinder damage. (Note that the ruler at the bottom of the photo is in centimeters, not inches).</s> -- [[User:Ed3218|Ed3218]] ([[User talk:Ed3218|talk]]) 17:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::But [http://imperiya.by/news.html?id=139809 other sources] call it anti aircraft shell (artillery) , WW2 times---and it does look like (artillery) shell. patronen.su is a source of the photo (typed on the photo)--, but I could not find that photo there--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 18:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::It got an outer rotating band , those grooves outside. Also material seems to be cast iron, not tungsten-as far as it's possible to tell from the photo --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 18:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::: Looks like you are correct. -- [[User:Ed3218|Ed3218]] ([[User talk:Ed3218|talk]]) 23:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Disinformation? ==<br />
<br />
Chris Harrison [https://www.facebook.com/groups/IOUCO/permalink/631575156955542/ on Facebook:]<br />
* [http://www.discussionist.com/101445081 Overlooked....the mysterious imprisoned US spy who gave the Daily Mail witness testimony about MH-17] – Clarity of Signal, Aug 16, 2014<br />
:''Needing a little help form Novorossiya blogging investigators in regards to this individual who I put a thread up about back in August. He is a very intriguing character that supplied the Daily Mail UK with information that doesn't seem to be mentioned in the ATC to plane transmissions for MH-17 (the ones released by the Dutch Safety Board). The Daily Mail quoted him as saying that the pilots of MH-17 "felt bad". However, this quote and conversation is missing from the DSB's preliminary report. After having performed some minor investigation I found that this same individual was also a key source of misinformation for last years false flag chemical weapons attack in Syria. I'm curious if any other Novorossiya blogging investigators want to attempt to dig deeper on this guy and bring more info to light? He could be somewhat of a 'smoking gun'.<br />
<br />
== Radar jamming and spoofing? ==<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vYaRtY27iY Proof of NATO false flag attack on MH17] – Patrick Roddie, Jul 22, 2014<br />
:''Just one month before the Malaysian airliner was shot down, NATO ran a live exercise using fighter jets to jam the transponders of commercial airliners and spoof them as military jets by broadcasting a military transponder signal at close range. NATO forces seem to have made the doomed Malaysian 777 appear to be a hostile military jet and forced the separatists to open fire. <br />
:''The video evidence of military chaff falling at the crash site reinforces the argument that military fighters were very close to MH17 when it was shot down.<br />
The Russian civilian radar data however shows that the MH17 transponder was not jammed. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 05:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Cause of death? ==<br />
<br />
Up to now it has generally been assumed that the pilots may have died from the "high-energy objects" hitting them while the passengers died almost instantly from hypoxia after the explosive decompression of the cabin. This rapid death might explain the odd "[[/Debunked topics#Bloodless bodies – fake Facebook profiles?|bloodless bodies]]".<br />
<br />
Dutch Foreign Minister Frans Timmermans now says that at least one passenger was found with an oxygen mask on.<br />
* [http://en.itar-tass.com/world/753427 Malaysia Airlines MH17 passenger found with oxygen mask on — Dutch FM] – ITAR-TASS, October 09, 2014<br />
:''The latest finding questions the earlier theory that the 298 victims on board the tragic flight had been killed instantly and indicates that they may have remained conscious after the Boeing aircraft was shot down.<br />
* [http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-10-09/mh-17-false-flag-exposed-after-revelation-passenger-was-wearing-oxygen-mask MH-17 Report False Flag Exposed After Revelation Passenger Was Wearing Oxygen Mask] Zero Hedge, 10/09/2014<br />
:''The mask found around the neck of the unnamed passenger, one of 88 Australian citizens and residents on board, was tested for fingerprints, saliva and DNA but produced no forensic evidence, De Bruin said. "So it is not known how or when that mask got around the neck of the victim," he said.<br />
:''The discovery of the mask and the implications it raised about the passengers' final moments were conveyed to the Australian's family before Timmermans' interview on Wednesday night, the prosecutor's office said. But information was sent out to other family members of the MH-17 victims only on Thursday morning.<br />
-- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 18:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Russia Blames Buk, Secret Info ==<br />
[http://rusvesna.su/news/1413027395 "CyberLeaks" on russvesna] claims 9H314 warhead of 9M38 missile, Buk M1 system. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:11, 11 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* [http://rt.com/news/195128-mh17-crash-cyberberkut-leak/ Kiev secretly received data from MH17 crash investigators – Ukrainian hacktivists] RT Oct. 11<br />
:''Ukrainian CyberBerkut hacktivists claim that they have penetrated the internal network of Ukraine’s Defense Ministry and found proof that Kiev is getting secret data from MH17 crash investigators, including information which implies its involvement.''<br />
<br />
:''A document, posted on the website cyber-berkut.net, and allegedly downloaded from Ukraine’s Defense Ministry network, dates back to August 7 and appears to be signed by Colonel Igor Zorin, the chief of Ukraine’s air defense forces. It is a report which maintains that a fragment of a projectile found together with the debris of the crashed flight MH17 is in fact a damage agent of a 9M38 surface-to-air guided missile belonging to the mobile air defense complex Buk or Buk M1.''<br />
<br />
:''... CyberBerkut claimed that the documents are evidence that the MH17 crash investigation commission and the Ukraine Defense Ministry have “special relations.”'' --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* [http://rt.com/news/194848-mh17-ukrainian-missile-buk/ MH17 crash: Ukraine security chief says missile only Kiev has may be found at crash site] RT Oct. 10 <br />
:''Investigation of the MH17 Boeing-777-200 crash in July will be completed when the remains of the Buk-M air defense missile are found, Valentin Nalivaichenko, head of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), told Ukrainian TV.<br />
::Because:<br />
:''“It will be Russian servicemen who used the Buk-M missile” to take down the passenger jet, he said.''<br />
However, they might have also said it was a certain type - Soviet-era but modernized. I'm not sure if that's so, but if so, Russia's military says they use only "modified" not modernized Buk M-1 and M-2, and only Ukraine has the ones it "modernized." <br />
:''When Mr Nalivaichenko mentions a ‘modernized Buk’ system, he probably means an air defense system that was upgraded by the Ukrainian defense industry. We know that Ukraine has been working in this direction,” the source said, adding that the information about the modernization of Ukrainian Buk systems was confirmed in late June on the Ukrainian Defense Ministry’s website, which reported renovated missile systems becoming operational.''<br />
::And a couple weeks later:<br />
:''On the day that the MH17 was shot down, Ukraine’s 156th SAM regiment carried out an unauthorized missile launch, an emergency situation that is being investigated by the SBU and obviously being hushed up by Kiev authorities, the official said.''<br />
::Therefore:<br />
:''“The confusion and inconsistency of Nalivaichenko’s responses leaves no doubt that he mentioned a plan that definitely had not been developed by the SBU, but rather brought in the other day from their overseas mentors,” the Joint Staff source said. “This is Nalivaichenko and his big mouth blunder.”''<br />
--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
There is no analysis, only conclusion, which is said to be based on the photo. The first question about the photo is where it is coming from. The Netherlands investigation? (Than why it was not also sent to Moscow)? From SBU office? (It is too easy to fake a photo, and with so many fakes already THEY have the burden of proof it is not a fake) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
:There's supposedly analysis behind the match, and my guess is it's all valid. But, that's a guess. Why would it not be sent to Moscow? Apparently its being sent to Ukraine is an issue or scandal, so apparently it's not supposed to be sent to anyone (?) Later it'll be seen by others and us, and our guesses can get better. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 14:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
==Investigation of Buk producer Almaz-Antay==<br />
Russian concern Almaz-Antay held a press conference, aimed at quashing sanctions against them, to say that (if it was Buk, then) it was Buk missile 9M38M or 9M38M1 with missile warhead 9М314 or 9М314М1, because only those have X shape elements. That was taken off production in 1999, while the concern was formed in 2002, so they did not provide this missile to anybody; but Ukraine has it. Their conclusion is based on publicly available photographs; they also participate in the investigation and has exclusive competences. They say that Snezhnoe is inconsistent as that will take cabin off at once; offer to do an [http://rusvesna.su/news/1433241635 experiment] to prove/establish who is responsible (an experiment seems right thing to do-and interesting how you account for movement)- [http://www.interfax.ru/russia/445152 interfax]. They seem to repeat the version given in Novaia Gazeta [[Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17/Forensics#Novaya_Gazeta |(discussion)]], placing launch in Zaroshenskoe. They essentially say that some 40% of elements go perpendicular to the missile and so it needs to be on intersecting course to (have a chance to) account for all the damage. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:33, 2 June 2015 (UTC) <br />
:Severe damage to the flap, illustrated in NG, with less damage to the wing, raises a possibility of a multiple event. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 16:33, 2 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
: Their presentation is on youtube now [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAMY2SpohDA in Russian] and [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsohFzbJ-vs with English translation]. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 15:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Full presentation by Almaz-Antey ( Buk-m2 manufacturer ) about the incident [http://tass.ru/boeing-presentation/vvedenie/2023629#/2023629].<br />
Still only in Russian. Unfortunately even in Russian somebody the diagrams are not self-explanatory. But main arguments are clear. It includes calculations of the attack angle of the rocket in order to cause such damage. - --[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 09:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
They say it was incoming at about 78 degrees; they reject Snezhnoe at 20 degrees; schematically in 2D cones are smth like this, with one extra alternative at -110 degrees shown [[File:Cones.jpg|thumb|Cones for various incoming angles, relative to the plane's frame. MH17: 0.8 Mach, missile: 3 Mach, projectiles 2400 m/s]]--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 05:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
Resup, thanks for shifting my comment to more relevant location. I would like to add here one more analysis. Minimum Distance between Hit point (based on Dutch castrated report) and Snizhne is 24 km (Bellingcat magical tricks placed the launch spot even further). Buk-M1 missile goes at 860m/s, but let's assume 1km/s. Let's also assume that missile immediately travels at highest speed. For such distance the trajectory will be parabolic (slide 49 from Almaz-Antey). Than the time of flight will be way more than 30 sec and it will even intersect the pilot's vertical field of view. Dutch officially declared that there is nothing interesting on black box voice recorder. How is it possible for the pilot not to notice a 5 meters lobg rocket, that ejects violent plume behind, flies directly at him for more than 30 sec and even goes across his vertical field of view? And according to Dutch report, pilot was informed of another airliner in proximity, that he had to watch out for. So he was alert and paying attention to the surroundings. It is just impossible for the pilot not to comment on it, at least WTF. Even cloudy day doesn’t explain the issue.<br />
--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 09:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
:Last radio transmission at 13:19:56-13:19:59 UTC – MH17: ROMEO NOVEMBER DELTA , MALASYAN 17 p15, p29 (MH 17 speaking; RND=waypoint)<br />
:Both flight recordings ended at 13:20:03 UTC-- from the preliminary Dutch report [[Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17/Dutch_preliminary_report#New_Info|(preliminary report discussion link)]]--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 16:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::The BUK missile burns out at around 14-15 seconds (from memory - it may vary but not much, it also depends on model, but I'm talking about the one alleged in this instance). The missile spends much of its flight in an unpowered ballistic trajectory but uses fins to make minor adjustments to strike the target.<br />
::The missile is much smaller than an ordinary aircraft so very hard to see. There have been numerous head-on collisions of large aircraft where the pilots never saw anything despite being on lookout. It's not surprising at all the MH17 pilots didn't see anything. --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 10:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The 15 second for missile is from Wikipedia that quotes one Russian BUK that is about different military technologies. I've never seen it in some official document. Every source that talks about it eventually boils down to this book. But I strongly suspect that there is a typo.it should be 50 sec. Otherwise it doesn’t make sense. Missile is using proportional navigation and is supposed to chase manuvouting targets with speeds up to 830 m/s, while maximum missile speed of this kind is 860m/s. And it is supposed to catch those targets at distances up to 30 km. It just doesn’t make sense that after 15 seconds it is basically a stone with minor control indirection. Simple wind or requirement for slightly sharp turn will make it useless. <br />
Can you give an example of head on collision of planes? All I can find were either in the thick clouds or when one of the planes was ascending and another one during descending. They never crossed each other's field of view. <br />
Your comment about 5 meter rocket obviously relies on the assumption of 15 sec, meaning no plume behind. Youtube videos of Buk launches show plumes plumes staying way longer than 15 seconds.<br />
--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 13:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=='Unauthorized launch?' ==<br />
[http://russian.rt.com/article/42405#ixzz38ShRpr00 Such theory appeared] around 25 July 2014. According to quoted source said to be from defense structures of Ukraine, on 17 of July, commander of 156 UAF anti-aircraft defense regiment was ordered to perform training of crews to support ground forces in a Donetsk suburb. They had to deploy batteries, and perform routing of target and all procedures of tracking target and its training destruction with Buk M1. Commanders received unblocking keys for launch, but real launch of 9М38М1 (Buk) was not planned. To participate in the exercise, two SU 25 planes from 229 tactical aviation brigade were sent from Kulbakino airbase in Nikolaev to Dnepropetrovsk. They were charged with aerial reconnaissance and to mark control targets in ATO area to the West from Donetsk. After one of the planes entered detection zone of Buk, it was tracked by a crew of battery located near Zaroshenskoe (Зарощенское). It appears that due to tragic accident after some time, and despite height difference, the azimuth of SU 25 and MH17 coincided, in which case the missile will go after the target with bigger area. The source says that he does not know why accidental launch happened, and this is investigated by SBU. "Battery commander and the whole crew were taken". <br />
<br />
There are some details, but sources are not revealed, and details were neither confirmed nor denied. Location seems a bit suspicious, it suggests a right side hit; not clear how reacquiring target from SU 25 at a coinciding azimuth will result in the other side hit. Not totally impossible, (lost target, overshot to the North, than reacquired). But this is not very likely, on top of unexplained accidental launch. Little solid details makes this theory to be on shaky footing. Apparently was recycled in later versions (Nikolaev air base mentioned in recent film). The worst is that it is unclear what is the source, and could he really know. Otherwise, piece of cake to tell such tale (of 'my aunt told me' sort) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
10.10.2014, 14:05 "Rossiiskaia Gazeta" (official publisher of documents of the Russian Government) [http://www.rg.ru/2014/10/10/buk-site.html says in part:] A week after Boeing (i.e. MH17) catastrophe, a source in the armed forces of Ukraine shared information, definitely not matching the official version of Kiev. This source said: on the day of the tragedy, in the 156th air defense missile regiment of the Ukrainian army, armed with modernized "Buk," there was an unauthorized missile launch, which happened in the course of an exercise . Investigation of the incident involved "impartial" SBU investigators. No need to be a genius to put together elements of a puzzle - said a source in the MoD General Staff of the Russian Federation. " <br />
<br />
The number (156) in this report does not match the number in Bezler account on the video (section below); maybe some mix-up on the way to newspaper; but otherwise it all looks consistent. Bezler was operating in the nearby area, and likely would be more knowledgeable. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 23:48, 5 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Bezler Account==<br />
[http://rusvesna.su/news/1413549200 Bes:] " I do not have weapons to shoot Boeing at 10,000 m. Boeing was shot by 154 anti-aircraft regiment of UAF stationed in Artemovsk, using Buk system. My reconnaissance team has spotted "Buk" as it left. Former Defense Minister Geletey knows about it. It was a provocation. The day before the accident, we shot Ukrainian SU-25, two pilots ejected and we went to look for them. My conversation was intercepted and mis-represented as a talk about the downed Boeing. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 05:35, 18 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: Of all the people making statements in this matter, Bezler was probably the only one actually there on the ground to know what was where. The area he claims is borderline for distance, but not impossible. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 21:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Yes, what he says needs to be taken very seriously --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 22:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
A straight line S-SE to the approximate impact point (as we've narrowed down) is 61.5 km. That's significantly out of range, isn't it? [http://wikimapia.org/#lat=48.4572063&lon=38.2935846&z=10&l=0&m=b&gz=0;380113220;481550929;5094910;0;0;4351413 The line on Wikimapia] for second thoughts on that. Clearly, center of downtown was not the firing spot, but even presuming a bit south of town (and not north) this doesn't readily line up. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 00:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Launcher can drive around easily. While personnel is better of sleeping in a city, not out in the field (even if they do, one would not say 'stationed in a cornfield'). There is nothing to defend in the city itself--Novorossia does not use planes. And also, the range is approximate, it has listed ceiling of 20 km, actual range would depend on height and other things.--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Actual range depends on the actual rocket used, not the launcher. Nobody is suggesting they were defending anything, he's saying it was a provocation,ie deliberate. There have been other reports of Ukies starting to test/train on BUKs,perhaps preparing for a war with Russia directly involved. Now, practice, I've had it from numerous ex-military (various Western nations) that they used civilian planes to practice the BUK type radars on as (a) always available and (b) less likely to knows you've lit them up so won't retaliate. That is meant to be radar practice, not actual shooting, of course.<br />
::There was doubt about why "rebels" would be taking this BUK on a scenic tour, especially in mostly KIEV-held territory. But if it was a Kiev BUK?? carted around on a very conspicuous truck to be later identified as having been stolen by rebels? (in interview with very anti-Russian Lithuania's reporter??)<br />
::The Kiev story was, rebels were going to shoot down an Aeroflot, to fall onto Ukie territory, to give Russia excuse for war. However, if looks like rebels shot down something, falling on their territory, Russia can still be blamed and NATO might come help Kiev obliterate the subhumans. Hitting an actual Aeroflot was too risky in case Russia does come in but NATO doesn't. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 07:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::Oh, as if "stationed in" changes anything from a presumption of "firing from" ... lol. Obviously. I sit corrected on that, unless that is what he means... Good points on Obviously no real reason for air defense to be doing anything. True claim or not, it's worth considering these units were just sitting around with no use, freeing up their schedules for off-the-books work. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 08:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Bezler repeated the claim, 154 anti-aircraft regiment of UAF stationed in Artemovsk, using Buk system, Gelatei as overall commander has to answer eventually. This answer is recorded on video <br />
during an interview with Ukrainian news channel 1+1, starting 2:10:00 of the last, long video on [http://rusvesna.su/news/1414630752 rusvesna]. But 1+1 news report did not have that, they put old known fakes instead (first video in russvesna report). Russvesna responds to claims made by Ukrainian news report in detail, with video time stamps referring to Ukrainian news report; the long tape (last video) was made as a safeguard against false claims. Bezler himself does not have any equipment which can shot a plane even at 7000 m (he than mentions Strela 10 which cannot shoot a plane at such height; listed ceiling for Strela 10 is 3500 m)<br />
::Man in black leather next to Bezler is Василий Будик (Vasilii Budik), who was Bezler prisoner for 88 days (according to Budik himself, a 'guest'), and now is in Ukraine and helping Ruban to release more prisoners. He is listed as "Adviser to Defense Ministry, Ukraine" on the long tape<br />
:: --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 04:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references /></div>Antidyatelhttps://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17&diff=22644Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH172015-06-09T23:33:36Z<p>Antidyatel: /* Investigation of Buk producer Almaz-Antay */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:Ukraine]] [[Category:MH17]]<!-- Cats go to the top on talk pages--><br />
<br />
{{Mainpage}}<br />
== Subpages ==<br />
* [[List of MH17 airframe parts]]<br />
* [[Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Dutch preliminary report|Dutch preliminary report]] ([[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Dutch preliminary report |talk]])<br />
* [[Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Map|Maps]] – ([[/Map|talk]])<br />
* [[/Forensics]]<br />
* [[/Witnesses]]<br />
* [[/Fighter jets]]<br />
* [[/BUK Tracking]]<br />
* [[/Debunked topics]]<br />
* [[/Cyber Berkut leak]]<br />
* [[/SBU Audio Evidence]]<br />
* [[/Archive]]<br />
<br />
== General ACLOS Investigation Thoughts ==<br />
<br />
===Brilliant Analysis of the Propaganda===<br />
American writer on [http://rt.com/op-edge/183132-only-truth-flight-mh17/ RT.com] Brilliant and funny. And sadly true. Well worth a read. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 18:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::I didn't read it all, but it's excellent. A couple steps up from T.B. Hinchey-class writing. I didn't notice any lazy jet-blaming. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Considering Possibilities ===<br />
Only so many theories have been seriously proposed for what happened to MH17. But it seems worthwhile to create a master list of basically all logical possibilities to consider - what has and hasn't been proposed, by whom, why? Anyone can start or add to a sub-section below to conmment on that possibility. I inserted simple notes to many, hoping they're not too controversial - suggest or, hey, make a change as you see fit. I sign here for the initial list and notes only. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''All possibilities:''' Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 was brought down by (A Buk, B Jet, C Other) operated by (1 Russia, 2 Kiev, 3 Rebel) in an attack that was (a accidental, b intended, c intent + error)<br />
<br />
'''A Buk/SA-11''' (supported by some evidence, claimed by Kiev, presumed by Western powers)<br />
* A.1 Russian (Kiev's story - known stocks - border and logic issues)<br />
** A1a - accidental (intended legit/defensive downing - possible)<br />
** A1b - intended (not likely - Russia would stand little to gain and some to lose)<br />
** A1c - intent+error (SBU theory - intended to hit Aeroloft civilian flight, blame Kiev, invade - hit MH17 by mistake)<br />
<br />
* A.2 Kiev (known stocks, alleged movement at the time) (why: make seps/Russia look bad) (how: snuck in totally, approval snuck in too, or fired from outside rebel areas after all) <br />
** A2a - accidental (intended legit/defensive downing - not likely having snuck behind enemy lines to do it)<br />
** A2b - intended (most likely - going behind the lines suggests false flag intent) <br />
** A2c - intent+error (they aimed for the Aeroloft flight, etc. - possible)<br />
<br />
* A.3 Rebel (no known stocks, some evidence for, some against - rebel Buk is/was the Western presumption outside Kiev)<br />
** A3a - accidental (intended legit/defensive downing) (presumed by intelligent outsiders who blame them)<br />
*** (variations: launcher supplied by Russia, seized by separatists, brought by defector - crew came with it, or not - etc.)<br />
*** (variations: sliding scale of culpability from drunk and negligent operators with all blame, to blameless but fooled by false signals and such) <br />
** A3b - intended (not likely, soft implication from Kiev against the "terrorists") <br />
** A3c - intent + error (intent of a criminal kind still seems unlikely, so all error options probably under A3a.)<br />
<br />
'''B Jet''' <br />
(supported by some evidence, promoted by many revisionists) <br />
(var: used air-to-air missile, used auto-cannon/other, or combination)<br />
* B.1 Russian (had to violate Kiev's airspace without being mentioned)<br />
** B1a - accidental (intended legit/defensive downing)<br />
** B1b - intended (not likely - Russia would stand little to gain and some to lose)<br />
** B1c - intent + error (triple unlikely - it's just a possibility slot)<br />
<br />
* B.2 Kiev (denied by Kiev)<br />
** B2a - accidental (intended legit/defensive downing) (of what?)<br />
** B2b - intended (implication of those proposing it - to make seps/Russia look bad)<br />
** B2c - intent + error (possible)<br />
<br />
* B.3 Rebel (no known jet holdings - no one proposes this)<br />
<br />
'''C Other''' nothing seriously suggested. Lets not go digging for all outlying theories, but if one worth listing emerges, it can be option C and Other will be D, etc.<br />
<br />
:moved material to [[Category talk:Ukraine#Ruban's Third Force]] - theories might say "perpetrator unknown," and thus reason and motive ... but this list is all about actual possibilities more than theories. To the truth, the perp is known, and these are all poss. truths. ''Most'' people's theories will fit a slot here... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Questions Raised ===<br />
<br />
In the end of the day, we may not be able to pronounce a forensic conclusion, for the rest of the world to accept, as we may not have full information or all the needed expertise. Perhaps the best to hope for will be to RAISE (a rather short) list of main questions which we hope the official investigation will not ignore. <br />
I think it will be worthwhile to identify such questions (may be followed by voted answers or something of sort and some supporting arguments). <br />
<br />
In my list, it would be questions establishing basic facts, like <br />
<br />
*impact coordinates<br />
*where blast(s) were coming from<br />
*confirmed evidence about launch and launchers (a.k.a " any high-resolution photos with known coordinates and times?") <br />
*navigation and control methods (a.k.a. " can it curl from forward right to back-left?")<br />
* land based or air based launch? (a.k.a "can satellite see well under the cloud?" )<br />
*anything to learn from radar data (publicized or otherwise)?<br />
*and any other relevant confirmed evidence to consider<br />
<br />
Once all of that is in stone, will be good time for theories.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 19:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Question #1, since it's looking like a Buk fired from Snizneh ... what does that really prove as to who was running it? Nothing. That's why the State Dept. has to add on the Youtube and twitter evidence where it doesn't even matter if those are the real people"admitting" it was them. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:17, 11 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: No confirmed evidence for a Buk, or from Snizhne, yet. Knowing who runs that would be perfect. --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 00:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::Definitions of "confirmed" might differ, but I've been recommending people at least prepare for that coming true, in case the SU-25 thing doesn't pan out. There's a burnt field, somewhere quite near where that supposed launch contrail photo was placed to. And that, I just saw, supposedly [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/exif-data-in-mh17-missile-launch-photo.html had its ex/if data verified] as July 17, 16:25:48. So it might be that figuring who runs that becomes totally crucial. So far, just the fact of what it was and where it was fired is supposed to be proof it ''was not'' the party that was equipped for this - physically and morally - and has benefited from it. Anyway, we're on it somewhat - [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/BUK Tracking#Who Has the BUK Launchers in Ukraine?|who controls the Buks,]] whose got moved - [[#A Rebel-Held Area|what does "rebel-held" mean]] when someone's trucking in a anti-aircraft unit just after [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/07/25/snizhne-mh17-and-rebel-held-territory/ Kiev primed the locals with a bombing of civilians in Snizneh two days before]? Stuff like that I think has extra value to develop. I should get to it... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: If there is confirmed photo of launch, that would go under one of already listed items. With electronic evidence on social networks, I am not sufficiently knowledgeable, but presume it is too easy to edit those to fit any agenda, easier than to refute. Government releases, like satellite photos, is different, as they can't change stories overnight and have something to loose if proven fake. Faking hard physical evidence would be fairly impossible. It is good to know who is to blame of course. (But most people would already have their own intuitive answer,which is not likely to change, so how exactly we are going to focus on such an issue? --For myself, the best outcome will be for truth to come out, wherever that may lead).<br />
--[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 19:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== TASS: According to Our Sources ==<br />
23 December, Moscow. "Russian special services are in procession of information, that Malaysian Boeing crash over Donbas in July 2014 may have happened as a result of operation of Ukrainian special services, however it remains unclear whether the plane was the initial target, or a tragic mistake has occurred. This information was conveyed to journalists by a reliable source in one of the Russian competent agencies". <br />
"We can also assume that the operation involved the Ukrainian Air Force and ground air defense, combined". "SBU, which is investigating the accident with the Ukrainian side has already destroyed all the data on the movements of air defense systems in the area of disaster and all the data on the departure of the aircraft". Earlier, the Ukrainian authorities stated that on the day of the crash Ukrainian military aircraft did not leave the airfields in the area of military operation in the south-east of the country. "They did fly - said the source - or yes, they did" [http://itar-tass.com/politika/1667289 TASS] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 20:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==More Remains found ==<br />
<br />
Photo journalist Graham Phillips has found a human bone on the burn site. Doesn't obviously show up on [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0o4SAaCEpk&list=UUbwfUqs5Y6_jblWJwMIfRzA&index=7 this video]. While you're there, from playlist at right you can see he has about 12 videos about the crash scene. They're all just a minute or two long. Meanwhile Zakharchenko is offering for investigators to come back and [http://en.ria.ru/world/20141013/194011115/Donetsk-Ready-to-Grant-Ukrainian-Investigators-Access-to-MH17.html clean up]. Actually he should send a group of people to comb the burned area, not as if he's short on people who cab recognise body parts. Chance to shows up the Dutch who spent a few hours there picking up a token few pieces of luggage and not looking for bones,when they KNOW 12 or 15 people are still missing. HEAPS of belongings they left behind, too.[[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 07:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Story from October 31 from the Dutch, confirming [http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/mh17-dutch-pm-mark-rutte-confirms-more-human-remains-have-been-found/story-fnizu68q-1227109165667 more remains] had been found (in a site visit that had not been publicised). Stories from the current visit also mentioned bodies found but they are wrong -- there are no "bodies" left from MH17. Anything found now that still looks anything like a body is going to be from [http://www.news24.com/World/News/More-remains-of-MH17-passengers-found-20141107 later fighting].[[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 02:51, 8 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Novorossia reported on the visits, [http://rusvesna.su/third_world/1413295402 14.10 (russvesna)], about site exploration (lots of personal belongings found); [http://rusvesna.su/third_world/1415293335 06.11 (russvesna)], agreement is reached on transporting wreckage, 4 open and 1 closed wagon. They did not report pro-Kiev Ukrainian site interested or participating (while news24 report above talks about "A team of Dutch, Ukrainian and Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe workers"). --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 05:25, 8 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Witness Accounts ==<br />
:''Moved to [[/Witnesses]]<br />
<br />
== ANNA News - Crash Scene Imagery ==<br />
=== Jet Wreckage ===<br />
How did we miss this? From mid September, 50 minute video of the crash site, the burn areas substantially [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rt-QIsgjQkg cleaned up]. A lot of close-ups, walking around every angl of pieces (eg broken wing). Boring until about 38 min mark, when gets onto cockpit area. This is first area with voice, too, with someone explaining their theory of what happened (Russian) and showing shrapnel damage from angles we've not seen on any stills. "Ukraine" mentioned a few times, so I'm assuming it's a theory that blames Kiev. Can anyone translate please? [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 15:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
: A shorter video, just the part with the explanation, better audio. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rt-QIsgjQkg#t=2785 [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 15:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: Shorter video: they guy says that the holes are small, and so he thinks it is air-to-air missile. (Well, we now know presumed size of buk shrapnel as it is on a recent photo with a ruler; 15 millimeters or smth; and what he shows appears to be like finger-tip wide; so it is not too much off as far as I can tell, and does not seem to prove or disprove buk). He also says that it is known effect that when pressurized plane is punctured, it falls apart. (Well, that certainly did not happen with Korean Boeing over USSR, so it seems a bit exaggerated) . That's all he has to say, so what we gained is more video evidence --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 16:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::More new footage, taken about Oct 5 or 6 (just before OSCE visit) with someone who was there within first hour, interspersed with some footage be took at the time, never before seen [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5j5Bpa010Q English subs]. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 20:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::: Graham Phillips from the scene on October 16 [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAhqWi5cavY in] two [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAf8PFx3tmY parts]. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 16:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Great find, good quality footage. helps set the spread of things ... hope the section re-org works for everyone (did destroy the original title, but I don't think much was linking here...) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::I posted it before I finished watching it. It has a lot of interviews, rebel leaders, experts. They're saying Kiev stalled and lied to scare off investigators. The rebels took over the bodies by force to make sure they go for proper investigation ie Kiev can't mess things up. The Malaysians came to get the black boxes against Kiev's wishes and got shot at on the way. <br />
:::They say on TV that morning was Andriy Lysenko boasting about planning 8 bombing runs that day; after the crash he said they didn't have a plane up that day. Then they bombed the site to say it's too dangerous for investigators (they show some rocket craters). What were they hiding? [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 20:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
A curious detail is that we are told at 9:34 that UAF was at Nikishino. That would be roughly on the line to Chernukino, so behind-and-left from the crash. That theme featured in ACLOS discussions already; there is nothing new to add. We also hear about two planes, and get some hand waving explanations. That was covered as well; perhaps now there is somewhat better idea where the witness is located. It is curious that a German guy says that Pechora missile system was located in Ukraine; as I remember, what was released was more vague; I am not clear why he says 'Ukraine' now. Indeed, we get a sense that Novorossia side is not trying to hide something; and we do get a sense that pro-Kiev side has something to hide. What is that exactly, would be a speculation. If they are serious about peace, perhaps some PR professionals can advise them as appropriate, that is, likely, to release whatever is there to hide. This appears to be rather popular method employed before elections. (Than after the elections, they can say, we told that already, and got elected anyway; but if something new comes up, somebody may say why it was hidden, and argue that it changes the balance). --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 23:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: The Nikishino reference is meant to show distance, ie that they were not close enough for any fighting to be happening at the crash site, therefore "too dangerous to let in investigators" was just an excuse. Definitely Novorossiya is not trying to hide anything -- they have nothing to hide, and did the right thing all the way through. The video is meant to show how much Kiev was obstructing all the way...this was obvious as soon as shelling started in the area the minute the bodies were gone. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 17:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
For example, one odd thing is that Ukrainian high officials are reported to make recent comments discussing 'that Buk' which shot the plane; and leaked document suggests the same, that they think it is "Buk', moreover very specific info on warhead, missile, and launcher. But how do they even know it was Buk? (if they just have some murky photo of the shrapnel piece? ) If they have shrapnel piece itself, not just the photo, why it was not sent to Netherlands? --Nobody in Netherlands seem to be certain what are those penetrating 'high velocity objects'. And how Ukrainians determined not only the missile type, but also '''launcher type''' just from this warhead shrapnel piece? Finally, after all that, why is that they are saying the launcher used is the one apparently only they have and Russians no longer use?([https://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%91%D1%83%D0%BA_(%D0%B7%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81)&previous=yes#.D0.A1.D0.BE.D1.81.D1.82.D0.B0.D0.B2_.D0.BA.D0.BE.D0.BC.D0.BF.D0.BB.D0.B5.D0.BA.D1.81.D0.B0_9.D0.9A37_.C2.AB.D0.91.D1.83.D0.BA-.D0.9C1.C2.BB Buk M1] they claim is the first and oldest launcher system from around 1979, no computer, etc. Russian Buk would be a more modern version, perhaps some 10 years older, and may use some computer already). So, the impression is, that UAF is, kind of, saying itself, that it is us to blame, and than also keeps this secret for 2 months. But somehow we are supposed to keep believing it was '''not''' them. Well, I dunno, this appears to get harder by the day. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 00:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
::I don't think it's UAF saying about this rocket, the whole movie is from the Russian side. They believe it was a Kiev job; movie stresses how they blocked investigation. There was an interview by Joern Akkermans with the local fire brigade chief which also showed this, how they sabotaged the investigators getting the first responders' detailed notes. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 17:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::Comments in above paragraph is not about the movie, it is about leaked documented dated 2 months ago, we have it elsewhere discussing leaks --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 17:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::On "how did they know from the debris fragment, they'd say they know because they had a bunch of photos of the launcher driving that way, plus the supposed audio of people talking about it as "Buk" (covered in their spots here) Of course, they sure got all that submitted and analyzed a bit too quick, so it seems more of that strange omniscience that suggests they aren't just reading along with the story but actually writing it. In reality I guess they know because it was theirs and used by them, but officially they have at least the video and audio evidence besides the later debris. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 22:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::You lost me there. What fragment do they have? they had no access to the site and who,in that mess, would anyway recognise a fragment the size of a coin? if they have a blurry photo, well, blurry means you can't see what's on it, and still doesn't prove where it came from, so....what are they on about? are they just saying "debris fragment" to mean those few skin sections with the lots of holes in them? from that they claim to know the model number of the BUK?<br />
:::I'm back to thinking about the movie, the women saying the 2 planes. people said that on day one, too. All people used to the idea of planes being SHOT WITH ROCKETS, by then there'd been about 15 or 20 of those, so why would they suddenly invent or imagine this was NOT? [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 22:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::Corrected; they have the audio-visual plus, '''they say,''' this scrap photo. Point was the Buk claim isn't based on the alleged scrap but the other stuff, fake or not, which they had from the start. Numerous potential reasons it isn't what they claim, but again I've always suspected they would know and properly ID the murder weapon, so I'm not very doubtful that they will have consistent evidence sooner or later (and it's been a while now) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Plane spotting story: could not detect any signs it was invented, sounded like simple folks telling what they saw, no signs it was forced on them to say, or tension/second thoughts in saying this, could be detected --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 00:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[http://www.cyber-berkut.org/en/ Leaked document ] is based on the photo, and apparently UAF do not have fragments<br />
:: "остаточний висновок щодо належності .... можливо зробити при наявностi оригінали" means "final conclusion on the association can be done in the presence of the original." <br />
Nalivaichenko (SBU) [http://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=2040949&cid=5 is said] to make this comment recently on 5 channel, Ukraine (Poroshenko channel): "Ukrainian investigators need to execute the plan, developed in collaboration with the Dutch side and the other members of the international investigation, arrive at the scene and find what we need, - fragments of a particular rocket specific "Buk" - said Nalyvaychenko." (The latter comments may possibly belong to the humor section). C-B appears to suggest that photo may be from the Netherlands. <br />
: (Nalyvaychenko has [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentyn_Nalyvaichenko a major in linguistics,] so his "plan" sounds odd).<br />
::[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIpD2eebJ_c Nalivaichenko report] appears essentially accurate, he did talk (in Ukrainian) about the investigation, starting at 7:30 timestamp; he did say "Buk M modernized" at 8:30, and "Buk" is even captured by automatic transcript (more->transcript ; but transcript is not working well overall. )<br />
. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Guys: he said "Ukrainian investigators need to execute the plan, developed in collaboration with the Dutch side and the other members of the international investigation, arrive at the scene and find what we need, - fragments of a particular rocket specific "Buk""<br />
The collaboration part might be along the lines of, "Ukrainians should go there as it seems too dangerous for anyone else" (which Ukies have made sure of all along). Now I'll strip down the rest to the vital parts:<br />
execute the plan...arrive and find...what we NEED<br />
Not search for. '''FIND.'''<br />
How hard is it to find something you just dropped? of course if they now said they found it, the whole world would just belly-laugh. Luckily it's in NR hands so they can't get near the site.<br />
I do believe Russia may be keeping an ace up their sleeve so to speak.[[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 03:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:"Investigation" would be the right word for what one should implement, while "plan" suggests something else, something one hatches in secret... With all this time to have been found and hidden by the separatists, he seems confident the smoking gun is still right there to be found. Maybe Putin's business card as well. Only Kiev's specially rigorous investigators can find it, and only after they've taken full control of the area. Indeed, "search for" would be a better term, if he meant "investigation," which seems hopeless But he said "plan" and apparently one that involves a pre-planned finding of the right clue, and is far from hopeless. Maybe they're just asking for help in conquering this area. No one will expect, need, or want them to follow through on such a plot, just to control more territory and have a fruitless look for good measure. Seems to me the US and allies probably already have enough evidence to blame Russia and carry out whatever punishment they can. It's always more about will than evidence anyway. <br />
:So... is the linguist just this sloppy? Or is he up to something dropping hints like this? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Reminds me of what Putin once said about the Iraqi WMDs: "If I were the Americans, I would have found some". Maybe his CIA overlords told Naliwhatshisname about that... ;oP --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
::: Haha, I didn't know that about Putin. Good on him for saying so out loud, too (tho that's a hint of menace as well). Ukraine police and secret services don't strike me as needing advice about faking evidence. oh, though on second thoughts, they're more used to just saying it and being believed, like the Big Invasion and 2 nukes on airport guys. USA has not said a word about Russia on this matter for ages, ie about the time the black boxes got read.[[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 12:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::: Tried to locate the origin of that quote but failed. Nothing in English and all the references in German indicate that they had it from the same source I have: German "comedians". It is in character though, if you add some "they can't even control their own plots" Russian humour. And I think he really said it, but at the current state of evidence don't reference it to me, please. ;o) --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 19:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Bloodless Bodies, Photo Proof? === <br />
Two days ago ANNA News [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAlC7HhfkrU uploaded a video] of some kind of presentation of photos from the aftermath and clean-up operation. Camera shows a Laptop with an apparently rather large collection of photos, a woman is operating and explaining what is shown (in Russian). As to the nature of it, this is really gruesome stuff showing the victims as they ended up on the ground, and I only made it a good minute in. The video description seems to allege [[Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17/Debunked_topics#Bloodless bodies – fake Facebook profiles?|what Strelkov reported his men reporting]] to the outrage of everyone: Smell of chemicals, many naked, no or very few blood, in decay. <br />
<br />
Doesn't fit there ("debunked topics"), because the photos are certainly not debunked and evidence independent of any conclusions. So it's here. Should be watched by someone who can judge what they see and have a good stomach. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:It might've been flippant to put the theory right into debunked, but it made a fair point that it sounds really dumb on the surface ... but this is presented as evidence, okay. I had a look, indeed some horrible images - people broken and smeared in several different ways (look out esp. from 4:49-5:08). I'm guessing these are mostly next morning photos near the site? Ones further out, found later, will be rotting. I'm not expert enough to settle this, but fresh bodies normally should not have these signs we see: darkening skin, black lips, etc. - lack of visible surface blood - (heard about) bad decay smell. <br />
:But then again, bodies don't normally - suffer massive decompression / oxygen cut-off / etc. - move at high speed as they're torn up (smeared people = wiped clean?) - have all their tussues and guts torn up so badly - and do all this in mass numbers at the peak of summer. No maggots yet - they must have been pre-killed somewhere there were no flies, (or gassed with a pesticide-like poison!) or very quickly before loading ... no, my semi-educated guess is still some combination of these factors will explain what we see, even in these select photos. But at least, this lets us see more of it ourselves for comparison. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Yeah, it sounds bizarre but Strelkov mentioned it himself saying he just relayed what he was told from the ground. Anyway, to speculate about it we first need more details about the claims. Went back to ANNA to see if anybody subtitled it ... but they don't seem to do that the same way as in Syria. But I noticed just recently they have a German team which produces little news shows. Didn't look into it yet. But hey, [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8YycmILC2M there it is], a German version with hardwired subtitles. Which means there is no transcript to copy & paste like with the CC function. Which means I will have to watch at least a bit of it. *sigh* Maybe later, maybe tomorrow. <br />
::From the German description I can already say that the woman alleges to be an eyewitness who arrived "immediately" at the scene. Description is written in sceptical language. Her claims: Very few Europeans (as opposed to Asians, I guess), disgusting smell, rotten bodies. They checked Laptops and USB-Sticks and found "no photos" younger than October 2013. Let me guess (I don't know out of hand), that's when the other MH disappeared? --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 00:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::I'm so not trusting this narrative - these are also people who were (kept alive?) from ... no MH370 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370 wp] was in March this year (that recent?) - All I can find October 2013 related is an alleged Israeli acquisition of the jet's twin (sale in Florida, October 21, 2013 [http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2014/03/malaysian-jet-in-israel-identical-to-hijacked-plane-2927532.html per Chris Bollyn (quack)] He speculates it would be rolled out for another false flag attack, unless maybe people were alerted. So ... maybe passengers bought at the same time at that plane, kept alive but not allowed to take pictures, for nine months, but killed long enough before the July crash date they were just then rotting ... lot of fake families implied for the missing new (alleged) victims ... lot of proof in the rotting bodies and nine-months lack of new photos ... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 08:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: FTR [http://info.kopp-verlag.de/hintergruende/enthuellungen/gerhard-wisnewski/ausfuehrlicher-augenzeugenbericht-passagiere-von-flug-mh-17-definitiv-dosenfleisch-.html here] is a detailed German language article about the claims in the video, which makes them more accessible per autotranslation than the embedded subtitles. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
If you think the subtitles are worth it, you can cover the whole screen besides that and still even get time-stamps. Like, at 0:40 is she saying here are more blood free body parts, and the wet pavement under them is from the day's rain? (tried typing into Google translate - my High School German mostly catches "the ... of ... and" - but still "a "wet" aureole were umwolkt" didn't help enough) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 08:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
::What nonsense. Anyone who would go to this much trouble would surely EASILY put some more recent photos on the USB sticks.<br />
::As well as fake families,they'd have to create fake social media going back years, plus fake old school/work friends and neighbours. In 10 countries. Oh and a fake AIDS conference. <br />
::None of these idiots has yet come up with WHY? what benefit does anyone get from faking all this? If it was meant for putting the blame on one country or another, they could have got THAT bit right and shoot it in a way that 100% identifies that country.<br />
<br />
::Most if not all the passengers would have been killed by the shock wave of the missile detonation, causing internal injuries including mashing of the lungs and intestines. Black lips etc would be from lack of oxygen. Then while the plane was thrashing around/diving/spinning they'd get thrown around, among seats and luggage also flying around. This would cause numerous injuries. These would hardly bleed at all, because the hearts were no longer pumping. Blood in their veins/arteries would be barely liquid by the time they hit the ground a few minutes later. <br />
::This is consistent with what Strelkov's people were reporting - bloated blackening bodies with "no blood" where they expected to see blood. Any mangled bodies these guys would have recently seen were fresh killed in front of their eyes, a different result altogether.[[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 10:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: FWIW Double plus that! Simple explanations win over conspiracy theories every time --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 11:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::: Not worth much without examination of the evidence. As Sir Arthur Conan Doyle once said: "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." Just saying. ;o) --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::: I suppose this one's been well-enough piled on. All points including the last seem totally valid. I'm still not inclined to pursue it, but it might be worth double-checking. If things besides decay can be ruled out or whatever, ... eh, I'll just have to see.--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 00:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==What Can Forensics Prove?==<br />
:''Investigation moved to [[/Forensics]]<br />
We're now getting organized, with [[List of MH17 airframe parts]] - a picture of how the plane was impacted will emerge. The BUK alleged ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buk_missile_system Wikipedia]) has radar guided missiles that can track, turn, change altitude, etc. So I conclude the damage won't tell us if the missile was air-to-air or from the surface, or what direction it was fired from. It's still worth knowing, of course, but ... could use some discussion maybe on what we can/can't/should be aiming for here. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:The damage will tell us it was an air-to-air missile with rod warhead fired from the front, that exploded when its proximity fuse passed the cockpit window. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 23:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
DPR and Netherlands reached [http://rusvesna.su/third_world/1415293335 an agreement] that plain wreckage will be transported to Netherlands by train, using 4 open and one closed wagons. Loading will be done by Netherlands. OSCE will accompany. <br />
'Laying out' wreckage and forensics may help to determine the cause of the crash. This is currently open, with surface-to-air missile 'the most likely' scenario, and military planes involvement not excluded. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 04:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Fighter Jet? ==<br />
:''Moved to [[/Fighter jets]]<br />
<br />
== General Discussion ==<br />
=== Slightly informed comment on air defences ===<br />
<br />
See [http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com.au/2014/07/memories-recollection-guesses-and.html vineyardsaker]. Certainly biased, but internally reasonably consistent --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 02:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I'll just add various rumours / propaganda I've heard so far.<br />
<br />
- US Satellites tracked the missile<br />
<br />
- Russia did it (at least morally)<br />
<br />
- Ukraine did it (for continuing the battle)<br />
<br />
- The plane was deliberately diverted to the location it was shot down<br />
<br />
- There was a storm over Crimea causing the diversion<br />
<br />
- add your rumour here<br />
<br />
What I haven't heard yet is the terrorist bomb theory. If the plan had crashed in say Poland that would have been the only game in town.<br />
--[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 02:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Anton Gerashchenko: case solved in under 3 hours ===<br />
Anton Gerashchenko, adviser to Ukraine's Interior Ministry, must have some serious detective skills. Within 6 hours of the plane's disappearance from radar screens, he already had almost exactly the full official story Kiev is still rolling with 6 months later. This is illustrated by at least these three Facebook posts from July 17 (any other timed sources we find I'd like to add): --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC) <br />
<br />
The earliest I found was [https://www.facebook.com/anton.gerashchenko.7/posts/694787050608145 July 17, 6:20 PM local time] from crash at about 15:19 local = 3 hours after. Auto-translated with repair attempts, he says:<br />
:''Just over the Torez Putin kindly passed to terrorists anti-aircraft missile complex "Buk" that shot down civilian aircraft Kuala Lumpur-Amsterdam.'' <br />
:''This morning local patriots detected this being moved from Thorez to Snezhnoye'' <br />
:''He was flying at an altitude of 10 thousand meters Claimed 280 passengers and 15 crew members.'' <br />
:''There is not limit to the cynicism of Putin and his terrorists!'' <br />
:''Europe, the United States, Canada, the civilized world-open your eyes! Help us all than we can!'' <br />
:''It is a war of good versus evil!''<br />
:''Here's a video of the crash site! Some scoundrels shouted that "beauty! Beautifully lit!"!'' <br />
:''The Inhumans!'' ( Нелюди! )<br />
In less than three hours he was only able to show [http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JhUkqs9CQ0w#t=57 this video of the smoke plume after crash,] but with unexplained prior knowledge, apparently, of a Buk launcher from Russia, moved through Torez to Sneznhnoye. None of that is remotely evident from this video. But somehow he had and was sure of this information and had it all put together into this certain diagnosis of who's "evil" here, in under three hours. Hm. It's noted there was an edit at 6:28, to insert "He was flying at a height of 10 thousand meters." This might be due to the fact that at this point, he wasn't supposed to know for sure it was that Russian Buk that fired, as opposed to a MANPADS or the like, and suggests he or whoever he talked to had deduced that from the altitude (too high for other known weapons). --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
At least two more early posts come from [http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/805272-anton-gerashchenko-buk-missile-photo-ukranian-official-accuses-putin-of-sponsoring-terrorists/<br />
Epoch Times] <br />
<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=694844643935719&set=p.694844643935719&type=1 20:45] = app. 7.5 hours after the crash; by now he has the Torez launch plume photo as well, finally a visual clue giving him a good reason to specify the town the firing was near (if there was time to analyze it). In part: "Putin! You and your cronies did not escape from the International Tribunal. This is a photo ... a few minutes after the launch ... Thousands of people have seen the launch and flight of the rocket, which you kindly handed your sponsored terrorists!"<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=694849760601874&set=p.694849760601874&type=1 20:59,] just 14 minutes later, posting with (?) Gennady Bakalar (Геннадий Бакаляр), he added this post with the launcher driving through Torez, finally confirming the (reports?) he heard earlier that it passed through there. Did "thousands" of people see that too? He says in part "Oh and to permanently close questions about when and who committed this outrageous act of international terrorism is further evidence of the International Tribunal: installing Buk passes through the city of Torez this morning!" But we already heard all about that hours earlier. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The Lugansk launcher video of the next morning was also allegedly handed right over to the SBU for their own publication, by the (tipped-off?) police agent who filmed it passing by just before dawn. But everything else, ostensibly, they had to find themselves from public sources, posted by people with no such SBU/MoI links. But man is that swift work. Almost entirely found - and effectively analyzed for clues, understood and double-checked good enough for them - that they were spouting off complete answers within three hours. Clearly suspect. Suggested: he had it solved instantly, sent in pre-packaged like planned. Even this three hour delay is his way of appearing realistic; considering how blatantly evil Putin is and how friggin' brilliant these Ukie Fascists are, why would it take any longer? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: the most fascinating part of this is, at the 3 hour mark it was still burning...and ALL the bits with the bullet holes in them were at another village, and nobody KNEW it had not just crashed all by itself, like planes do sometimes. The video he posted is the Antonov the day before which had also appeared on Strelkov's VK that was taken as boasting of MH17. Strelkov's was posted at 17.50 local time so about 40 mins after the MH17 crash and HALF HOUR before the expert solved the case, using an image stolen from Strelkovs VK. That was not discovered by SBU until next day, after it had been "hurriedly withdrawn". [http://cdn0.dailydot.com/uploaded/images/original/2014/7/18/Screen_Shot_2014-07-18_at_12.03.03_PM.png screenshot] [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 12:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Just occurred to me. If he decided it was shot down entirely because of Strelkov's badly timed post, and it turned out later it crashed from eg pilot error or onboard hijacking, WOW how silly he would have looked then. But nah, they knew, couldn't believe their good luck when Strelkov put that up. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 12:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::It is well known that Strelkov VK is not managed by Strelkov (he said it explicitly a number of times).That post is not his. He occasionally posts things himself (elsewhere) but this thing was not posted by him, it may be somebody posting far from the battlefield and not having direct knowledge, or confused opolchenie (says it comes from opolchenie in the post). (Strelkov is also accused of other publicity crimes he did not commit, for example having intention to run for President of Russia and other misdemeanors not actually committed. Articles about him are typically such mis-attributions.). --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===What's a Bellingcat?===<br />
[https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2015/05/25/whats-a-bellingcat-anyway/ What’s a Bellingcat Anyway?] --Studied at DeepResource, and reported on 25.5.2015. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 17:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
:Looks like a great piece, and I know it wasn't a question, but to the extent it might be: it refers to "belling the cat," or smthg like "who dare bell the cat," from an old fable about mice who decide to make their world safe by taking on some tyrant (cat) and stringing a bell around his neck so they'll always know before he attacks. But everyone's too afraid to go put the bell on him. Implied: Higgins is not afraid to blame Putin for stuff (or here, to analyze the recordings of a bell already placed? Or...?). In practice, it's more a one-trick bellingpony. Site creation: about a week before MH-17 shootdown, FWIW. Far and away their #1 obsession since then: the geo-location epic of that stupid (irrelevant?) BUK launcher multi-stop field trip. It's only natural - in fact it could hardly be tailor made any better for him and his well-connected team to unravel 'in the open' like that, all on video. Cases not so well-suited to yield his desired results, of course, [http://taldoutruth.blogspot.com/2014/12/brown-moses-on-hook.html he will never have time for,] even when the work's done and all he has to do is review it. No time - there's probably yet another seam of the MH-17 case to discover that these sooper-seekret Russian terrorists just left laying around. And always, there is praises and biscuits to collect. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 08:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
::Number of times bellingcat recently tweeted or retweeted on [https://twitter.com/GeoffPyatt Geofrey Pyatt]: 17/page; while us = 0. 'Russia's finest propagandists are no match for bellingcat, who have picked apart yet more shaky claims about MH17' (now something wrong with Russian MoD satellite photos)--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 12:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
::: Their latest stunt with the "faked" Russian satellite images isn't going well. Not "only" has our friend Charles Wood given it [http://7mei.nl/2015/06/01/about-bellingcats-claim-russian-sat-pics-fake/ a quick treatment], but the man behind the online tool they used [https://twitter.com/hackerfactor/status/605362347616526337 agrees] with a [http://life.lanzone.eu/?p=30 devastating analysis] telling them essentially to read the f... manual. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 18:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::: Had a look at both, well-lodged points. Neither even says the photos must be real, just that bellinputin are clearly not the vaunted "experts" they're getting praised as and the meaningfulness of their findings is open to question. Didn't actually look at the original work. Aside from Charles at least, we're not really qualified experts in much either, might make mistakes too, etc. But when this supposed competence plus clear Putin-blame come together suddenly the media lackeys are amplifying their expertise (or rather shifting it from experts at blaming Putin to experts at how to do it with scientific rigor, which it seems they're not). --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::: [http://life.lanzone.eu/?p=53 Here]'s the promised part 2 of "Myghty"'s analysis. More of the same amateurish errors for pic 5. The real scandal here is that they are still peddled by the "MSM", not that they aren't real experts. But, miracles happen, DER SPIEGEL [http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/mh17-satellitenbilder-bellingcat-betreibt-kaffeesatzleserei-a-1036874.html has an interview] ([http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/expert-criticizes-allegations-of-russian-mh17-manipulation-a-1037125.html English translation] --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)) this morning with a German digital photo forensics expert who says the same as Charles and the others, and they even put disclaimers linking to it on their earlier "praise Brown Noses" articles. Good sign. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::::: Was about to note the Spiegel piece but it's done. Good. So the problem is those who pushed headlines like [http://mashable.com/2015/05/31/russia-fake-mh17-report/ Satellite images show clearly that Russia faked its MH17 report] (Mashable)-[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2836245/Report-slams-new-surveillance-photos-released-Russian-state-broadcaster-MH17-shot-shoddy-fake.html Were MH17 'satellite images' photoshopped? Report slams new surveillance pictures released by Russian state broadcaster as a 'shoddy fake'] (Daily Mail) - [http://www.joinfo.com/world/1002451_British-experts-accuse-Russian-Defense-Ministry.html British experts accuse Russian Defense Ministry of forging photos of MH-17 crash] --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 22:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::::: In case you wondered, [http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/bellingcat-autor-war-hauptamtlicher-stasi-mitarbeiter-a-1037297.html "Timmi Allen" is a former Stasi operative], according to the latest SPIEGEL exposure. I've stacked huge amount of popcorn to make sure to survive the weekend. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 15:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::::: Oh, and [http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10692555#post10692555 I already came up with a conspiracy theory about that]. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 15:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== A Rebel-Held Area ==<br />
The presumption behind blaming separatists at all is that the blamed surface-to-air missile was fired from an area under control of separatist forces. But most people seem to just presume the entire eastern area (past what line, who knows?) is all rebel turf, with no Ukrainian military inroads anywhere. That's part of why it's taken as so obvious, even though no one's sure just where the firing was from. The Russian military presentation took BUK itself as meaning Ukrainian military. They claim satellite images of them in Kien-run army bases as close as 5 km from Donetsk, moved on the 17th to a site closer to the shoot-down area, then moved away again.<ref name="RT10">[http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ 10 more questions Russian military pose to Ukraine, US over MH17 crash] RT. July 21, 2014</ref> It seems the "just where" question is far more important than most presume (that is, if there was a ground launch that even mattered, as I suspect) Does anyone have a good analysis of the general control-accessibility situation on that day? Some nerd might have made a map that's reliable? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
:For the NATO narrative on the Novorossiyan Buk you can look at the Ukraine@war. He will you the exact location in Snizhne (the town that was bombed two days before, with 13 civilians killed inside their apartment block). I am no longer interested. All that interest me is the technical aspects of the of the crash investigation. What hit the MH17 where and when.<br />
:P.S. – There is supposedly a video somewhere of a Buk fired. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 12:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
:WSJ has a crappy map: [http://graphics.wsj.com/mh17-crash-map/?standalone=1 How MH17 Came Apart Over Ukraine] – Fails to show any of what the title claims. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 12:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== The Defector Theory ==<br />
* [http://eyesopenreport.com/u-s-prepares-to-blame-mh17-shoot-down-on-ukrainian-army-defector/#more-13012 U.S. Prepares to Blame MH17 Shoot Down on Ukrainian Army “Defector”] Paul Joseph Watson , July 23<br />
:''In an attempt to explain away the existence of evidence which shows Ukrainian troops firing the missile that brought down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, Washington may be preparing to fix the intelligence by pinning the blame on a “defector” in order to absolve Kiev.''<br />
:''As we reported on Monday, award winning former AP and Newsweek reporter Robert Parry was told by an intelligence source that the U.S. is in possession of images which show men dressed in Ukrainian Army uniforms operating the Buk missile system which shot down MH17. If proven accurate, such information would completely eviscerate Washington and Kiev’s already shaky narrative that Russian-backed separatist rebels were responsible for the attack.''<br />
:''The U.S. State Department now appears to be shifting the emphasis of its narrative to discount the possibility that Kiev itself was responsible for shooting down MH17. As the L.A. Times reported yesterday, “U.S. officials said it was possible the SA-11 [anti-aircraft missile] was launched by a defector from the Ukrainian military who was trained to use similar missile systems.” Blaming the incident on a “defector” would allow the U.S. to explain why the culprit was wearing a Ukrainian Army uniform when he shot down the airliner.''<br />
Sounds intriguing, and Robert Parry is usually pretty reliable.Seems worth a section here to see how it pans out. Skipping the prior Infowars article, [http://consortiumnews.com/2014/07/20/what-did-us-spy-satellites-see-in-ukraine/ This from July 20] seems to be the original explanation by Parry at Consortium News. I'm not encouraged by the details - the images aren't video or photo, but satellite. Parry mentions the limits of what satellites can see, but rightly points out they could see any Buk system component. Russia's satellites saw the ones run by Kiev's pro-America junta, first at their normal base, then somewhere else '''on July 17.''' What you can't as likely see is smaller details like the exact pattern on a person's shirt, or what the label on a bottle says, if even its shape. But he says:<br />
:''What I’ve been told by one source, who has provided accurate information on similar matters in the past, is that U.S. intelligence agencies do have detailed satellite images of the likely missile battery that launched the fateful missile, but the battery appears to have been under the control of Ukrainian government troops dressed in what look like Ukrainian uniforms.''<br />
:''The source said CIA analysts were still not ruling out the possibility that the troops were actually eastern Ukrainian rebels in similar uniforms but the initial assessment was that the troops were Ukrainian soldiers. There also was the suggestion that the soldiers involved were undisciplined and possibly drunk, since the imagery showed what looked like beer bottles scattered around the site, the source said.''<br />
Ooh, bad move when, as John Kerry, knows, it's the separatists that are the drunken ones in the area. As for where the image was taken, the evidence suggests it was a separatist-policed one. It probably was non-defected Kiev soldiers running it, but false claims to that effect make that possible truth harder to see, in the end. I think Parry's source stopped being credible prior to this latest. Anyone else more inclined to accept this evidence? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Everyone is trash talking everyone else. I'm not believing any of it. It was partly cloudy that day and you'd have to be very lucky to have a satellite pass overhead just when a BUK gets launched. It is much more likely that whatever the US has it got from a spy plane, such as the RC-135 they have operating in the area.(On July 18 some Russian MIGs approached it and it had to fly off over Sweden without permission). https://medium.com/war-is-boring/u-s-spy-plane-reportedly-violated-swedish-air-space-to-escape-russian-fighters-424d05e11bd5 Sorry can't find it now, but another story said land radar had locked onto them, which is why they left in such a hurry. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 03:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: [http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ Russian press conference:] "As far as we know, there was indeed a US satellite flying over southeastern Ukraine on July 17 from 17:06 to 17:21 Moscow time." That will be 16.06 to 16.21 local. _If true_, this is likely to show at least part of the trajectory. No need for satellite's beer bottle photos. -- [[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 03:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: As I recall, somewhere on the news there was a claim that there is no US radar data (too far) --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 03:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: US: “We saw the take-off. We saw the trajectory, we saw the hit. We saw this aeroplane disappear from the radar screens. So there is really no mystery about where it came from and where these weapons have come from." [http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/foreign-affairs/we-saw-the-hit-we-saw-plane-disappear-says-john-kerry-on-mh17/story-fn59nm2j-1227022300618?nk=9b529f73960c26d0085eae5193a5b6b7] (Hope not on a fake photo)? --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 05:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::The photo that popped up for me showed lots of flowers and photos of Diana, Princess of Wales, i.e from 1997. So in true ''The Australian'' tradition a fake. FYI ''The Australian'' is one of the least accurate papers in Australia and runs a very heavy anti-Russian and pro-Israel line. --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 05:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== False-Flag Theories ==<br />
=== Andriy Parubiy again? ===<br />
<br />
Pepe Escobar names Andriy Parubiy as a possible suspect.<br />
* [http://rt.com/op-edge/174088-was-it-putin-missile/ It was Putin’s missile!] – ''RT'', July 19, 2014<br />
:''Carlos’s assessment: the missile was fired by the Ukraine military under orders of the Ministry of Interior - NOT the Ministry of Defense. Security matters at the Ministry of the Interior happen to be under Andrey Paruby, who was closely working alongside US neo-cons and Banderastan neo-Nazis on Maidan.<br />
-- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 02:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
::From what I've read on the guy, he's likely enough to be behind this that, really, all Ukraine's airspace should be closed until he's no longer on the loose. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Robert Parry introduces Parubiiy in [http://consortiumnews.com/2014/07/20/what-did-us-spy-satellites-see-in-ukraine/ his July 20 article,] and mentions:<br />
:''It was this same Parubiy whom the Post writers turned to seeking more information condemning the eastern Ukrainian rebels and the Russians regarding the Malaysia Airlines catastrophe. Parubiy accused the rebels in the vicinity of the crash site of destroying evidence and conducting a cover-up, another theme that resonated through the MSM.''<br />
:''Without bothering to inform readers of Parubiy’s unsavory neo-Nazi background, the Post quoted him as a reliable witness declaring: “It will be hard to conduct a full investigation with some of the objects being taken away, but we will do our best.”'' --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
FTR, Andriy Parubiy [http://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/30934.html resigned yesterday]. Same day the following came out. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Valentyn Nalyvaichenko ===<br />
<br />
On August 7, SBU head Valentyn Nalyvaichenko introduced a new narrative ([http://www.sbu.gov.ua/sbu/control/en/publish/article?art_id=129860&cat_id=35317 release on SBU website] / [https://archive.today/KItnx archived snapshot]) apparently contradicting their released audio tapes that early on helped form the narrative of an accidental shoot-down of MH17 by "rebels" who thought it was a military plane. Now the story goes that the Russians planned to shoot down an Aeroflot plane in a false flag operation blaming it on Ukraine, to have a pretext for invasion. But the "Russian mercenaries" moved their Buk to a different location than planned and mistook MH17 for the Aeroflot machine with their own people they wanted to kill. What exactly they prepared to blame it on Ukraine (maybe Ukrainian uniforms or something?), or why a plane full of AIDS researchers and Dutch children couldn't be used as a pretext (Russian people don't care about Dutch children?), is not explained. Nalyvaichenko [[Talk:Ukraine_2014#Mercenaries_commanded_by_Andriy_Parubiy|has been implicated by his predecessor]] in the sniper killings on Maidan, together with Andriy Parubiy.--[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*Human Rights Investigations, Aug. 7 - [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/08/07/in-ukraine-the-lunatics-have-taken-over-the-asylum/ In Ukraine, the lunatics have taken over the asylum] This relates a SBU statement of earlier in the day outlining their latest theory. As said before, Russians did it, with a system they brought in and took right back with them. Most people have presumed there's no motive for Russia to shoot down an airliner into the separatist's area on their behalf, and it must have been an accident. The SBU's thinkers decided it was intentional, but with an accidental part too. '''They meant to shoot down a Russian airliner''', but set themselves up in the wrong town, so they hit MH17 instead. The original plan was to use dead Russians blamed on Kiev as a reason to invade Ukraine, but when it was other people dead, he said never mind. Awesome theory, no? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: Beat you to it, put it here where it belongs... bizarre. Interesting that Parubiy resigned (see above the subheadline) the same day this came out, isn't it?--[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::Awesome, tag-teamed it with similar technique. Parubiy, huh! That gave zero reason, didn't it? It's not 'to spend more time with my family.' No, he notes on the way out, he still belongs at the "forefrongfront." --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]])<br />
:::: FTR [http://rt.com/news/178760-ukraine-security-chief-resigns/ RT says] "On Monday, reports appeared in Ukrainian media about Parubiy’s resignation. The Local Zn.ua website, citing its source, said that the security chief is due to resign due to diverging opinions with the country’s president. The media stated that Parubiy decided to resign after he was ordered to declare another ceasefire in Kiev’s military operation in the southeast of the country, but he refused to do so." --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:22, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::: [http://www.unn.com.ua/ru/news/1374133-p-poroshenko-doruchiv-rozsliduvati-proval-spetsoperatsiyi-na-kordoni-z-rf-zmi This article] announces an investigation into the "Southern Cauldron" disaster and calls Parubiy the "main author" of the plan that led to it. Maybe that's the reason. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 16:47, 10 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/08/ukrainian-sbu-comes-with-conspiracy.html Ukraine@War views the theory favorably] --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:34, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
* And [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/08/debunking-sbu-theory-of-afl2074-mh17.html not impressed with one de-bunk effort] but rather more convinced!<br />
<br />
: Yeah, we got it the first time already. The guy is a knucklehead. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Cyber Berkut leak ===<br />
{{Main|Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Cyber Berkut leak}}<br />
* [http://en.voicesevas.ru/news/analytics/2793-kolomoyskiy-assistants-facebook-account-hacked-the-boeing-downed-by-junta.html Kolomoyskiy assistant’s Facebook account hacked - the Boeing downed by junta!]<br />
<br />
=== SBU wiretap video ===<br />
:''Moved to [[/SBU Audio Evidence]]<br />
<br />
===Corbett report===<br />
Petri just put this on the main page<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWlAARb0fN4<br />
<br />
I ASSUME it is going to be a false flag nonsense. After 8 whole minutes of introductory waffle and advertising, he still has not started on the topic, so I am not watching any more of it. It is titled "MH17 FULLY EXPOSED!! You Won't Believe The SHOCKING TRUTH About the Ukraine FALSE FLAG ". they are right, I won't believed a word of it. Don't bother with it. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 01:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== A False-Flag Defector Theory ==<br />
Here's one way the facts might wind up going: an SA-11 was fired from outside Snizneh, as alleged, and that's what killed MH17. The Buk launcher was even welcomed in by local commanders, heard saying so in audio communications that could prove true (or not), was sent to the spot by them, and then disavowed in embarrassment. And also the launcher came from Kiev's arsenal, the shootdown was not a mistake, and the crime carried out by pro-Kiev false-flaggers in the proud Euromaidan tradition. Here's how that could all be so:<br />
<br />
Some secret Right-winger in the army playing a disgusted defector makes contact with local rebels on July 15. He heard about the apartment bombing that day in Snizneh, and about the junta's plans for another run at the same place two days later. But, he said, he could get access to a launcher at the base north of Donetsk, a disloyal guard who'd take a bribe (small, covered) plus even a couple local defectors trained to run it, and even a truck from his part time job - the boss wouldn't notice it missing, he's such a clueless junta-supporter... Yeah, he could have it all mobile, drive it himself, make all the contacts, have their guys check it out, it works! It'll shoot down anything. They can get it put in place and wait. In this version, the "SBU wiretap" audio was maybe their defector's own phone - he was undercover the whole time, "wearing a wire" - the launcher was a trojan horse, and its crew were evil and knew just what they where they were and just what they were doing. <br />
<br />
On the rebel end, having no clue there will be a mass murder ensuing, and seeing nothing criminal in preventing a second junta air force atrocity, happily waved the thing in. They were supposed to meet someone in Snizneh, but drove off mysteriously. Then MH17 came down and, in dread and shock, the rebels decided to dis-acknowledge the whole deal, and no one's simply come clean about it yet. But the "defector" meme coming out might be spurred by its partial truth, along lines kind of like this, and not from some satellite photos. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: Hey CL, apart from your vivid imagination, do you have even just a whisper to back this up? And if we're speculating, how would you like to forget Snizneh and look at Chornukhyne as the launch site? At the time was on almost no man's land, under Don Cossack Control. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 14:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::: Do I have evidence? Yes. There are these pieces we're considering, supposed to point that way, that might or might not. This theory here is sort of a "worst case scenario" where all those come out true, or an idea for those who believe all those clues, to show how alternate explanations still exist even then. Im am fairly convinced of the core parts, much less on the calls, but this is more a though exercise than "my theory," although it's not far from my working theory and become it if the audio is genuine after all. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 22:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: Yeah, similar to KatKan question is bugging me as well . Why not to look, let's say, perhaps somewhere else? (hopefully without creating sudden burst of fighting or urgent land management work just right exactly there, if possible )? --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 14:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: yeah, early intercepted call said ""These are Chernukhin folks who shot down the plane. From the Chernukhin check point. Those Cossacks who are based in Chernukhino." and nobody's ever looked there. It is same distance as Snizneh and 90 degrees to the flight path so an easy shot. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 15:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: I certainly would not know why a reputable news-maker would pay travel expenses going to Snezhny but not this other well-flagged place nearby. The only new comment I have to make here is that this is a big expensive truck, not a flag costing one grivna/ruble {nor is it a can of some chemicals). It is your best air defense, and there aren't many. So it is either off front line or it is there, somewhere, for a real strong reason. --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 19:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: Okay, the other town being named is one clue for another site, and no one looking could be why there's nothing else. I'm not sure how Chernukin connects - If the burned spot is up there, or there's another one... maybe the defector made his contact with those guys, and so his little team was called part of theirs - Miner brought them. As for why the other area, it was indicated and they say it had burn marks at the end (can't be checked and ruled in or out), so they went and it ''appears'' to have been smart. In the other direction, a mention the responsible people are ''from'' there, not even that they fired from there. But at least it's not pulled out of thin air. If there becomes more to support it, I'll consider more. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 22:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::: We may want to put the audio story in order separately, someplace, if it was not done. I was following it initially, but now references are hard to find. <br />
<br />
:::::Agreed. This happens here sometimes. Hoping it helps, I made [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/SBU Audio Evidence|a page for that subject]] and moved comments from both of you guys over there. Hope I didn't mess anything up in the process - please review. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::::You did indeed delete a whole bunch of stuff instead of "moving" it. Restored here. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::As I recall (but do not have links saved), this is Bes recordings, glued together from genuine pieces. (I believe Bes said pieces are genuine early on himself) The first piece, mentioning Enakievo, is about a different earlier episode--as he himself responded. His response about second piece, mentioning Cossacks, was much more evasive, something like 'if every block post has a Buk, than I'll be in Kiev'. But it is clear that at the time of event, he had reason to believe that something was going on over there. That does not say this happened as he thought, Cossacks may be shooting pistols not Buks or whatever; but it may looked like something is launched from there, or whatever the case might be. This does suggest some notable event at that location. I do not see genuine evidence pointing to the current official version; it is more consistent with somebody trying to put a false flag there so that all attention of social networkers go that way. Chasing this flag further is a waste of time in my opinion, and is unlikely to produce anything new which is not known already. Looking the other way, even pointing out there is SOME other way, might. (Actually, it looks like attempts were made to place SEVERAL false flags, and than whatever was picked up , was supported by some further noise). --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 23:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::: (Coincidently) just above I posted [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T34AB6CImTE an alleged proof of audio fakery] of some SBU-released audio, likely from the first batch. As I said, I didn't look into it really closely. Maybe worth doing so. Claim is that it was cut together from several audio tapes. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 23:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::::Bes in the audio (perhaps glued from pieces) does [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJnD1wgofYM say] Cossacks from Chernukhino block post shot the plane down, those Cossacks _standing_ at Cherknukhino. Why everybody is looking the other way just beats me --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 00:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::::: This brief piece on Chernukhino Cossacks is disconnected from the first piece (about Miner, apparently another rebel) and from discussion of discovering that it was a passenger plane and of the bodies. Chernukhino piece is timed at 16.33 on the crash day. First piece (Miner) is timed earlier, actually, at 16:40, and talks about a different location (really bad gluing skill here; this miner thing is most likely from another day, and I recall that was claimed in discussions which followed. ) Gluing is beyond any doubt; but individual pieces sound genuine for my ears. So he does not actually say it was his Cossacks or what they shot was a passenger plane; just that (some) Cossacks standing at Chernukhino shot (some ) plane, and than it cuts off; rebel blame is rather what this gluing order is trying to convey on us. I would certainly check this out. --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 01:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::I've gone back to early things to refresh my memory. And the whole tone of voice was different then. Today it is all propaganda and fantastic stories from everyone.The first 2 days everyone sounded genuine, spoke unthinking,not for effect. So I am thinking, things said early are more likely true. Yes that video with the telephone calls was from 3 separate calls, and at least one maybe not from July 17. The one about Yenaklevo I think is another day. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 00:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Debunked topics ==<br />
:''Moved to [[/Debunked topics]]<br />
<br />
This link http://adam1baum.blogspot.fi/2014/08/another-journalist-exposes-mh17-false.html <br />
<br />
just added to the main page under "Analysis"<br />
is FULL of items already debunked. Are the "analysis" items being added without comment? just to collect them? [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 16:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Yes, basically the main page is for pre-scrutiny source material. Analysis is mainly to collect them. I had a quick look at the blog post, but noticed most of the topics were debunked long ago. Or should be debunked. For example, it seems that MH17 may have flown a different route on previous days, but there were plenty of other Asia flight in the Donetsk airspace. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 20:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Warhead damage ==<br />
:''Moved to [[/Forensics#Warhead damage]]<br />
<br />
== Radar Evidence ==<br />
:''Moved to [[/Map#Radar Evidence]]<br />
<br />
== Cockpit Voice Recorder ==<br />
Thanks for a start, Charles, will review. I was watching for that, gathering a bit of background on the CVR angle. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
* July 23: good condition http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/malaysian-airlines-flight-mh17-cockpit-voice-recorder-in-good-condition-1.2715671<br />
:''The cockpit voice recorder of the Malaysian airliner downed over Ukraine is in good condition, the UN civil aviation body said on Wednesday,'' <br />
:''"The cockpit voice recorder is in good condition ... the digital flight data recorder is still under review," ICAO said in a statement.''<br />
* July 23, downloaded: http://www.eturbonews.com/48306/mh-17-cockpit-voice-recorder-data-downloaded<br />
:''On Tuesday 22 July 2014 at 22:00 inKiev, Ukraine, the flight data and cockpit voice recorders (the 'black boxes') from the Malaysian Airlines flight 17 were taken into custody by the Dutch ambassador and a team of investigators led by the Dutch Safety Board. The Dutch Safety Board requested that the Air Accident Investigation Branch of theUnited Kingdom (AAIB) perform the data download from both the recorders. The recorders were transported to the AAIB's laboratory at Farnborough, arriving 23rd July in the early morning.''<br />
<br />
::I just got a real TinFoil idea. The black boxes were found in the wheatfield where they also found some bodies on day ONE. There were daily reports that they had been found and were going to be sent to Russia. Then on July 21 they were "found" ON CAMERA...and the guy carried it a long way, stuck out in front of him, to a command post of some sort, the camera following him the whole way. Not a rebel but an official Emergency Services guy. Nice "evidence" of chain of possession. BUT there is a 3-day gap there, when something could be taken the 80 miles or so to a place called Rostov, and back again. Black boxes have ports for cables to be attached,they don't need to be pulled apart to be read. What if Russia already has a copy of what was on the black boxes? adding to their confidence? [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 15:21, 26 December 2014 (UTC) <br />
:::If something is doable, but they have not done it, than one can ask, why have not they. But also, propaganda warfare is on (recently seeing ex-official Kudrin interview voicing displeasure over propaganda being on). This is mostly for internal consumption, Channel 1 TV and the like, but it can spill over elsewhere, presumably. [http://www.nytimes.com/video/world/europe/100000003011003/malaysian-planes-black-box-retrieved.html July 20 video (NY Times)] (indeed, looks like staged 'find") --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:43, 26 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== AAIB Analysis ===<br />
Analysis of the CVR from here on should be by the UK Air Accidents Investigation Branch. We shall see. For the record, they came out far less shady in the Lockerbie investigation 25 years ago than the now-fazed out RARDE and its hacks Hayes and Feraday, or the FBI's stumblebum "Tom" Thurman (see [http://lockerbiedivide.blogspot.com/2010/11/political-scientists-of-lockerbie.html The Political Scientists of Lockerbie.] I might have been overly fair - Dr. Morag Kerr could tell you in more detail some of the problems with even the AAIB's work there setting the explosion center. But this was 25 years ago, They're only looking at the flight data this time, not the wreckage. We're on the verge of world war, with this the latest information front. They're in London. They'll tell us the truth only if it fits okay with their narrative. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::The crash investigation of Lockerbie was fine. It was the criminal investigation that was messed up. They didn't do that, FBI got involved, same as in TWA800. Some facts seem to depend a fair bit on who is looking at them. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 03:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== New Straits Times - CVR ===<br />
<br />
THE preliminary analysis of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17’s cockpit voice recorder (CVR) revealed “nothing out of the ordinary”.<br />
<br />
A source close to the international investigation told the New Sunday Times that the CVR downloaded by the United Kingdom’s Air Accidents Investigation Branch had picked up the communications between the Malaysia Airlines’ pilot and an unspecified personnel with an air traffic controller (ATC).<br />
<br />
“So far, from what the team has heard, there was nothing unusual. The last voice heard was not the pilot’s. No, there was no indication that the pilots saw or sensed anything off,” the source said without elaborating further to protect the investigations.<br />
<br />
This may mean that whatever happened was very sudden.<br />
<br />
The CVR records all communications on the flight deck, including transmissions with air traffic controllers, discussions between the flight crew, cabin announcements and conversations with any other crew entering the cabin.<br />
<br />
In this case, it could provide investigators with some insight into the flight crew’s mindset and emotional state if they had to deal with an emergency in the final moments.<br />
<br />
However, it remains unclear if the Dutch-led investigation team had secured the recordings from the Ukrainian air traffic controllers to match the conversations between the ATC staff and the MH17 flight crew.<br />
<br />
Asked about the Ukrainian government’s revelation on Monday that the aircraft was brought down by “a massive explosive decompression”, the source said the statement was “unconfirmed”.<br />
<br />
The source told the NST that the “initial factual findings” of the probes into the shootdown of MH17 were expected to be released next week.<br />
<br />
It is learnt that investigations also centred heavily on the findings provided by the group of three Malaysian investigators, who were among the first to reach the crash site and conduct probes.<br />
<br />
The NST was told that instead of the 200 reported earlier, the experts dissecting the flight data recorder (FDR) were looking at 1,500 parameters of the black box.<br />
<br />
The FDR records essential flight data parametres at least 10 times per second and defines the aircraft’s flight path and motion.<br />
<br />
The data also include primary information, such as position, altitude, airspeed and heading. This allows investigators to reconstruct the aircraft’s flight path.<br />
<br />
Also recorded in the FDR are the aircraft’s aerodynamics and engine parameters, including information from the air data computer and sensors.<br />
<br />
The Dutch Safety Board (DSB), which is leading the international investigation into the downing of the aircraft, had said the findings would likely provide a picture of how the investigation would proceed.<br />
<br />
Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak had said the aircraft’s flight data recorder and the CVR were among the “hard evidence” the investigation team needed to find out what happened.<br />
<br />
DSB spokesman Sara Vernooij was quoted as saying the board would likely say “what it can rule out” and “what it is going to focus on”.<br />
<br />
It is understood that the team of investigators at the crash site in eastern Ukraine would carry out verification of information that had been gathered from other sources.<br />
<br />
This is to allow them to search<br />
for possible new information and collect material for the investigation, such as pieces of the wreckage.<br />
<br />
The Dutch police had earlier this week received 150 photos<br />
and video clips on their server<br />
set up to piece together the mystery.<br />
<br />
The photos were uploaded by eyewitnesses from what has been described as “the world’s biggest crime scene”.<br />
<br />
[http://www.nst.com.my/node/19598 New Straits Times CVR report]<br />
--[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 12:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== ATC recordings ==<br />
Initially it was reported that the SBU confiscated the ATC air-to-ground-communication. After weeks the Malaysians asked the Ukrainian ambassador to their country about this, and he denied that it had happened. He said he had no idea what happened to them and no formal request of any investigating party has been made. The Malaysian Attorney General then announced that he will make a formal request to get the recordings. This according to:<br />
* [http://www.nst.com.my/node/21260 Malaysia wants the ‘missing’ Ukrainian ATC tapes], New Straits Times, August 8, 2014<br />
--[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Investigation==<br />
* [[Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Dutch preliminary report|Dutch preliminary report]] ([[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Dutch preliminary report |talk]])<br />
<br />
talk moved here from accidental location on Main page [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 08:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* [http://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/en/onderzoek/2049/investigation-crash-mh17-17-july-2014/onderzoek/1559/questions-and-answers-concerning-the-investigation-into-flight-mh17 Investigation crash MH17, 17 July 2014 Donetsk – Dutch Safety Board] 21 Aug 2014<br />
<br />
<br />
:Interesting list of countries involved. I wonder how Russia and Germany got on this list? from the above report<br />
<br />
:"The following countries have contributed (to a greater or lesser extent) to the international investigation team into the crash of flight MH17: '''Ukraine, Malaysia, Australia, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States, Germany, France, Italy and Indonesia.''' The ICAO and the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) also contributed to the investigation as organisations. The leadership of the investigation rests with the Dutch Safety Board, which will publish both the preliminary and final report. The countries that have a formal role as participants in the investigation under the ICAO agreement will be given access to the draft reports, and may provide feedback. The country leading the investigation may offer other countries access to the draft reports at its discretion." [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 07:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Germany, maybe just provided radar data for the stretch that flew over them. Russia, maybe because they were asked to tell the federalists to let investigators do their work (a stupid but real way of thinking, as if Putin hired all these people). Maybe they were asked for their own radar data too. Indonesia's connection is not too obvious, but I suppose there is one. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 08:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
:: Buks--which were widely reported to be suspected rocket and which Ukraine is known to have , is designed and manufactured in Russia, and ONLY Russia would know exact technical details, if those are at issue to the investigation. It is NOT having Russia is what would make zero sense. --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 09:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: Good point there. We could use more detailed specs here too (though reliable airliner measures and hole size needs settled first anyway) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::It says " on the days following the incident (when Ukraine was still leading the investigation), several Ukrainian aviation investigators visited the crash site briefly several times for investigative purposes." They must have sneaked in disguise as rescue workers collecting bodies. And maybe it was they responsible for some of the "cutting up and removing evidence" and maybe they decently handed it over to the Dutch, whatever they found useful. <br />
:::: Are you SURE the BUKs are made in Russia? I know they ere designed there, so were the Antonovs and helicopters which Ukraine not only makes but exports to other countries. They make radar and big rockets too. Mostly in the south east...8th largest arms manufacturer in the world.<br />
<br />
<br />
:::::I do not have means to verify that no plant in Ukraine is producing books, but my understanding based on press reports, is that production is in Dolgoprudnyi, Moscow. That makes logical sense and I do not have a reason to think that this report is not accurate . There is no way for me to check this 100 sitting on my chair. Did anybody even claimed that there is a plant based in Ukrain capable of producing Buks? I have not seen such reports. It is possible that some components were normally exported from somewhere else in former SU, but it looks like final assembly at least is near Moscow . (That would also make logical sense, and I do not have grounds to dispute the report [http://www.ibtimes.com/maker-buk-missile-may-have-shot-down-mh17-targeted-recent-us-sanctions-1632698] --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 01:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
::::Anyway this is only Air Safety report. Criminal investigation if any has to be done by different department (but could be in any country involved). There won't be criminal charges. The finding will be "missile fired by persons unknown". [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 12:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
* [http://en.ria.ru/world/20140823/192273535/Russia-Wants-Regular-Transparent-Reports-on-MH17-Crash.html Russia Wants Regular, Transparent Reports on MH17 Crash Probe] – RIA Novosti, 23/08/2014 -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) aug 24 not signed<br />
<br />
:This story looks like for domestic consumption, <br />
<br />
::Maybe in small part, but mostly it is more like you accused us--where is the proof? With intention to have the matter dropped, not to escalate the matter. This is not working very well, it just gets stuck, because the other part is not paying much attention. They are not trying to work together at all, and so it just reflects that there is a lot of unresolved tension. --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 05:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:to make it look like the "West" is hiding something. <br />
::::A bit of that , --certainly they want to recieve as early as possible all available evidence, and they were saying in the past that they had not. But in terms of tone, the reason is concern with insufficient respect to Russia, so the payback is, hey,go bring us some pointless paper. So there are tone problems, not just substance problems, --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 07:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:It refers to <br />
Resolution 2166 adopted by the UN Security Council in July calls for a thorough and impartial investigation into the MH17 tragedy and requires the secretary-general to provide the Security Council with investigation progress reports". which is nonsense, as Security Council has no access, will not do own investigation, and it is being done under international laws by the Dutch. Furthermore, as a member of the investigation panel, Russia knows this. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 22:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::The original story is that separatists shot it down with a BUK. The physical evidence only points to a proximity fuse missile ''of some sort'', several types of these available including air to air ones. USA claims but has not shown satellite evidence of a BUK being fired frm "rebel held territory". This is UNTRUE as satellite would not show the type of evidence they claim to have. So to produce evidence they would have the show what they really have, which must be off a spy plane. Domestically they want to hide that they had enough interest in the area to operate such a plane there, though everyone locally knows. They will not produce this for a criminal case. No criminal case is possible without proof of who (what person or unit) shot it. Anyway the consensus also was that they were aiming at a legitimate military target, so was accidental.<br />
::Several other accidental "wrong target" scenarios are possible, and almost as equally likely. If there WERE Ukrainian aircraft near MH17 (and witnesses said there WAS a fighter there) they may have been the target, of separatists OR RUSSIAN AIRCRAFT which of course are not meant to be in Ukrainian air space -- but would not have to be, to be close enough to shoot a missile at one. Alternatively a Russian one may have been the target of a Ukrainian plane. Either way the much larger and intervening B777 would have captured the attention of the missile. <br />
::The Russian "radar proof" of SUs being there were fake. But based on some knowledge that there WERE some there. If their own planes saw them, they can't admit to that.<br />
::There is enough doubt for all parties to NOT WANT a thorough investigation. Nobody can do one with hopes of blaming the other, without potentially incriminating themselves. <br />
::So it will not happen. Whichever way it was, the missile was aimed at a legitimate target. So at most the charge could only be negligence. Discovering whose negligence would only escalate hostilities. Nobody wants that. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 07:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
:::All signed and should-be-signed chit chat should ideally be on a talk page, not front (article) page. Friendly reminder. (and I say ideally as I and others have done this before and sometimes never fixed it, but it's not ideal) (good talk though) :) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 08:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::sorry, I started it there, fixed now. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 08:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== November 2014 ===<br />
<br />
Dutch experts are back at the scene, this time collecting the wreckage. As [http://www.sputniknews.com/europe/20141111/1014605576.html RIA Novosti reports], an agreement with the DPR has been signed yesterday, but there were some shenanigans with the Dutch delivering a second version of the agreement in which any mention of "DPR" was erased. Grow a spine, cheeseheads, FFS. ''Your'' children died there. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Correspondents in the area say there was shelling of the wreckage area by Ukraine on 10 of November [http://rusvesna.su/news/1415708946 (KP correspondent-rusvesna)] . They have a video from the scene; I don't think shelling is heard there, but it is a very brief clip. They show damage in the metal, a thin crack which goes from the inside out. It may be missile shrapnel shooting the plane through, entering, than exiting on the other side of the plane, there is no problem with that. Cracks looks most consistent with missile shrapnel (which may be a rhombus plate). Woman in the second half does not say things of help to investigation, she heard explosion and seen smoke, but that was about it. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
What are they on about?? they went there weeks ago to pick up luggage and belongings,no problems, no OSCE help either. Left most of it behind.Few days later Graham Phillips showed heaps of stuff still there -- including BONES. They were quietly invited back (BY DPR)went back and found some bones. Few days ago went back, found more remains WITH DPR PEOPLE WITH THEM. Well yeah, it's only about 25 km from Debaltseve, true. Ukies shelling that way on purpose to scare them off, was nothing when they were there secretly. On other hand their PM didn't knows they were there either? he's a snarling venom-spitter agaist Putin. "Rutte has always said he doesn’t want to negotiate with the pro-Russian separatists because he doesn’t recognize their self-proclaimed regional government." what BS you negotiate with whoever is there, who else? the man in the moon? Malaysia negotiated with them and got back all the bodies and the black boxes. Kiev was not going to give them, even if they'd been able to. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 14:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
=== December 2014 ===<br />
At SBU press conference given by Vasilii Vovk, and lasting some 30 minutes, MH17 crashed was mentioned. It was said that final outcome of investigation may be not exactly the same as initially announced, and that investigators have recovered fragments in passengers bodies which may show that the plane was shot by a missile. [http://rusvesna.su/news/1419023898 Reports on this (rusvesna)] came out with a title claiming that SBU admitted that MH17 could be shot from a plane; that seems to be a lot stronger than what SBU actually announced. They did say that [http://112.ua/glavnye-novosti/v-telah-passazhirov-boinga-obnaruzheny-elementy-kotorye-mogut-byt-chastyami-raket-sbu-163012.html "there are many reasons to think that those were missile fragments"]. Here is [http://112.ua/glavnye-novosti/v-sbu-ne-uvereny-chto-iznachalnaya-versiya-krusheniya-samoleta-naydet-100-procentnoe-podtverzhdenie-163013.html 112.ua report, and press conference video (Ukrainian)] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 08:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* http://uatoday.tv/crime/bodies-of-mh17-victims-contain-missile-fragments-sbu-says-398439.html <br />
"Chief of the Investigation Department of the Security Service of Ukraine and the co-chair of the international investigation group into the crash, Vasiliy Vovk." This is one and the same person, then, not a joint statement. UNIAN reports from this "the bodies of some of the passengers killed in the plane crash contain metal objects that were not part of the aircraft," now citing external forces. Apparently, per the above, he said a jet-fired missile was possible, and Russian media latches onto that. UNIAN emphasizes the other half of the options: "One of the main theories being considered is that the plane was shot down by a Buk missile system from territory controlled by terrorist groups," Vovk said." --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Eliot Higgins [https://twitter.com/EliotHiggins/status/546064079350411264 tweets]: Preview of interview with the head of the #MH17 criminal investigation ‘Geen satellietbeelden van neerschieten MH17’ http://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2014/12/19/geen-satellietbeelden-van-neerschieten-mh17/ --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:Translated, Westerbeke basically says there is no video-movie type satellite imagery proof of what happened, as many had come to expect. Makes sense to me. But there should be data that can be read and then presented graphically, that should indicate what happened. Should be forthcoming? To note, new to me, Malaysia has maybe been invited into the JIT (Joint Investigation Team, once a total secret) - the article lists member states as "Oekraïne, Australië, Maleisië, België en Nederland." --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: Malaysia was finally allowed into the club [http://www.nst.com.my/node/60321 on or around December 8]. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===February 2015===<br />
The team of international aviation investigators who investigate the cause and contributing factors of the crash of flight MH17 concluded the investigation meeting at Gilze-Rijen. In the past week they conducted several investigations on the wreckage, including the fractures, the failure mechanisms and the impact patterns. This meeting is part of the procedures prescribed by the ICAO provisions on international aircraft accident and incident investigation.<br />
<br />
The investigators represented the countries involved in the MH17 investigation: Ukraine, Malaysia, Australia, United States, United Kingdom and the Russian Federation. The representatives of Belgium and Germany attended the meeting on February 17. A representative of ICAO was also present.<br />
<br />
Next week preparations will be made for the visit of next of kin to see the recovered wreckage in the first week of March. The planned three-dimensional reconstruction of a part of the aircraft will start soon. The next of kin will be allowed to view this three-dimensional reconstruction at a later time. [http://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/en/onderzoek/2049/investigation-crash-mh17-17-july-2014/onderzoek/1622/international-aviation-investigators-conclude-meeting-at-gilze-rijen#fasen /Dutch Safety Board, 20.02.2015] <br />
: and ...? --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 21:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: The great Alex Thomson has been there lately, finding [https://twitter.com/alextomo/status/566945066284228608 piles of Malaysian Airlines jet wreckage] still around. Guess that's not needed for their 3D reconstruction. All very shady and quite disappointing if one (like me) has held the Dutch in high regard when it comes to thoroughness and integrity. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 21:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===March 2015===<br />
[http://nos.nl/artikel/2027660-justitie-zoekt-getuigen-van-neerhalen-mh17-door-buk-raket.html Something from Netherlands emerged], claimed to be International Investigation team (with Ukraine, but not Russia) with old stuff,+ some (newly?) recorded, some of it at studio quality, zero emotions, suspiciously accented conversation in RUssian about a Buk being moved direct from Russia to somewhere near Snezhnoe by some unknown, but surely opolchenie member, characters --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 16:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
: Some Western operation, announcer quite clearly lived in the West for a while, newly emerged recording of bad guys--something strange about accents (something out of place), and tone (supercalm in presumably tense circumstances, curses with no fire to them appear staged)--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 16:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::[http://www.newsru.com/world/02apr2015/mh17.html Now saying ] [http://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2015/04/01/russische-legerofficier-herkend-op-justitietape-mh17/ (and here)] looking for Petrovskii-Khmuryi, who can be one of the guys on the recording (Do not remember comments from him on the matter...kind of curious) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::Pro-opolchenie blog say that this is old Ukrainian fake presented now as coming from Netherlands. Have not seen Petrovskii comments on the matter. (Manner of speech somewhat reminds him, in a kind of exaggerated way; to me sounds as more likely to be a play-up, --having hard time believing the tone). Recordings attributed to crash day were [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgdqdklrqDA#t=238 published by SBU] on 18 July. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===April 2015===<br />
[http://www.nltimes.nl/2015/04/08/dutch-release-hundreds-of-emails-tied-to-mh17/ Dutch Release Hundreds Of Emails Tied To Mh17]--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Russian demands ===<br />
* [http://en.itar-tass.com/world/750377 Russia proposes appointing UN special envoy for MH17 crash probe — Churkin] – ITAR-TASS, 20 Sept 2014<br />
:''He said that Russian delegation has seen no will on the part of the secretariat to display any initiative to promote international investigation of the crash. “We think it important that the United Nations Secretary General should analyze the state of things on the above problems and deliver a detailed report to the Security Council, including his suggestions about additional measures to promote the investigation,” he said.<br />
:''“It would probably be expedient to look at establishing a post of a secretary general’s envoy on that matter and sending, in collaboration with the OSCE [Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe], a mission to the crash area,” Churkin said.<br />
: Russians are annoyed by disrespect, and by sanctions. [http://itar-tass.com/politika/1455360 During the meeting of the UN Security Council, Churkin urged his colleagues] to work together to clarify the tragic story of the airliner "without any hints and insinuations" and references to the evidence which has not been submitted. "If you do not submit (any proof) than this is not evidence, but just as we say," фига в кармане " ("the 3-finger gesture exhibited in one's own pocket"- basically meaning bullshit). And such things to investigate such serious situations is completely inappropriate," - he stressed. Russians support the official investigation, -but still emit some noise indicating their annoyance. Also, they may have some beliefs regarding the circumstances. <br />
:At the time, it appeared that sanctions and MH17 are [http://time.com/3025173/eu-sanctions-russia-mh17-putin/ linked ] ; and despite a progress towards peace, new sanctions were imposed. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 12:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: [http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1407/18/cnr.04.html UN Ambassador Power Addresses Security Council Meeting] "we cannot rule out technical assistance from Russian personnel" "If indeed Russian-backed separatists were behind this attack on a civilian airliner, they and their backers would have good reason to cover up evidence of their crime. Thus, it is extremely important that an investigation be commenced immediately."--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Germany Decides Rebels Dunnit==<br />
<br />
German Intelligence has decided for definite that the first story was correct - MH17 was downed by a BUK operated by [http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/mh17/prorussian-rebels-downed-mh17-with-ukraine-missile-germans/story-fno88it0-1227095832498 separatists] after all. <br />
Not really surprising, as this is (a) the easiest result based on Occam's Razor and (b) comes at a time Germany would like to do something to help Russia in the sanctions mess but Merkel can't back off yet (and/or different parts of Germany have different degrees of friendship with The Bear). It may also be a smack on the fingers for Ukraine for the neo-nazi mess. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 04:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
We also covered this elsewhere [[Category_talk:Leaks#BND |BND leak]]. (As for positives, they seem to say Ukrainian photos are fake). As for rebel Buk, Bolotov said on 20 July that his Buk is broken, and offered anybody to come and check. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 04:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
:And Kiev also agrees the rebels had no Buk of their own, saying Russia (not Kiev) brought it in on their behalf and fired it. How does BND think it can just make up claims no in the region believes or supports? Will need to have a look, especially at their take on the images used to support Kiev's version of the "not separatists" narrative. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::There's nothing for you to take a look at. This "presentation" was towards a fig leaf secret service control instance, and even [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Ströbele one of the few people on it], a kind of German Ron Paul when it comes to argue against the grain, said he doesn't buy it. And another one of those "kleine Anfragen" made them admit that [https://www.jungewelt.de/schwerpunkt/»keine-eigenen-erkenntnisse« "no own insights" went into that "leaked" statement]. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 23:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/mh17-chief-investigator-says-no-actionable-evidence-yet-in-probe-a-999485.html Chief MH17 Investigator on German Claims: 'We Will Need Evidence'] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 18:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Joost Bosman photos ==<br />
[https://www.flickr.com/photos/33705716@N05/14687945100/sizes/l This one] is interesting. Also [https://www.flickr.com/photos/33705716@N05/14872160254/in/set-72157646326477044 this.] -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 00:14, 12 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Other MH17 analysis ==<br />
<br />
Half-way decent [http://0serg.livejournal.com/146553.html analysis] of the known facts on MH17 in Q & A format. Use Bing translator as google gives up half way through.--[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 01:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== R-27 long-range air-to-air missile? ==<br />
<br />
Work in progress, please leave alone for a an hour. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 15:56, 13 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-27_(air-to-air_missile) R-27 (air-to-air missile)]<br />
* [http://belsat.eu/en/wiadomosci/a,20935,official-russian-military-aircraft-to-blame-for-shooting-down-ukrainian-su25-plane.html Official: Russian military aircraft to blame for shooting down Ukrainian Su-25 plane] – 7 July 2014<br />
* [http://www.ukrinform.ua/eng/news/nsdc_russian_aircraft_shot_down_ukrainian_su_25_plane_323908 NSDC: Russian aircraft shot down Ukrainian Su-25 plane] – July 17, 2014<br />
* [http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/russian-military-plane-shot-down-ukrainian-su-25-aircraft-in-ukraine-356422.html Russian military plane shot down Ukrainian Su-25 aircraft in Ukraine] – Interfax-Ukraine / Kyiv Post, July 17, 2014<br />
<br />
<br />
== R-60 ==<br />
Basic info. Infrared-homing, proximity fuse (radar or optical); range 8 km, altitude 20 km [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/62/Rakiety_R-60_i_R-13M_A381.jpg Photo] (but rods not shown--dummy warhead). [http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-101.html More photos]. Older versions warhead use tungsten expanding rods, newer (R60 M, R60 MK) may use depleted uranium . 3-3.5 kg warhead weight. Exact rod shapes, and whether encasing is suitable to produce fragmentation on top of that, are not found/hard to find.<br />
<br />
It is thought that R 60 rod damage will look similar to [http://s711.photobucket.com/user/smi6086/media/visit61.jpg.html sidewinder,] but straight cut, not L shape --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 23:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 23:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: <s>Here's what R-60 warhead ''allegedly'' [http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/evanesce_girl/8305736/101880/101880_original.jpg looks like] (I can neither confirm nor deny that it is indeed an R-60 warhead, as I simply do not know for sure). If it is true, then there's no way the holes will look even remotely close to Sidewinder damage. (Note that the ruler at the bottom of the photo is in centimeters, not inches).</s> -- [[User:Ed3218|Ed3218]] ([[User talk:Ed3218|talk]]) 17:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::But [http://imperiya.by/news.html?id=139809 other sources] call it anti aircraft shell (artillery) , WW2 times---and it does look like (artillery) shell. patronen.su is a source of the photo (typed on the photo)--, but I could not find that photo there--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 18:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::It got an outer rotating band , those grooves outside. Also material seems to be cast iron, not tungsten-as far as it's possible to tell from the photo --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 18:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::: Looks like you are correct. -- [[User:Ed3218|Ed3218]] ([[User talk:Ed3218|talk]]) 23:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Disinformation? ==<br />
<br />
Chris Harrison [https://www.facebook.com/groups/IOUCO/permalink/631575156955542/ on Facebook:]<br />
* [http://www.discussionist.com/101445081 Overlooked....the mysterious imprisoned US spy who gave the Daily Mail witness testimony about MH-17] – Clarity of Signal, Aug 16, 2014<br />
:''Needing a little help form Novorossiya blogging investigators in regards to this individual who I put a thread up about back in August. He is a very intriguing character that supplied the Daily Mail UK with information that doesn't seem to be mentioned in the ATC to plane transmissions for MH-17 (the ones released by the Dutch Safety Board). The Daily Mail quoted him as saying that the pilots of MH-17 "felt bad". However, this quote and conversation is missing from the DSB's preliminary report. After having performed some minor investigation I found that this same individual was also a key source of misinformation for last years false flag chemical weapons attack in Syria. I'm curious if any other Novorossiya blogging investigators want to attempt to dig deeper on this guy and bring more info to light? He could be somewhat of a 'smoking gun'.<br />
<br />
== Radar jamming and spoofing? ==<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vYaRtY27iY Proof of NATO false flag attack on MH17] – Patrick Roddie, Jul 22, 2014<br />
:''Just one month before the Malaysian airliner was shot down, NATO ran a live exercise using fighter jets to jam the transponders of commercial airliners and spoof them as military jets by broadcasting a military transponder signal at close range. NATO forces seem to have made the doomed Malaysian 777 appear to be a hostile military jet and forced the separatists to open fire. <br />
:''The video evidence of military chaff falling at the crash site reinforces the argument that military fighters were very close to MH17 when it was shot down.<br />
The Russian civilian radar data however shows that the MH17 transponder was not jammed. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 05:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Cause of death? ==<br />
<br />
Up to now it has generally been assumed that the pilots may have died from the "high-energy objects" hitting them while the passengers died almost instantly from hypoxia after the explosive decompression of the cabin. This rapid death might explain the odd "[[/Debunked topics#Bloodless bodies – fake Facebook profiles?|bloodless bodies]]".<br />
<br />
Dutch Foreign Minister Frans Timmermans now says that at least one passenger was found with an oxygen mask on.<br />
* [http://en.itar-tass.com/world/753427 Malaysia Airlines MH17 passenger found with oxygen mask on — Dutch FM] – ITAR-TASS, October 09, 2014<br />
:''The latest finding questions the earlier theory that the 298 victims on board the tragic flight had been killed instantly and indicates that they may have remained conscious after the Boeing aircraft was shot down.<br />
* [http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-10-09/mh-17-false-flag-exposed-after-revelation-passenger-was-wearing-oxygen-mask MH-17 Report False Flag Exposed After Revelation Passenger Was Wearing Oxygen Mask] Zero Hedge, 10/09/2014<br />
:''The mask found around the neck of the unnamed passenger, one of 88 Australian citizens and residents on board, was tested for fingerprints, saliva and DNA but produced no forensic evidence, De Bruin said. "So it is not known how or when that mask got around the neck of the victim," he said.<br />
:''The discovery of the mask and the implications it raised about the passengers' final moments were conveyed to the Australian's family before Timmermans' interview on Wednesday night, the prosecutor's office said. But information was sent out to other family members of the MH-17 victims only on Thursday morning.<br />
-- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 18:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Russia Blames Buk, Secret Info ==<br />
[http://rusvesna.su/news/1413027395 "CyberLeaks" on russvesna] claims 9H314 warhead of 9M38 missile, Buk M1 system. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:11, 11 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* [http://rt.com/news/195128-mh17-crash-cyberberkut-leak/ Kiev secretly received data from MH17 crash investigators – Ukrainian hacktivists] RT Oct. 11<br />
:''Ukrainian CyberBerkut hacktivists claim that they have penetrated the internal network of Ukraine’s Defense Ministry and found proof that Kiev is getting secret data from MH17 crash investigators, including information which implies its involvement.''<br />
<br />
:''A document, posted on the website cyber-berkut.net, and allegedly downloaded from Ukraine’s Defense Ministry network, dates back to August 7 and appears to be signed by Colonel Igor Zorin, the chief of Ukraine’s air defense forces. It is a report which maintains that a fragment of a projectile found together with the debris of the crashed flight MH17 is in fact a damage agent of a 9M38 surface-to-air guided missile belonging to the mobile air defense complex Buk or Buk M1.''<br />
<br />
:''... CyberBerkut claimed that the documents are evidence that the MH17 crash investigation commission and the Ukraine Defense Ministry have “special relations.”'' --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* [http://rt.com/news/194848-mh17-ukrainian-missile-buk/ MH17 crash: Ukraine security chief says missile only Kiev has may be found at crash site] RT Oct. 10 <br />
:''Investigation of the MH17 Boeing-777-200 crash in July will be completed when the remains of the Buk-M air defense missile are found, Valentin Nalivaichenko, head of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), told Ukrainian TV.<br />
::Because:<br />
:''“It will be Russian servicemen who used the Buk-M missile” to take down the passenger jet, he said.''<br />
However, they might have also said it was a certain type - Soviet-era but modernized. I'm not sure if that's so, but if so, Russia's military says they use only "modified" not modernized Buk M-1 and M-2, and only Ukraine has the ones it "modernized." <br />
:''When Mr Nalivaichenko mentions a ‘modernized Buk’ system, he probably means an air defense system that was upgraded by the Ukrainian defense industry. We know that Ukraine has been working in this direction,” the source said, adding that the information about the modernization of Ukrainian Buk systems was confirmed in late June on the Ukrainian Defense Ministry’s website, which reported renovated missile systems becoming operational.''<br />
::And a couple weeks later:<br />
:''On the day that the MH17 was shot down, Ukraine’s 156th SAM regiment carried out an unauthorized missile launch, an emergency situation that is being investigated by the SBU and obviously being hushed up by Kiev authorities, the official said.''<br />
::Therefore:<br />
:''“The confusion and inconsistency of Nalivaichenko’s responses leaves no doubt that he mentioned a plan that definitely had not been developed by the SBU, but rather brought in the other day from their overseas mentors,” the Joint Staff source said. “This is Nalivaichenko and his big mouth blunder.”''<br />
--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
There is no analysis, only conclusion, which is said to be based on the photo. The first question about the photo is where it is coming from. The Netherlands investigation? (Than why it was not also sent to Moscow)? From SBU office? (It is too easy to fake a photo, and with so many fakes already THEY have the burden of proof it is not a fake) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
:There's supposedly analysis behind the match, and my guess is it's all valid. But, that's a guess. Why would it not be sent to Moscow? Apparently its being sent to Ukraine is an issue or scandal, so apparently it's not supposed to be sent to anyone (?) Later it'll be seen by others and us, and our guesses can get better. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 14:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
==Investigation of Buk producer Almaz-Antay==<br />
Russian concern Almaz-Antay held a press conference, aimed at quashing sanctions against them, to say that (if it was Buk, then) it was Buk missile 9M38M or 9M38M1 with missile warhead 9М314 or 9М314М1, because only those have X shape elements. That was taken off production in 1999, while the concern was formed in 2002, so they did not provide this missile to anybody; but Ukraine has it. Their conclusion is based on publicly available photographs; they also participate in the investigation and has exclusive competences. They say that Snezhnoe is inconsistent as that will take cabin off at once; offer to do an [http://rusvesna.su/news/1433241635 experiment] to prove/establish who is responsible (an experiment seems right thing to do-and interesting how you account for movement)- [http://www.interfax.ru/russia/445152 interfax]. They seem to repeat the version given in Novaia Gazeta [[Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17/Forensics#Novaya_Gazeta |(discussion)]], placing launch in Zaroshenskoe. They essentially say that some 40% of elements go perpendicular to the missile and so it needs to be on intersecting course to (have a chance to) account for all the damage. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:33, 2 June 2015 (UTC) <br />
:Severe damage to the flap, illustrated in NG, with less damage to the wing, raises a possibility of a multiple event. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 16:33, 2 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
: Their presentation is on youtube now [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAMY2SpohDA in Russian] and [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsohFzbJ-vs with English translation]. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 15:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Full presentation by Almaz-Antey ( Buk-m2 manufacturer ) about the incident [http://tass.ru/boeing-presentation/vvedenie/2023629#/2023629].<br />
Still only in Russian. Unfortunately even in Russian somebody the diagrams are not self-explanatory. But main arguments are clear. It includes calculations of the attack angle of the rocket in order to cause such damage. - --[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 09:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
They say it was incoming at about 78 degrees; they reject Snezhnoe at 20 degrees; schematically in 2D cones are smth like this, with one extra alternative at -110 degrees shown [[File:Cones.jpg|thumb|Cones for various incoming angles, relative to the plane's frame. MH17: 0.8 Mach, missile: 3 Mach, projectiles 2400 m/s]]--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 05:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
Resup, thanks for shifting my comment to more relevant location. I would like to add here one more analysis. Minimum Distance between Hit point (based on Dutch castrated report) and Snizhne is 24 km (Bellingcat magical tricks placed the launch spot even further). Buk-M1 missile goes at 860m/s, but let's assume 1km/s. Let's also assume that missile immediately travels at highest speed. For such distance the trajectory will be parabolic (slide 49 from Almaz-Antey). Than the time of flight will be way more than 30 sec and it will even intersect the pilot's vertical field of view. Dutch officially declared that there is nothing interesting on black box voice recorder. How is it possible for the pilot not to notice a 5 meters lobg rocket, that ejects violent plume behind, flies directly at him for more than 30 sec and even goes across his vertical field of view? And according to Dutch report, pilot was informed of another airliner in proximity, that he had to watch out for. So he was alert and paying attention to the surroundings. It is just impossible for the pilot not to comment on it, at least WTF. Even cloudy day doesn’t explain the issue.<br />
--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 09:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
:Last radio transmission at 13:19:56-13:19:59 UTC – MH17: ROMEO NOVEMBER DELTA , MALASYAN 17 p15, p29 (MH 17 speaking; RND=waypoint)<br />
:Both flight recordings ended at 13:20:03 UTC-- from the preliminary Dutch report [[Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17/Dutch_preliminary_report#New_Info|(preliminary report discussion link)]]--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 16:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=='Unauthorized launch?' ==<br />
[http://russian.rt.com/article/42405#ixzz38ShRpr00 Such theory appeared] around 25 July 2014. According to quoted source said to be from defense structures of Ukraine, on 17 of July, commander of 156 UAF anti-aircraft defense regiment was ordered to perform training of crews to support ground forces in a Donetsk suburb. They had to deploy batteries, and perform routing of target and all procedures of tracking target and its training destruction with Buk M1. Commanders received unblocking keys for launch, but real launch of 9М38М1 (Buk) was not planned. To participate in the exercise, two SU 25 planes from 229 tactical aviation brigade were sent from Kulbakino airbase in Nikolaev to Dnepropetrovsk. They were charged with aerial reconnaissance and to mark control targets in ATO area to the West from Donetsk. After one of the planes entered detection zone of Buk, it was tracked by a crew of battery located near Zaroshenskoe (Зарощенское). It appears that due to tragic accident after some time, and despite height difference, the azimuth of SU 25 and MH17 coincided, in which case the missile will go after the target with bigger area. The source says that he does not know why accidental launch happened, and this is investigated by SBU. "Battery commander and the whole crew were taken". <br />
<br />
There are some details, but sources are not revealed, and details were neither confirmed nor denied. Location seems a bit suspicious, it suggests a right side hit; not clear how reacquiring target from SU 25 at a coinciding azimuth will result in the other side hit. Not totally impossible, (lost target, overshot to the North, than reacquired). But this is not very likely, on top of unexplained accidental launch. Little solid details makes this theory to be on shaky footing. Apparently was recycled in later versions (Nikolaev air base mentioned in recent film). The worst is that it is unclear what is the source, and could he really know. Otherwise, piece of cake to tell such tale (of 'my aunt told me' sort) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
10.10.2014, 14:05 "Rossiiskaia Gazeta" (official publisher of documents of the Russian Government) [http://www.rg.ru/2014/10/10/buk-site.html says in part:] A week after Boeing (i.e. MH17) catastrophe, a source in the armed forces of Ukraine shared information, definitely not matching the official version of Kiev. This source said: on the day of the tragedy, in the 156th air defense missile regiment of the Ukrainian army, armed with modernized "Buk," there was an unauthorized missile launch, which happened in the course of an exercise . Investigation of the incident involved "impartial" SBU investigators. No need to be a genius to put together elements of a puzzle - said a source in the MoD General Staff of the Russian Federation. " <br />
<br />
The number (156) in this report does not match the number in Bezler account on the video (section below); maybe some mix-up on the way to newspaper; but otherwise it all looks consistent. Bezler was operating in the nearby area, and likely would be more knowledgeable. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 23:48, 5 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Bezler Account==<br />
[http://rusvesna.su/news/1413549200 Bes:] " I do not have weapons to shoot Boeing at 10,000 m. Boeing was shot by 154 anti-aircraft regiment of UAF stationed in Artemovsk, using Buk system. My reconnaissance team has spotted "Buk" as it left. Former Defense Minister Geletey knows about it. It was a provocation. The day before the accident, we shot Ukrainian SU-25, two pilots ejected and we went to look for them. My conversation was intercepted and mis-represented as a talk about the downed Boeing. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 05:35, 18 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: Of all the people making statements in this matter, Bezler was probably the only one actually there on the ground to know what was where. The area he claims is borderline for distance, but not impossible. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 21:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Yes, what he says needs to be taken very seriously --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 22:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
A straight line S-SE to the approximate impact point (as we've narrowed down) is 61.5 km. That's significantly out of range, isn't it? [http://wikimapia.org/#lat=48.4572063&lon=38.2935846&z=10&l=0&m=b&gz=0;380113220;481550929;5094910;0;0;4351413 The line on Wikimapia] for second thoughts on that. Clearly, center of downtown was not the firing spot, but even presuming a bit south of town (and not north) this doesn't readily line up. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 00:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Launcher can drive around easily. While personnel is better of sleeping in a city, not out in the field (even if they do, one would not say 'stationed in a cornfield'). There is nothing to defend in the city itself--Novorossia does not use planes. And also, the range is approximate, it has listed ceiling of 20 km, actual range would depend on height and other things.--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Actual range depends on the actual rocket used, not the launcher. Nobody is suggesting they were defending anything, he's saying it was a provocation,ie deliberate. There have been other reports of Ukies starting to test/train on BUKs,perhaps preparing for a war with Russia directly involved. Now, practice, I've had it from numerous ex-military (various Western nations) that they used civilian planes to practice the BUK type radars on as (a) always available and (b) less likely to knows you've lit them up so won't retaliate. That is meant to be radar practice, not actual shooting, of course.<br />
::There was doubt about why "rebels" would be taking this BUK on a scenic tour, especially in mostly KIEV-held territory. But if it was a Kiev BUK?? carted around on a very conspicuous truck to be later identified as having been stolen by rebels? (in interview with very anti-Russian Lithuania's reporter??)<br />
::The Kiev story was, rebels were going to shoot down an Aeroflot, to fall onto Ukie territory, to give Russia excuse for war. However, if looks like rebels shot down something, falling on their territory, Russia can still be blamed and NATO might come help Kiev obliterate the subhumans. Hitting an actual Aeroflot was too risky in case Russia does come in but NATO doesn't. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 07:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::Oh, as if "stationed in" changes anything from a presumption of "firing from" ... lol. Obviously. I sit corrected on that, unless that is what he means... Good points on Obviously no real reason for air defense to be doing anything. True claim or not, it's worth considering these units were just sitting around with no use, freeing up their schedules for off-the-books work. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 08:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Bezler repeated the claim, 154 anti-aircraft regiment of UAF stationed in Artemovsk, using Buk system, Gelatei as overall commander has to answer eventually. This answer is recorded on video <br />
during an interview with Ukrainian news channel 1+1, starting 2:10:00 of the last, long video on [http://rusvesna.su/news/1414630752 rusvesna]. But 1+1 news report did not have that, they put old known fakes instead (first video in russvesna report). Russvesna responds to claims made by Ukrainian news report in detail, with video time stamps referring to Ukrainian news report; the long tape (last video) was made as a safeguard against false claims. Bezler himself does not have any equipment which can shot a plane even at 7000 m (he than mentions Strela 10 which cannot shoot a plane at such height; listed ceiling for Strela 10 is 3500 m)<br />
::Man in black leather next to Bezler is Василий Будик (Vasilii Budik), who was Bezler prisoner for 88 days (according to Budik himself, a 'guest'), and now is in Ukraine and helping Ruban to release more prisoners. He is listed as "Adviser to Defense Ministry, Ukraine" on the long tape<br />
:: --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 04:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references /></div>Antidyatelhttps://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17&diff=22626Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH172015-06-09T09:44:52Z<p>Antidyatel: /* Investigation of Buk producer Almaz-Antay */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:Ukraine]] [[Category:MH17]]<!-- Cats go to the top on talk pages--><br />
<br />
{{Mainpage}}<br />
== Subpages ==<br />
* [[List of MH17 airframe parts]]<br />
* [[Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Dutch preliminary report|Dutch preliminary report]] ([[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Dutch preliminary report |talk]])<br />
* [[Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Map|Maps]] – ([[/Map|talk]])<br />
* [[/Forensics]]<br />
* [[/Witnesses]]<br />
* [[/Fighter jets]]<br />
* [[/BUK Tracking]]<br />
* [[/Debunked topics]]<br />
* [[/Cyber Berkut leak]]<br />
* [[/SBU Audio Evidence]]<br />
* [[/Archive]]<br />
<br />
== General ACLOS Investigation Thoughts ==<br />
<br />
===Brilliant Analysis of the Propaganda===<br />
American writer on [http://rt.com/op-edge/183132-only-truth-flight-mh17/ RT.com] Brilliant and funny. And sadly true. Well worth a read. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 18:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::I didn't read it all, but it's excellent. A couple steps up from T.B. Hinchey-class writing. I didn't notice any lazy jet-blaming. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Considering Possibilities ===<br />
Only so many theories have been seriously proposed for what happened to MH17. But it seems worthwhile to create a master list of basically all logical possibilities to consider - what has and hasn't been proposed, by whom, why? Anyone can start or add to a sub-section below to conmment on that possibility. I inserted simple notes to many, hoping they're not too controversial - suggest or, hey, make a change as you see fit. I sign here for the initial list and notes only. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''All possibilities:''' Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 was brought down by (A Buk, B Jet, C Other) operated by (1 Russia, 2 Kiev, 3 Rebel) in an attack that was (a accidental, b intended, c intent + error)<br />
<br />
'''A Buk/SA-11''' (supported by some evidence, claimed by Kiev, presumed by Western powers)<br />
* A.1 Russian (Kiev's story - known stocks - border and logic issues)<br />
** A1a - accidental (intended legit/defensive downing - possible)<br />
** A1b - intended (not likely - Russia would stand little to gain and some to lose)<br />
** A1c - intent+error (SBU theory - intended to hit Aeroloft civilian flight, blame Kiev, invade - hit MH17 by mistake)<br />
<br />
* A.2 Kiev (known stocks, alleged movement at the time) (why: make seps/Russia look bad) (how: snuck in totally, approval snuck in too, or fired from outside rebel areas after all) <br />
** A2a - accidental (intended legit/defensive downing - not likely having snuck behind enemy lines to do it)<br />
** A2b - intended (most likely - going behind the lines suggests false flag intent) <br />
** A2c - intent+error (they aimed for the Aeroloft flight, etc. - possible)<br />
<br />
* A.3 Rebel (no known stocks, some evidence for, some against - rebel Buk is/was the Western presumption outside Kiev)<br />
** A3a - accidental (intended legit/defensive downing) (presumed by intelligent outsiders who blame them)<br />
*** (variations: launcher supplied by Russia, seized by separatists, brought by defector - crew came with it, or not - etc.)<br />
*** (variations: sliding scale of culpability from drunk and negligent operators with all blame, to blameless but fooled by false signals and such) <br />
** A3b - intended (not likely, soft implication from Kiev against the "terrorists") <br />
** A3c - intent + error (intent of a criminal kind still seems unlikely, so all error options probably under A3a.)<br />
<br />
'''B Jet''' <br />
(supported by some evidence, promoted by many revisionists) <br />
(var: used air-to-air missile, used auto-cannon/other, or combination)<br />
* B.1 Russian (had to violate Kiev's airspace without being mentioned)<br />
** B1a - accidental (intended legit/defensive downing)<br />
** B1b - intended (not likely - Russia would stand little to gain and some to lose)<br />
** B1c - intent + error (triple unlikely - it's just a possibility slot)<br />
<br />
* B.2 Kiev (denied by Kiev)<br />
** B2a - accidental (intended legit/defensive downing) (of what?)<br />
** B2b - intended (implication of those proposing it - to make seps/Russia look bad)<br />
** B2c - intent + error (possible)<br />
<br />
* B.3 Rebel (no known jet holdings - no one proposes this)<br />
<br />
'''C Other''' nothing seriously suggested. Lets not go digging for all outlying theories, but if one worth listing emerges, it can be option C and Other will be D, etc.<br />
<br />
:moved material to [[Category talk:Ukraine#Ruban's Third Force]] - theories might say "perpetrator unknown," and thus reason and motive ... but this list is all about actual possibilities more than theories. To the truth, the perp is known, and these are all poss. truths. ''Most'' people's theories will fit a slot here... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Questions Raised ===<br />
<br />
In the end of the day, we may not be able to pronounce a forensic conclusion, for the rest of the world to accept, as we may not have full information or all the needed expertise. Perhaps the best to hope for will be to RAISE (a rather short) list of main questions which we hope the official investigation will not ignore. <br />
I think it will be worthwhile to identify such questions (may be followed by voted answers or something of sort and some supporting arguments). <br />
<br />
In my list, it would be questions establishing basic facts, like <br />
<br />
*impact coordinates<br />
*where blast(s) were coming from<br />
*confirmed evidence about launch and launchers (a.k.a " any high-resolution photos with known coordinates and times?") <br />
*navigation and control methods (a.k.a. " can it curl from forward right to back-left?")<br />
* land based or air based launch? (a.k.a "can satellite see well under the cloud?" )<br />
*anything to learn from radar data (publicized or otherwise)?<br />
*and any other relevant confirmed evidence to consider<br />
<br />
Once all of that is in stone, will be good time for theories.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 19:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Question #1, since it's looking like a Buk fired from Snizneh ... what does that really prove as to who was running it? Nothing. That's why the State Dept. has to add on the Youtube and twitter evidence where it doesn't even matter if those are the real people"admitting" it was them. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:17, 11 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: No confirmed evidence for a Buk, or from Snizhne, yet. Knowing who runs that would be perfect. --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 00:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::Definitions of "confirmed" might differ, but I've been recommending people at least prepare for that coming true, in case the SU-25 thing doesn't pan out. There's a burnt field, somewhere quite near where that supposed launch contrail photo was placed to. And that, I just saw, supposedly [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/exif-data-in-mh17-missile-launch-photo.html had its ex/if data verified] as July 17, 16:25:48. So it might be that figuring who runs that becomes totally crucial. So far, just the fact of what it was and where it was fired is supposed to be proof it ''was not'' the party that was equipped for this - physically and morally - and has benefited from it. Anyway, we're on it somewhat - [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/BUK Tracking#Who Has the BUK Launchers in Ukraine?|who controls the Buks,]] whose got moved - [[#A Rebel-Held Area|what does "rebel-held" mean]] when someone's trucking in a anti-aircraft unit just after [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/07/25/snizhne-mh17-and-rebel-held-territory/ Kiev primed the locals with a bombing of civilians in Snizneh two days before]? Stuff like that I think has extra value to develop. I should get to it... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: If there is confirmed photo of launch, that would go under one of already listed items. With electronic evidence on social networks, I am not sufficiently knowledgeable, but presume it is too easy to edit those to fit any agenda, easier than to refute. Government releases, like satellite photos, is different, as they can't change stories overnight and have something to loose if proven fake. Faking hard physical evidence would be fairly impossible. It is good to know who is to blame of course. (But most people would already have their own intuitive answer,which is not likely to change, so how exactly we are going to focus on such an issue? --For myself, the best outcome will be for truth to come out, wherever that may lead).<br />
--[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 19:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== TASS: According to Our Sources ==<br />
23 December, Moscow. "Russian special services are in procession of information, that Malaysian Boeing crash over Donbas in July 2014 may have happened as a result of operation of Ukrainian special services, however it remains unclear whether the plane was the initial target, or a tragic mistake has occurred. This information was conveyed to journalists by a reliable source in one of the Russian competent agencies". <br />
"We can also assume that the operation involved the Ukrainian Air Force and ground air defense, combined". "SBU, which is investigating the accident with the Ukrainian side has already destroyed all the data on the movements of air defense systems in the area of disaster and all the data on the departure of the aircraft". Earlier, the Ukrainian authorities stated that on the day of the crash Ukrainian military aircraft did not leave the airfields in the area of military operation in the south-east of the country. "They did fly - said the source - or yes, they did" [http://itar-tass.com/politika/1667289 TASS] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 20:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==More Remains found ==<br />
<br />
Photo journalist Graham Phillips has found a human bone on the burn site. Doesn't obviously show up on [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0o4SAaCEpk&list=UUbwfUqs5Y6_jblWJwMIfRzA&index=7 this video]. While you're there, from playlist at right you can see he has about 12 videos about the crash scene. They're all just a minute or two long. Meanwhile Zakharchenko is offering for investigators to come back and [http://en.ria.ru/world/20141013/194011115/Donetsk-Ready-to-Grant-Ukrainian-Investigators-Access-to-MH17.html clean up]. Actually he should send a group of people to comb the burned area, not as if he's short on people who cab recognise body parts. Chance to shows up the Dutch who spent a few hours there picking up a token few pieces of luggage and not looking for bones,when they KNOW 12 or 15 people are still missing. HEAPS of belongings they left behind, too.[[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 07:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Story from October 31 from the Dutch, confirming [http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/mh17-dutch-pm-mark-rutte-confirms-more-human-remains-have-been-found/story-fnizu68q-1227109165667 more remains] had been found (in a site visit that had not been publicised). Stories from the current visit also mentioned bodies found but they are wrong -- there are no "bodies" left from MH17. Anything found now that still looks anything like a body is going to be from [http://www.news24.com/World/News/More-remains-of-MH17-passengers-found-20141107 later fighting].[[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 02:51, 8 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Novorossia reported on the visits, [http://rusvesna.su/third_world/1413295402 14.10 (russvesna)], about site exploration (lots of personal belongings found); [http://rusvesna.su/third_world/1415293335 06.11 (russvesna)], agreement is reached on transporting wreckage, 4 open and 1 closed wagon. They did not report pro-Kiev Ukrainian site interested or participating (while news24 report above talks about "A team of Dutch, Ukrainian and Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe workers"). --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 05:25, 8 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Witness Accounts ==<br />
:''Moved to [[/Witnesses]]<br />
<br />
== ANNA News - Crash Scene Imagery ==<br />
=== Jet Wreckage ===<br />
How did we miss this? From mid September, 50 minute video of the crash site, the burn areas substantially [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rt-QIsgjQkg cleaned up]. A lot of close-ups, walking around every angl of pieces (eg broken wing). Boring until about 38 min mark, when gets onto cockpit area. This is first area with voice, too, with someone explaining their theory of what happened (Russian) and showing shrapnel damage from angles we've not seen on any stills. "Ukraine" mentioned a few times, so I'm assuming it's a theory that blames Kiev. Can anyone translate please? [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 15:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
: A shorter video, just the part with the explanation, better audio. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rt-QIsgjQkg#t=2785 [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 15:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: Shorter video: they guy says that the holes are small, and so he thinks it is air-to-air missile. (Well, we now know presumed size of buk shrapnel as it is on a recent photo with a ruler; 15 millimeters or smth; and what he shows appears to be like finger-tip wide; so it is not too much off as far as I can tell, and does not seem to prove or disprove buk). He also says that it is known effect that when pressurized plane is punctured, it falls apart. (Well, that certainly did not happen with Korean Boeing over USSR, so it seems a bit exaggerated) . That's all he has to say, so what we gained is more video evidence --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 16:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::More new footage, taken about Oct 5 or 6 (just before OSCE visit) with someone who was there within first hour, interspersed with some footage be took at the time, never before seen [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5j5Bpa010Q English subs]. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 20:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::: Graham Phillips from the scene on October 16 [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAhqWi5cavY in] two [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAf8PFx3tmY parts]. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 16:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Great find, good quality footage. helps set the spread of things ... hope the section re-org works for everyone (did destroy the original title, but I don't think much was linking here...) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::I posted it before I finished watching it. It has a lot of interviews, rebel leaders, experts. They're saying Kiev stalled and lied to scare off investigators. The rebels took over the bodies by force to make sure they go for proper investigation ie Kiev can't mess things up. The Malaysians came to get the black boxes against Kiev's wishes and got shot at on the way. <br />
:::They say on TV that morning was Andriy Lysenko boasting about planning 8 bombing runs that day; after the crash he said they didn't have a plane up that day. Then they bombed the site to say it's too dangerous for investigators (they show some rocket craters). What were they hiding? [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 20:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
A curious detail is that we are told at 9:34 that UAF was at Nikishino. That would be roughly on the line to Chernukino, so behind-and-left from the crash. That theme featured in ACLOS discussions already; there is nothing new to add. We also hear about two planes, and get some hand waving explanations. That was covered as well; perhaps now there is somewhat better idea where the witness is located. It is curious that a German guy says that Pechora missile system was located in Ukraine; as I remember, what was released was more vague; I am not clear why he says 'Ukraine' now. Indeed, we get a sense that Novorossia side is not trying to hide something; and we do get a sense that pro-Kiev side has something to hide. What is that exactly, would be a speculation. If they are serious about peace, perhaps some PR professionals can advise them as appropriate, that is, likely, to release whatever is there to hide. This appears to be rather popular method employed before elections. (Than after the elections, they can say, we told that already, and got elected anyway; but if something new comes up, somebody may say why it was hidden, and argue that it changes the balance). --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 23:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: The Nikishino reference is meant to show distance, ie that they were not close enough for any fighting to be happening at the crash site, therefore "too dangerous to let in investigators" was just an excuse. Definitely Novorossiya is not trying to hide anything -- they have nothing to hide, and did the right thing all the way through. The video is meant to show how much Kiev was obstructing all the way...this was obvious as soon as shelling started in the area the minute the bodies were gone. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 17:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
For example, one odd thing is that Ukrainian high officials are reported to make recent comments discussing 'that Buk' which shot the plane; and leaked document suggests the same, that they think it is "Buk', moreover very specific info on warhead, missile, and launcher. But how do they even know it was Buk? (if they just have some murky photo of the shrapnel piece? ) If they have shrapnel piece itself, not just the photo, why it was not sent to Netherlands? --Nobody in Netherlands seem to be certain what are those penetrating 'high velocity objects'. And how Ukrainians determined not only the missile type, but also '''launcher type''' just from this warhead shrapnel piece? Finally, after all that, why is that they are saying the launcher used is the one apparently only they have and Russians no longer use?([https://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%91%D1%83%D0%BA_(%D0%B7%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81)&previous=yes#.D0.A1.D0.BE.D1.81.D1.82.D0.B0.D0.B2_.D0.BA.D0.BE.D0.BC.D0.BF.D0.BB.D0.B5.D0.BA.D1.81.D0.B0_9.D0.9A37_.C2.AB.D0.91.D1.83.D0.BA-.D0.9C1.C2.BB Buk M1] they claim is the first and oldest launcher system from around 1979, no computer, etc. Russian Buk would be a more modern version, perhaps some 10 years older, and may use some computer already). So, the impression is, that UAF is, kind of, saying itself, that it is us to blame, and than also keeps this secret for 2 months. But somehow we are supposed to keep believing it was '''not''' them. Well, I dunno, this appears to get harder by the day. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 00:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
::I don't think it's UAF saying about this rocket, the whole movie is from the Russian side. They believe it was a Kiev job; movie stresses how they blocked investigation. There was an interview by Joern Akkermans with the local fire brigade chief which also showed this, how they sabotaged the investigators getting the first responders' detailed notes. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 17:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::Comments in above paragraph is not about the movie, it is about leaked documented dated 2 months ago, we have it elsewhere discussing leaks --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 17:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::On "how did they know from the debris fragment, they'd say they know because they had a bunch of photos of the launcher driving that way, plus the supposed audio of people talking about it as "Buk" (covered in their spots here) Of course, they sure got all that submitted and analyzed a bit too quick, so it seems more of that strange omniscience that suggests they aren't just reading along with the story but actually writing it. In reality I guess they know because it was theirs and used by them, but officially they have at least the video and audio evidence besides the later debris. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 22:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::You lost me there. What fragment do they have? they had no access to the site and who,in that mess, would anyway recognise a fragment the size of a coin? if they have a blurry photo, well, blurry means you can't see what's on it, and still doesn't prove where it came from, so....what are they on about? are they just saying "debris fragment" to mean those few skin sections with the lots of holes in them? from that they claim to know the model number of the BUK?<br />
:::I'm back to thinking about the movie, the women saying the 2 planes. people said that on day one, too. All people used to the idea of planes being SHOT WITH ROCKETS, by then there'd been about 15 or 20 of those, so why would they suddenly invent or imagine this was NOT? [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 22:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::Corrected; they have the audio-visual plus, '''they say,''' this scrap photo. Point was the Buk claim isn't based on the alleged scrap but the other stuff, fake or not, which they had from the start. Numerous potential reasons it isn't what they claim, but again I've always suspected they would know and properly ID the murder weapon, so I'm not very doubtful that they will have consistent evidence sooner or later (and it's been a while now) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Plane spotting story: could not detect any signs it was invented, sounded like simple folks telling what they saw, no signs it was forced on them to say, or tension/second thoughts in saying this, could be detected --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 00:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[http://www.cyber-berkut.org/en/ Leaked document ] is based on the photo, and apparently UAF do not have fragments<br />
:: "остаточний висновок щодо належності .... можливо зробити при наявностi оригінали" means "final conclusion on the association can be done in the presence of the original." <br />
Nalivaichenko (SBU) [http://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=2040949&cid=5 is said] to make this comment recently on 5 channel, Ukraine (Poroshenko channel): "Ukrainian investigators need to execute the plan, developed in collaboration with the Dutch side and the other members of the international investigation, arrive at the scene and find what we need, - fragments of a particular rocket specific "Buk" - said Nalyvaychenko." (The latter comments may possibly belong to the humor section). C-B appears to suggest that photo may be from the Netherlands. <br />
: (Nalyvaychenko has [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentyn_Nalyvaichenko a major in linguistics,] so his "plan" sounds odd).<br />
::[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIpD2eebJ_c Nalivaichenko report] appears essentially accurate, he did talk (in Ukrainian) about the investigation, starting at 7:30 timestamp; he did say "Buk M modernized" at 8:30, and "Buk" is even captured by automatic transcript (more->transcript ; but transcript is not working well overall. )<br />
. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Guys: he said "Ukrainian investigators need to execute the plan, developed in collaboration with the Dutch side and the other members of the international investigation, arrive at the scene and find what we need, - fragments of a particular rocket specific "Buk""<br />
The collaboration part might be along the lines of, "Ukrainians should go there as it seems too dangerous for anyone else" (which Ukies have made sure of all along). Now I'll strip down the rest to the vital parts:<br />
execute the plan...arrive and find...what we NEED<br />
Not search for. '''FIND.'''<br />
How hard is it to find something you just dropped? of course if they now said they found it, the whole world would just belly-laugh. Luckily it's in NR hands so they can't get near the site.<br />
I do believe Russia may be keeping an ace up their sleeve so to speak.[[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 03:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:"Investigation" would be the right word for what one should implement, while "plan" suggests something else, something one hatches in secret... With all this time to have been found and hidden by the separatists, he seems confident the smoking gun is still right there to be found. Maybe Putin's business card as well. Only Kiev's specially rigorous investigators can find it, and only after they've taken full control of the area. Indeed, "search for" would be a better term, if he meant "investigation," which seems hopeless But he said "plan" and apparently one that involves a pre-planned finding of the right clue, and is far from hopeless. Maybe they're just asking for help in conquering this area. No one will expect, need, or want them to follow through on such a plot, just to control more territory and have a fruitless look for good measure. Seems to me the US and allies probably already have enough evidence to blame Russia and carry out whatever punishment they can. It's always more about will than evidence anyway. <br />
:So... is the linguist just this sloppy? Or is he up to something dropping hints like this? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Reminds me of what Putin once said about the Iraqi WMDs: "If I were the Americans, I would have found some". Maybe his CIA overlords told Naliwhatshisname about that... ;oP --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
::: Haha, I didn't know that about Putin. Good on him for saying so out loud, too (tho that's a hint of menace as well). Ukraine police and secret services don't strike me as needing advice about faking evidence. oh, though on second thoughts, they're more used to just saying it and being believed, like the Big Invasion and 2 nukes on airport guys. USA has not said a word about Russia on this matter for ages, ie about the time the black boxes got read.[[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 12:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::: Tried to locate the origin of that quote but failed. Nothing in English and all the references in German indicate that they had it from the same source I have: German "comedians". It is in character though, if you add some "they can't even control their own plots" Russian humour. And I think he really said it, but at the current state of evidence don't reference it to me, please. ;o) --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 19:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Bloodless Bodies, Photo Proof? === <br />
Two days ago ANNA News [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAlC7HhfkrU uploaded a video] of some kind of presentation of photos from the aftermath and clean-up operation. Camera shows a Laptop with an apparently rather large collection of photos, a woman is operating and explaining what is shown (in Russian). As to the nature of it, this is really gruesome stuff showing the victims as they ended up on the ground, and I only made it a good minute in. The video description seems to allege [[Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17/Debunked_topics#Bloodless bodies – fake Facebook profiles?|what Strelkov reported his men reporting]] to the outrage of everyone: Smell of chemicals, many naked, no or very few blood, in decay. <br />
<br />
Doesn't fit there ("debunked topics"), because the photos are certainly not debunked and evidence independent of any conclusions. So it's here. Should be watched by someone who can judge what they see and have a good stomach. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:It might've been flippant to put the theory right into debunked, but it made a fair point that it sounds really dumb on the surface ... but this is presented as evidence, okay. I had a look, indeed some horrible images - people broken and smeared in several different ways (look out esp. from 4:49-5:08). I'm guessing these are mostly next morning photos near the site? Ones further out, found later, will be rotting. I'm not expert enough to settle this, but fresh bodies normally should not have these signs we see: darkening skin, black lips, etc. - lack of visible surface blood - (heard about) bad decay smell. <br />
:But then again, bodies don't normally - suffer massive decompression / oxygen cut-off / etc. - move at high speed as they're torn up (smeared people = wiped clean?) - have all their tussues and guts torn up so badly - and do all this in mass numbers at the peak of summer. No maggots yet - they must have been pre-killed somewhere there were no flies, (or gassed with a pesticide-like poison!) or very quickly before loading ... no, my semi-educated guess is still some combination of these factors will explain what we see, even in these select photos. But at least, this lets us see more of it ourselves for comparison. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Yeah, it sounds bizarre but Strelkov mentioned it himself saying he just relayed what he was told from the ground. Anyway, to speculate about it we first need more details about the claims. Went back to ANNA to see if anybody subtitled it ... but they don't seem to do that the same way as in Syria. But I noticed just recently they have a German team which produces little news shows. Didn't look into it yet. But hey, [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8YycmILC2M there it is], a German version with hardwired subtitles. Which means there is no transcript to copy & paste like with the CC function. Which means I will have to watch at least a bit of it. *sigh* Maybe later, maybe tomorrow. <br />
::From the German description I can already say that the woman alleges to be an eyewitness who arrived "immediately" at the scene. Description is written in sceptical language. Her claims: Very few Europeans (as opposed to Asians, I guess), disgusting smell, rotten bodies. They checked Laptops and USB-Sticks and found "no photos" younger than October 2013. Let me guess (I don't know out of hand), that's when the other MH disappeared? --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 00:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::I'm so not trusting this narrative - these are also people who were (kept alive?) from ... no MH370 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370 wp] was in March this year (that recent?) - All I can find October 2013 related is an alleged Israeli acquisition of the jet's twin (sale in Florida, October 21, 2013 [http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2014/03/malaysian-jet-in-israel-identical-to-hijacked-plane-2927532.html per Chris Bollyn (quack)] He speculates it would be rolled out for another false flag attack, unless maybe people were alerted. So ... maybe passengers bought at the same time at that plane, kept alive but not allowed to take pictures, for nine months, but killed long enough before the July crash date they were just then rotting ... lot of fake families implied for the missing new (alleged) victims ... lot of proof in the rotting bodies and nine-months lack of new photos ... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 08:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: FTR [http://info.kopp-verlag.de/hintergruende/enthuellungen/gerhard-wisnewski/ausfuehrlicher-augenzeugenbericht-passagiere-von-flug-mh-17-definitiv-dosenfleisch-.html here] is a detailed German language article about the claims in the video, which makes them more accessible per autotranslation than the embedded subtitles. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
If you think the subtitles are worth it, you can cover the whole screen besides that and still even get time-stamps. Like, at 0:40 is she saying here are more blood free body parts, and the wet pavement under them is from the day's rain? (tried typing into Google translate - my High School German mostly catches "the ... of ... and" - but still "a "wet" aureole were umwolkt" didn't help enough) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 08:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
::What nonsense. Anyone who would go to this much trouble would surely EASILY put some more recent photos on the USB sticks.<br />
::As well as fake families,they'd have to create fake social media going back years, plus fake old school/work friends and neighbours. In 10 countries. Oh and a fake AIDS conference. <br />
::None of these idiots has yet come up with WHY? what benefit does anyone get from faking all this? If it was meant for putting the blame on one country or another, they could have got THAT bit right and shoot it in a way that 100% identifies that country.<br />
<br />
::Most if not all the passengers would have been killed by the shock wave of the missile detonation, causing internal injuries including mashing of the lungs and intestines. Black lips etc would be from lack of oxygen. Then while the plane was thrashing around/diving/spinning they'd get thrown around, among seats and luggage also flying around. This would cause numerous injuries. These would hardly bleed at all, because the hearts were no longer pumping. Blood in their veins/arteries would be barely liquid by the time they hit the ground a few minutes later. <br />
::This is consistent with what Strelkov's people were reporting - bloated blackening bodies with "no blood" where they expected to see blood. Any mangled bodies these guys would have recently seen were fresh killed in front of their eyes, a different result altogether.[[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 10:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: FWIW Double plus that! Simple explanations win over conspiracy theories every time --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 11:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::: Not worth much without examination of the evidence. As Sir Arthur Conan Doyle once said: "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." Just saying. ;o) --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::: I suppose this one's been well-enough piled on. All points including the last seem totally valid. I'm still not inclined to pursue it, but it might be worth double-checking. If things besides decay can be ruled out or whatever, ... eh, I'll just have to see.--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 00:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==What Can Forensics Prove?==<br />
:''Investigation moved to [[/Forensics]]<br />
We're now getting organized, with [[List of MH17 airframe parts]] - a picture of how the plane was impacted will emerge. The BUK alleged ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buk_missile_system Wikipedia]) has radar guided missiles that can track, turn, change altitude, etc. So I conclude the damage won't tell us if the missile was air-to-air or from the surface, or what direction it was fired from. It's still worth knowing, of course, but ... could use some discussion maybe on what we can/can't/should be aiming for here. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:The damage will tell us it was an air-to-air missile with rod warhead fired from the front, that exploded when its proximity fuse passed the cockpit window. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 23:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
DPR and Netherlands reached [http://rusvesna.su/third_world/1415293335 an agreement] that plain wreckage will be transported to Netherlands by train, using 4 open and one closed wagons. Loading will be done by Netherlands. OSCE will accompany. <br />
'Laying out' wreckage and forensics may help to determine the cause of the crash. This is currently open, with surface-to-air missile 'the most likely' scenario, and military planes involvement not excluded. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 04:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Fighter Jet? ==<br />
:''Moved to [[/Fighter jets]]<br />
<br />
== General Discussion ==<br />
=== Slightly informed comment on air defences ===<br />
<br />
See [http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com.au/2014/07/memories-recollection-guesses-and.html vineyardsaker]. Certainly biased, but internally reasonably consistent --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 02:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I'll just add various rumours / propaganda I've heard so far.<br />
<br />
- US Satellites tracked the missile<br />
<br />
- Russia did it (at least morally)<br />
<br />
- Ukraine did it (for continuing the battle)<br />
<br />
- The plane was deliberately diverted to the location it was shot down<br />
<br />
- There was a storm over Crimea causing the diversion<br />
<br />
- add your rumour here<br />
<br />
What I haven't heard yet is the terrorist bomb theory. If the plan had crashed in say Poland that would have been the only game in town.<br />
--[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 02:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Anton Gerashchenko: case solved in under 3 hours ===<br />
Anton Gerashchenko, adviser to Ukraine's Interior Ministry, must have some serious detective skills. Within 6 hours of the plane's disappearance from radar screens, he already had almost exactly the full official story Kiev is still rolling with 6 months later. This is illustrated by at least these three Facebook posts from July 17 (any other timed sources we find I'd like to add): --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC) <br />
<br />
The earliest I found was [https://www.facebook.com/anton.gerashchenko.7/posts/694787050608145 July 17, 6:20 PM local time] from crash at about 15:19 local = 3 hours after. Auto-translated with repair attempts, he says:<br />
:''Just over the Torez Putin kindly passed to terrorists anti-aircraft missile complex "Buk" that shot down civilian aircraft Kuala Lumpur-Amsterdam.'' <br />
:''This morning local patriots detected this being moved from Thorez to Snezhnoye'' <br />
:''He was flying at an altitude of 10 thousand meters Claimed 280 passengers and 15 crew members.'' <br />
:''There is not limit to the cynicism of Putin and his terrorists!'' <br />
:''Europe, the United States, Canada, the civilized world-open your eyes! Help us all than we can!'' <br />
:''It is a war of good versus evil!''<br />
:''Here's a video of the crash site! Some scoundrels shouted that "beauty! Beautifully lit!"!'' <br />
:''The Inhumans!'' ( Нелюди! )<br />
In less than three hours he was only able to show [http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JhUkqs9CQ0w#t=57 this video of the smoke plume after crash,] but with unexplained prior knowledge, apparently, of a Buk launcher from Russia, moved through Torez to Sneznhnoye. None of that is remotely evident from this video. But somehow he had and was sure of this information and had it all put together into this certain diagnosis of who's "evil" here, in under three hours. Hm. It's noted there was an edit at 6:28, to insert "He was flying at a height of 10 thousand meters." This might be due to the fact that at this point, he wasn't supposed to know for sure it was that Russian Buk that fired, as opposed to a MANPADS or the like, and suggests he or whoever he talked to had deduced that from the altitude (too high for other known weapons). --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
At least two more early posts come from [http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/805272-anton-gerashchenko-buk-missile-photo-ukranian-official-accuses-putin-of-sponsoring-terrorists/<br />
Epoch Times] <br />
<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=694844643935719&set=p.694844643935719&type=1 20:45] = app. 7.5 hours after the crash; by now he has the Torez launch plume photo as well, finally a visual clue giving him a good reason to specify the town the firing was near (if there was time to analyze it). In part: "Putin! You and your cronies did not escape from the International Tribunal. This is a photo ... a few minutes after the launch ... Thousands of people have seen the launch and flight of the rocket, which you kindly handed your sponsored terrorists!"<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=694849760601874&set=p.694849760601874&type=1 20:59,] just 14 minutes later, posting with (?) Gennady Bakalar (Геннадий Бакаляр), he added this post with the launcher driving through Torez, finally confirming the (reports?) he heard earlier that it passed through there. Did "thousands" of people see that too? He says in part "Oh and to permanently close questions about when and who committed this outrageous act of international terrorism is further evidence of the International Tribunal: installing Buk passes through the city of Torez this morning!" But we already heard all about that hours earlier. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The Lugansk launcher video of the next morning was also allegedly handed right over to the SBU for their own publication, by the (tipped-off?) police agent who filmed it passing by just before dawn. But everything else, ostensibly, they had to find themselves from public sources, posted by people with no such SBU/MoI links. But man is that swift work. Almost entirely found - and effectively analyzed for clues, understood and double-checked good enough for them - that they were spouting off complete answers within three hours. Clearly suspect. Suggested: he had it solved instantly, sent in pre-packaged like planned. Even this three hour delay is his way of appearing realistic; considering how blatantly evil Putin is and how friggin' brilliant these Ukie Fascists are, why would it take any longer? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: the most fascinating part of this is, at the 3 hour mark it was still burning...and ALL the bits with the bullet holes in them were at another village, and nobody KNEW it had not just crashed all by itself, like planes do sometimes. The video he posted is the Antonov the day before which had also appeared on Strelkov's VK that was taken as boasting of MH17. Strelkov's was posted at 17.50 local time so about 40 mins after the MH17 crash and HALF HOUR before the expert solved the case, using an image stolen from Strelkovs VK. That was not discovered by SBU until next day, after it had been "hurriedly withdrawn". [http://cdn0.dailydot.com/uploaded/images/original/2014/7/18/Screen_Shot_2014-07-18_at_12.03.03_PM.png screenshot] [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 12:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Just occurred to me. If he decided it was shot down entirely because of Strelkov's badly timed post, and it turned out later it crashed from eg pilot error or onboard hijacking, WOW how silly he would have looked then. But nah, they knew, couldn't believe their good luck when Strelkov put that up. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 12:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::It is well known that Strelkov VK is not managed by Strelkov (he said it explicitly a number of times).That post is not his. He occasionally posts things himself (elsewhere) but this thing was not posted by him, it may be somebody posting far from the battlefield and not having direct knowledge, or confused opolchenie (says it comes from opolchenie in the post). (Strelkov is also accused of other publicity crimes he did not commit, for example having intention to run for President of Russia and other misdemeanors not actually committed. Articles about him are typically such mis-attributions.). --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===What's a Bellingcat?===<br />
[https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2015/05/25/whats-a-bellingcat-anyway/ What’s a Bellingcat Anyway?] --Studied at DeepResource, and reported on 25.5.2015. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 17:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
:Looks like a great piece, and I know it wasn't a question, but to the extent it might be: it refers to "belling the cat," or smthg like "who dare bell the cat," from an old fable about mice who decide to make their world safe by taking on some tyrant (cat) and stringing a bell around his neck so they'll always know before he attacks. But everyone's too afraid to go put the bell on him. Implied: Higgins is not afraid to blame Putin for stuff (or here, to analyze the recordings of a bell already placed? Or...?). In practice, it's more a one-trick bellingpony. Site creation: about a week before MH-17 shootdown, FWIW. Far and away their #1 obsession since then: the geo-location epic of that stupid (irrelevant?) BUK launcher multi-stop field trip. It's only natural - in fact it could hardly be tailor made any better for him and his well-connected team to unravel 'in the open' like that, all on video. Cases not so well-suited to yield his desired results, of course, [http://taldoutruth.blogspot.com/2014/12/brown-moses-on-hook.html he will never have time for,] even when the work's done and all he has to do is review it. No time - there's probably yet another seam of the MH-17 case to discover that these sooper-seekret Russian terrorists just left laying around. And always, there is praises and biscuits to collect. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 08:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
::Number of times bellingcat recently tweeted or retweeted on [https://twitter.com/GeoffPyatt Geofrey Pyatt]: 17/page; while us = 0. 'Russia's finest propagandists are no match for bellingcat, who have picked apart yet more shaky claims about MH17' (now something wrong with Russian MoD satellite photos)--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 12:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
::: Their latest stunt with the "faked" Russian satellite images isn't going well. Not "only" has our friend Charles Wood given it [http://7mei.nl/2015/06/01/about-bellingcats-claim-russian-sat-pics-fake/ a quick treatment], but the man behind the online tool they used [https://twitter.com/hackerfactor/status/605362347616526337 agrees] with a [http://life.lanzone.eu/?p=30 devastating analysis] telling them essentially to read the f... manual. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 18:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::: Had a look at both, well-lodged points. Neither even says the photos must be real, just that bellinputin are clearly not the vaunted "experts" they're getting praised as and the meaningfulness of their findings is open to question. Didn't actually look at the original work. Aside from Charles at least, we're not really qualified experts in much either, might make mistakes too, etc. But when this supposed competence plus clear Putin-blame come together suddenly the media lackeys are amplifying their expertise (or rather shifting it from experts at blaming Putin to experts at how to do it with scientific rigor, which it seems they're not). --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::: [http://life.lanzone.eu/?p=53 Here]'s the promised part 2 of "Myghty"'s analysis. More of the same amateurish errors for pic 5. The real scandal here is that they are still peddled by the "MSM", not that they aren't real experts. But, miracles happen, DER SPIEGEL [http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/mh17-satellitenbilder-bellingcat-betreibt-kaffeesatzleserei-a-1036874.html has an interview] ([http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/expert-criticizes-allegations-of-russian-mh17-manipulation-a-1037125.html English translation] --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)) this morning with a German digital photo forensics expert who says the same as Charles and the others, and they even put disclaimers linking to it on their earlier "praise Brown Noses" articles. Good sign. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::::: Was about to note the Spiegel piece but it's done. Good. So the problem is those who pushed headlines like [http://mashable.com/2015/05/31/russia-fake-mh17-report/ Satellite images show clearly that Russia faked its MH17 report] (Mashable)-[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2836245/Report-slams-new-surveillance-photos-released-Russian-state-broadcaster-MH17-shot-shoddy-fake.html Were MH17 'satellite images' photoshopped? Report slams new surveillance pictures released by Russian state broadcaster as a 'shoddy fake'] (Daily Mail) - [http://www.joinfo.com/world/1002451_British-experts-accuse-Russian-Defense-Ministry.html British experts accuse Russian Defense Ministry of forging photos of MH-17 crash] --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 22:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::::: In case you wondered, [http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/bellingcat-autor-war-hauptamtlicher-stasi-mitarbeiter-a-1037297.html "Timmi Allen" is a former Stasi operative], according to the latest SPIEGEL exposure. I've stacked huge amount of popcorn to make sure to survive the weekend. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 15:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::::: Oh, and [http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10692555#post10692555 I already came up with a conspiracy theory about that]. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 15:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== A Rebel-Held Area ==<br />
The presumption behind blaming separatists at all is that the blamed surface-to-air missile was fired from an area under control of separatist forces. But most people seem to just presume the entire eastern area (past what line, who knows?) is all rebel turf, with no Ukrainian military inroads anywhere. That's part of why it's taken as so obvious, even though no one's sure just where the firing was from. The Russian military presentation took BUK itself as meaning Ukrainian military. They claim satellite images of them in Kien-run army bases as close as 5 km from Donetsk, moved on the 17th to a site closer to the shoot-down area, then moved away again.<ref name="RT10">[http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ 10 more questions Russian military pose to Ukraine, US over MH17 crash] RT. July 21, 2014</ref> It seems the "just where" question is far more important than most presume (that is, if there was a ground launch that even mattered, as I suspect) Does anyone have a good analysis of the general control-accessibility situation on that day? Some nerd might have made a map that's reliable? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
:For the NATO narrative on the Novorossiyan Buk you can look at the Ukraine@war. He will you the exact location in Snizhne (the town that was bombed two days before, with 13 civilians killed inside their apartment block). I am no longer interested. All that interest me is the technical aspects of the of the crash investigation. What hit the MH17 where and when.<br />
:P.S. – There is supposedly a video somewhere of a Buk fired. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 12:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
:WSJ has a crappy map: [http://graphics.wsj.com/mh17-crash-map/?standalone=1 How MH17 Came Apart Over Ukraine] – Fails to show any of what the title claims. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 12:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== The Defector Theory ==<br />
* [http://eyesopenreport.com/u-s-prepares-to-blame-mh17-shoot-down-on-ukrainian-army-defector/#more-13012 U.S. Prepares to Blame MH17 Shoot Down on Ukrainian Army “Defector”] Paul Joseph Watson , July 23<br />
:''In an attempt to explain away the existence of evidence which shows Ukrainian troops firing the missile that brought down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, Washington may be preparing to fix the intelligence by pinning the blame on a “defector” in order to absolve Kiev.''<br />
:''As we reported on Monday, award winning former AP and Newsweek reporter Robert Parry was told by an intelligence source that the U.S. is in possession of images which show men dressed in Ukrainian Army uniforms operating the Buk missile system which shot down MH17. If proven accurate, such information would completely eviscerate Washington and Kiev’s already shaky narrative that Russian-backed separatist rebels were responsible for the attack.''<br />
:''The U.S. State Department now appears to be shifting the emphasis of its narrative to discount the possibility that Kiev itself was responsible for shooting down MH17. As the L.A. Times reported yesterday, “U.S. officials said it was possible the SA-11 [anti-aircraft missile] was launched by a defector from the Ukrainian military who was trained to use similar missile systems.” Blaming the incident on a “defector” would allow the U.S. to explain why the culprit was wearing a Ukrainian Army uniform when he shot down the airliner.''<br />
Sounds intriguing, and Robert Parry is usually pretty reliable.Seems worth a section here to see how it pans out. Skipping the prior Infowars article, [http://consortiumnews.com/2014/07/20/what-did-us-spy-satellites-see-in-ukraine/ This from July 20] seems to be the original explanation by Parry at Consortium News. I'm not encouraged by the details - the images aren't video or photo, but satellite. Parry mentions the limits of what satellites can see, but rightly points out they could see any Buk system component. Russia's satellites saw the ones run by Kiev's pro-America junta, first at their normal base, then somewhere else '''on July 17.''' What you can't as likely see is smaller details like the exact pattern on a person's shirt, or what the label on a bottle says, if even its shape. But he says:<br />
:''What I’ve been told by one source, who has provided accurate information on similar matters in the past, is that U.S. intelligence agencies do have detailed satellite images of the likely missile battery that launched the fateful missile, but the battery appears to have been under the control of Ukrainian government troops dressed in what look like Ukrainian uniforms.''<br />
:''The source said CIA analysts were still not ruling out the possibility that the troops were actually eastern Ukrainian rebels in similar uniforms but the initial assessment was that the troops were Ukrainian soldiers. There also was the suggestion that the soldiers involved were undisciplined and possibly drunk, since the imagery showed what looked like beer bottles scattered around the site, the source said.''<br />
Ooh, bad move when, as John Kerry, knows, it's the separatists that are the drunken ones in the area. As for where the image was taken, the evidence suggests it was a separatist-policed one. It probably was non-defected Kiev soldiers running it, but false claims to that effect make that possible truth harder to see, in the end. I think Parry's source stopped being credible prior to this latest. Anyone else more inclined to accept this evidence? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Everyone is trash talking everyone else. I'm not believing any of it. It was partly cloudy that day and you'd have to be very lucky to have a satellite pass overhead just when a BUK gets launched. It is much more likely that whatever the US has it got from a spy plane, such as the RC-135 they have operating in the area.(On July 18 some Russian MIGs approached it and it had to fly off over Sweden without permission). https://medium.com/war-is-boring/u-s-spy-plane-reportedly-violated-swedish-air-space-to-escape-russian-fighters-424d05e11bd5 Sorry can't find it now, but another story said land radar had locked onto them, which is why they left in such a hurry. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 03:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: [http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ Russian press conference:] "As far as we know, there was indeed a US satellite flying over southeastern Ukraine on July 17 from 17:06 to 17:21 Moscow time." That will be 16.06 to 16.21 local. _If true_, this is likely to show at least part of the trajectory. No need for satellite's beer bottle photos. -- [[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 03:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: As I recall, somewhere on the news there was a claim that there is no US radar data (too far) --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 03:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: US: “We saw the take-off. We saw the trajectory, we saw the hit. We saw this aeroplane disappear from the radar screens. So there is really no mystery about where it came from and where these weapons have come from." [http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/foreign-affairs/we-saw-the-hit-we-saw-plane-disappear-says-john-kerry-on-mh17/story-fn59nm2j-1227022300618?nk=9b529f73960c26d0085eae5193a5b6b7] (Hope not on a fake photo)? --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 05:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::The photo that popped up for me showed lots of flowers and photos of Diana, Princess of Wales, i.e from 1997. So in true ''The Australian'' tradition a fake. FYI ''The Australian'' is one of the least accurate papers in Australia and runs a very heavy anti-Russian and pro-Israel line. --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 05:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== False-Flag Theories ==<br />
=== Andriy Parubiy again? ===<br />
<br />
Pepe Escobar names Andriy Parubiy as a possible suspect.<br />
* [http://rt.com/op-edge/174088-was-it-putin-missile/ It was Putin’s missile!] – ''RT'', July 19, 2014<br />
:''Carlos’s assessment: the missile was fired by the Ukraine military under orders of the Ministry of Interior - NOT the Ministry of Defense. Security matters at the Ministry of the Interior happen to be under Andrey Paruby, who was closely working alongside US neo-cons and Banderastan neo-Nazis on Maidan.<br />
-- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 02:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
::From what I've read on the guy, he's likely enough to be behind this that, really, all Ukraine's airspace should be closed until he's no longer on the loose. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Robert Parry introduces Parubiiy in [http://consortiumnews.com/2014/07/20/what-did-us-spy-satellites-see-in-ukraine/ his July 20 article,] and mentions:<br />
:''It was this same Parubiy whom the Post writers turned to seeking more information condemning the eastern Ukrainian rebels and the Russians regarding the Malaysia Airlines catastrophe. Parubiy accused the rebels in the vicinity of the crash site of destroying evidence and conducting a cover-up, another theme that resonated through the MSM.''<br />
:''Without bothering to inform readers of Parubiy’s unsavory neo-Nazi background, the Post quoted him as a reliable witness declaring: “It will be hard to conduct a full investigation with some of the objects being taken away, but we will do our best.”'' --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
FTR, Andriy Parubiy [http://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/30934.html resigned yesterday]. Same day the following came out. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Valentyn Nalyvaichenko ===<br />
<br />
On August 7, SBU head Valentyn Nalyvaichenko introduced a new narrative ([http://www.sbu.gov.ua/sbu/control/en/publish/article?art_id=129860&cat_id=35317 release on SBU website] / [https://archive.today/KItnx archived snapshot]) apparently contradicting their released audio tapes that early on helped form the narrative of an accidental shoot-down of MH17 by "rebels" who thought it was a military plane. Now the story goes that the Russians planned to shoot down an Aeroflot plane in a false flag operation blaming it on Ukraine, to have a pretext for invasion. But the "Russian mercenaries" moved their Buk to a different location than planned and mistook MH17 for the Aeroflot machine with their own people they wanted to kill. What exactly they prepared to blame it on Ukraine (maybe Ukrainian uniforms or something?), or why a plane full of AIDS researchers and Dutch children couldn't be used as a pretext (Russian people don't care about Dutch children?), is not explained. Nalyvaichenko [[Talk:Ukraine_2014#Mercenaries_commanded_by_Andriy_Parubiy|has been implicated by his predecessor]] in the sniper killings on Maidan, together with Andriy Parubiy.--[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*Human Rights Investigations, Aug. 7 - [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/08/07/in-ukraine-the-lunatics-have-taken-over-the-asylum/ In Ukraine, the lunatics have taken over the asylum] This relates a SBU statement of earlier in the day outlining their latest theory. As said before, Russians did it, with a system they brought in and took right back with them. Most people have presumed there's no motive for Russia to shoot down an airliner into the separatist's area on their behalf, and it must have been an accident. The SBU's thinkers decided it was intentional, but with an accidental part too. '''They meant to shoot down a Russian airliner''', but set themselves up in the wrong town, so they hit MH17 instead. The original plan was to use dead Russians blamed on Kiev as a reason to invade Ukraine, but when it was other people dead, he said never mind. Awesome theory, no? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: Beat you to it, put it here where it belongs... bizarre. Interesting that Parubiy resigned (see above the subheadline) the same day this came out, isn't it?--[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::Awesome, tag-teamed it with similar technique. Parubiy, huh! That gave zero reason, didn't it? It's not 'to spend more time with my family.' No, he notes on the way out, he still belongs at the "forefrongfront." --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]])<br />
:::: FTR [http://rt.com/news/178760-ukraine-security-chief-resigns/ RT says] "On Monday, reports appeared in Ukrainian media about Parubiy’s resignation. The Local Zn.ua website, citing its source, said that the security chief is due to resign due to diverging opinions with the country’s president. The media stated that Parubiy decided to resign after he was ordered to declare another ceasefire in Kiev’s military operation in the southeast of the country, but he refused to do so." --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:22, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::: [http://www.unn.com.ua/ru/news/1374133-p-poroshenko-doruchiv-rozsliduvati-proval-spetsoperatsiyi-na-kordoni-z-rf-zmi This article] announces an investigation into the "Southern Cauldron" disaster and calls Parubiy the "main author" of the plan that led to it. Maybe that's the reason. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 16:47, 10 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/08/ukrainian-sbu-comes-with-conspiracy.html Ukraine@War views the theory favorably] --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:34, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
* And [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/08/debunking-sbu-theory-of-afl2074-mh17.html not impressed with one de-bunk effort] but rather more convinced!<br />
<br />
: Yeah, we got it the first time already. The guy is a knucklehead. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Cyber Berkut leak ===<br />
{{Main|Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Cyber Berkut leak}}<br />
* [http://en.voicesevas.ru/news/analytics/2793-kolomoyskiy-assistants-facebook-account-hacked-the-boeing-downed-by-junta.html Kolomoyskiy assistant’s Facebook account hacked - the Boeing downed by junta!]<br />
<br />
=== SBU wiretap video ===<br />
:''Moved to [[/SBU Audio Evidence]]<br />
<br />
===Corbett report===<br />
Petri just put this on the main page<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWlAARb0fN4<br />
<br />
I ASSUME it is going to be a false flag nonsense. After 8 whole minutes of introductory waffle and advertising, he still has not started on the topic, so I am not watching any more of it. It is titled "MH17 FULLY EXPOSED!! You Won't Believe The SHOCKING TRUTH About the Ukraine FALSE FLAG ". they are right, I won't believed a word of it. Don't bother with it. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 01:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== A False-Flag Defector Theory ==<br />
Here's one way the facts might wind up going: an SA-11 was fired from outside Snizneh, as alleged, and that's what killed MH17. The Buk launcher was even welcomed in by local commanders, heard saying so in audio communications that could prove true (or not), was sent to the spot by them, and then disavowed in embarrassment. And also the launcher came from Kiev's arsenal, the shootdown was not a mistake, and the crime carried out by pro-Kiev false-flaggers in the proud Euromaidan tradition. Here's how that could all be so:<br />
<br />
Some secret Right-winger in the army playing a disgusted defector makes contact with local rebels on July 15. He heard about the apartment bombing that day in Snizneh, and about the junta's plans for another run at the same place two days later. But, he said, he could get access to a launcher at the base north of Donetsk, a disloyal guard who'd take a bribe (small, covered) plus even a couple local defectors trained to run it, and even a truck from his part time job - the boss wouldn't notice it missing, he's such a clueless junta-supporter... Yeah, he could have it all mobile, drive it himself, make all the contacts, have their guys check it out, it works! It'll shoot down anything. They can get it put in place and wait. In this version, the "SBU wiretap" audio was maybe their defector's own phone - he was undercover the whole time, "wearing a wire" - the launcher was a trojan horse, and its crew were evil and knew just what they where they were and just what they were doing. <br />
<br />
On the rebel end, having no clue there will be a mass murder ensuing, and seeing nothing criminal in preventing a second junta air force atrocity, happily waved the thing in. They were supposed to meet someone in Snizneh, but drove off mysteriously. Then MH17 came down and, in dread and shock, the rebels decided to dis-acknowledge the whole deal, and no one's simply come clean about it yet. But the "defector" meme coming out might be spurred by its partial truth, along lines kind of like this, and not from some satellite photos. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: Hey CL, apart from your vivid imagination, do you have even just a whisper to back this up? And if we're speculating, how would you like to forget Snizneh and look at Chornukhyne as the launch site? At the time was on almost no man's land, under Don Cossack Control. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 14:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::: Do I have evidence? Yes. There are these pieces we're considering, supposed to point that way, that might or might not. This theory here is sort of a "worst case scenario" where all those come out true, or an idea for those who believe all those clues, to show how alternate explanations still exist even then. Im am fairly convinced of the core parts, much less on the calls, but this is more a though exercise than "my theory," although it's not far from my working theory and become it if the audio is genuine after all. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 22:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: Yeah, similar to KatKan question is bugging me as well . Why not to look, let's say, perhaps somewhere else? (hopefully without creating sudden burst of fighting or urgent land management work just right exactly there, if possible )? --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 14:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: yeah, early intercepted call said ""These are Chernukhin folks who shot down the plane. From the Chernukhin check point. Those Cossacks who are based in Chernukhino." and nobody's ever looked there. It is same distance as Snizneh and 90 degrees to the flight path so an easy shot. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 15:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: I certainly would not know why a reputable news-maker would pay travel expenses going to Snezhny but not this other well-flagged place nearby. The only new comment I have to make here is that this is a big expensive truck, not a flag costing one grivna/ruble {nor is it a can of some chemicals). It is your best air defense, and there aren't many. So it is either off front line or it is there, somewhere, for a real strong reason. --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 19:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: Okay, the other town being named is one clue for another site, and no one looking could be why there's nothing else. I'm not sure how Chernukin connects - If the burned spot is up there, or there's another one... maybe the defector made his contact with those guys, and so his little team was called part of theirs - Miner brought them. As for why the other area, it was indicated and they say it had burn marks at the end (can't be checked and ruled in or out), so they went and it ''appears'' to have been smart. In the other direction, a mention the responsible people are ''from'' there, not even that they fired from there. But at least it's not pulled out of thin air. If there becomes more to support it, I'll consider more. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 22:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::: We may want to put the audio story in order separately, someplace, if it was not done. I was following it initially, but now references are hard to find. <br />
<br />
:::::Agreed. This happens here sometimes. Hoping it helps, I made [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/SBU Audio Evidence|a page for that subject]] and moved comments from both of you guys over there. Hope I didn't mess anything up in the process - please review. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::::You did indeed delete a whole bunch of stuff instead of "moving" it. Restored here. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::As I recall (but do not have links saved), this is Bes recordings, glued together from genuine pieces. (I believe Bes said pieces are genuine early on himself) The first piece, mentioning Enakievo, is about a different earlier episode--as he himself responded. His response about second piece, mentioning Cossacks, was much more evasive, something like 'if every block post has a Buk, than I'll be in Kiev'. But it is clear that at the time of event, he had reason to believe that something was going on over there. That does not say this happened as he thought, Cossacks may be shooting pistols not Buks or whatever; but it may looked like something is launched from there, or whatever the case might be. This does suggest some notable event at that location. I do not see genuine evidence pointing to the current official version; it is more consistent with somebody trying to put a false flag there so that all attention of social networkers go that way. Chasing this flag further is a waste of time in my opinion, and is unlikely to produce anything new which is not known already. Looking the other way, even pointing out there is SOME other way, might. (Actually, it looks like attempts were made to place SEVERAL false flags, and than whatever was picked up , was supported by some further noise). --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 23:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::: (Coincidently) just above I posted [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T34AB6CImTE an alleged proof of audio fakery] of some SBU-released audio, likely from the first batch. As I said, I didn't look into it really closely. Maybe worth doing so. Claim is that it was cut together from several audio tapes. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 23:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::::Bes in the audio (perhaps glued from pieces) does [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJnD1wgofYM say] Cossacks from Chernukhino block post shot the plane down, those Cossacks _standing_ at Cherknukhino. Why everybody is looking the other way just beats me --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 00:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::::: This brief piece on Chernukhino Cossacks is disconnected from the first piece (about Miner, apparently another rebel) and from discussion of discovering that it was a passenger plane and of the bodies. Chernukhino piece is timed at 16.33 on the crash day. First piece (Miner) is timed earlier, actually, at 16:40, and talks about a different location (really bad gluing skill here; this miner thing is most likely from another day, and I recall that was claimed in discussions which followed. ) Gluing is beyond any doubt; but individual pieces sound genuine for my ears. So he does not actually say it was his Cossacks or what they shot was a passenger plane; just that (some) Cossacks standing at Chernukhino shot (some ) plane, and than it cuts off; rebel blame is rather what this gluing order is trying to convey on us. I would certainly check this out. --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 01:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::I've gone back to early things to refresh my memory. And the whole tone of voice was different then. Today it is all propaganda and fantastic stories from everyone.The first 2 days everyone sounded genuine, spoke unthinking,not for effect. So I am thinking, things said early are more likely true. Yes that video with the telephone calls was from 3 separate calls, and at least one maybe not from July 17. The one about Yenaklevo I think is another day. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 00:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Debunked topics ==<br />
:''Moved to [[/Debunked topics]]<br />
<br />
This link http://adam1baum.blogspot.fi/2014/08/another-journalist-exposes-mh17-false.html <br />
<br />
just added to the main page under "Analysis"<br />
is FULL of items already debunked. Are the "analysis" items being added without comment? just to collect them? [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 16:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Yes, basically the main page is for pre-scrutiny source material. Analysis is mainly to collect them. I had a quick look at the blog post, but noticed most of the topics were debunked long ago. Or should be debunked. For example, it seems that MH17 may have flown a different route on previous days, but there were plenty of other Asia flight in the Donetsk airspace. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 20:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Warhead damage ==<br />
:''Moved to [[/Forensics#Warhead damage]]<br />
<br />
== Radar Evidence ==<br />
:''Moved to [[/Map#Radar Evidence]]<br />
<br />
== Cockpit Voice Recorder ==<br />
Thanks for a start, Charles, will review. I was watching for that, gathering a bit of background on the CVR angle. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
* July 23: good condition http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/malaysian-airlines-flight-mh17-cockpit-voice-recorder-in-good-condition-1.2715671<br />
:''The cockpit voice recorder of the Malaysian airliner downed over Ukraine is in good condition, the UN civil aviation body said on Wednesday,'' <br />
:''"The cockpit voice recorder is in good condition ... the digital flight data recorder is still under review," ICAO said in a statement.''<br />
* July 23, downloaded: http://www.eturbonews.com/48306/mh-17-cockpit-voice-recorder-data-downloaded<br />
:''On Tuesday 22 July 2014 at 22:00 inKiev, Ukraine, the flight data and cockpit voice recorders (the 'black boxes') from the Malaysian Airlines flight 17 were taken into custody by the Dutch ambassador and a team of investigators led by the Dutch Safety Board. The Dutch Safety Board requested that the Air Accident Investigation Branch of theUnited Kingdom (AAIB) perform the data download from both the recorders. The recorders were transported to the AAIB's laboratory at Farnborough, arriving 23rd July in the early morning.''<br />
<br />
::I just got a real TinFoil idea. The black boxes were found in the wheatfield where they also found some bodies on day ONE. There were daily reports that they had been found and were going to be sent to Russia. Then on July 21 they were "found" ON CAMERA...and the guy carried it a long way, stuck out in front of him, to a command post of some sort, the camera following him the whole way. Not a rebel but an official Emergency Services guy. Nice "evidence" of chain of possession. BUT there is a 3-day gap there, when something could be taken the 80 miles or so to a place called Rostov, and back again. Black boxes have ports for cables to be attached,they don't need to be pulled apart to be read. What if Russia already has a copy of what was on the black boxes? adding to their confidence? [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 15:21, 26 December 2014 (UTC) <br />
:::If something is doable, but they have not done it, than one can ask, why have not they. But also, propaganda warfare is on (recently seeing ex-official Kudrin interview voicing displeasure over propaganda being on). This is mostly for internal consumption, Channel 1 TV and the like, but it can spill over elsewhere, presumably. [http://www.nytimes.com/video/world/europe/100000003011003/malaysian-planes-black-box-retrieved.html July 20 video (NY Times)] (indeed, looks like staged 'find") --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:43, 26 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== AAIB Analysis ===<br />
Analysis of the CVR from here on should be by the UK Air Accidents Investigation Branch. We shall see. For the record, they came out far less shady in the Lockerbie investigation 25 years ago than the now-fazed out RARDE and its hacks Hayes and Feraday, or the FBI's stumblebum "Tom" Thurman (see [http://lockerbiedivide.blogspot.com/2010/11/political-scientists-of-lockerbie.html The Political Scientists of Lockerbie.] I might have been overly fair - Dr. Morag Kerr could tell you in more detail some of the problems with even the AAIB's work there setting the explosion center. But this was 25 years ago, They're only looking at the flight data this time, not the wreckage. We're on the verge of world war, with this the latest information front. They're in London. They'll tell us the truth only if it fits okay with their narrative. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::The crash investigation of Lockerbie was fine. It was the criminal investigation that was messed up. They didn't do that, FBI got involved, same as in TWA800. Some facts seem to depend a fair bit on who is looking at them. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 03:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== New Straits Times - CVR ===<br />
<br />
THE preliminary analysis of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17’s cockpit voice recorder (CVR) revealed “nothing out of the ordinary”.<br />
<br />
A source close to the international investigation told the New Sunday Times that the CVR downloaded by the United Kingdom’s Air Accidents Investigation Branch had picked up the communications between the Malaysia Airlines’ pilot and an unspecified personnel with an air traffic controller (ATC).<br />
<br />
“So far, from what the team has heard, there was nothing unusual. The last voice heard was not the pilot’s. No, there was no indication that the pilots saw or sensed anything off,” the source said without elaborating further to protect the investigations.<br />
<br />
This may mean that whatever happened was very sudden.<br />
<br />
The CVR records all communications on the flight deck, including transmissions with air traffic controllers, discussions between the flight crew, cabin announcements and conversations with any other crew entering the cabin.<br />
<br />
In this case, it could provide investigators with some insight into the flight crew’s mindset and emotional state if they had to deal with an emergency in the final moments.<br />
<br />
However, it remains unclear if the Dutch-led investigation team had secured the recordings from the Ukrainian air traffic controllers to match the conversations between the ATC staff and the MH17 flight crew.<br />
<br />
Asked about the Ukrainian government’s revelation on Monday that the aircraft was brought down by “a massive explosive decompression”, the source said the statement was “unconfirmed”.<br />
<br />
The source told the NST that the “initial factual findings” of the probes into the shootdown of MH17 were expected to be released next week.<br />
<br />
It is learnt that investigations also centred heavily on the findings provided by the group of three Malaysian investigators, who were among the first to reach the crash site and conduct probes.<br />
<br />
The NST was told that instead of the 200 reported earlier, the experts dissecting the flight data recorder (FDR) were looking at 1,500 parameters of the black box.<br />
<br />
The FDR records essential flight data parametres at least 10 times per second and defines the aircraft’s flight path and motion.<br />
<br />
The data also include primary information, such as position, altitude, airspeed and heading. This allows investigators to reconstruct the aircraft’s flight path.<br />
<br />
Also recorded in the FDR are the aircraft’s aerodynamics and engine parameters, including information from the air data computer and sensors.<br />
<br />
The Dutch Safety Board (DSB), which is leading the international investigation into the downing of the aircraft, had said the findings would likely provide a picture of how the investigation would proceed.<br />
<br />
Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak had said the aircraft’s flight data recorder and the CVR were among the “hard evidence” the investigation team needed to find out what happened.<br />
<br />
DSB spokesman Sara Vernooij was quoted as saying the board would likely say “what it can rule out” and “what it is going to focus on”.<br />
<br />
It is understood that the team of investigators at the crash site in eastern Ukraine would carry out verification of information that had been gathered from other sources.<br />
<br />
This is to allow them to search<br />
for possible new information and collect material for the investigation, such as pieces of the wreckage.<br />
<br />
The Dutch police had earlier this week received 150 photos<br />
and video clips on their server<br />
set up to piece together the mystery.<br />
<br />
The photos were uploaded by eyewitnesses from what has been described as “the world’s biggest crime scene”.<br />
<br />
[http://www.nst.com.my/node/19598 New Straits Times CVR report]<br />
--[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 12:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== ATC recordings ==<br />
Initially it was reported that the SBU confiscated the ATC air-to-ground-communication. After weeks the Malaysians asked the Ukrainian ambassador to their country about this, and he denied that it had happened. He said he had no idea what happened to them and no formal request of any investigating party has been made. The Malaysian Attorney General then announced that he will make a formal request to get the recordings. This according to:<br />
* [http://www.nst.com.my/node/21260 Malaysia wants the ‘missing’ Ukrainian ATC tapes], New Straits Times, August 8, 2014<br />
--[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Investigation==<br />
talk moved here from accidental location on Main page [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 08:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* [http://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/en/onderzoek/2049/investigation-crash-mh17-17-july-2014/onderzoek/1559/questions-and-answers-concerning-the-investigation-into-flight-mh17 Investigation crash MH17, 17 July 2014 Donetsk – Dutch Safety Board] 21 Aug 2014<br />
<br />
<br />
:Interesting list of countries involved. I wonder how Russia and Germany got on this list? from the above report<br />
<br />
:"The following countries have contributed (to a greater or lesser extent) to the international investigation team into the crash of flight MH17: '''Ukraine, Malaysia, Australia, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States, Germany, France, Italy and Indonesia.''' The ICAO and the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) also contributed to the investigation as organisations. The leadership of the investigation rests with the Dutch Safety Board, which will publish both the preliminary and final report. The countries that have a formal role as participants in the investigation under the ICAO agreement will be given access to the draft reports, and may provide feedback. The country leading the investigation may offer other countries access to the draft reports at its discretion." [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 07:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Germany, maybe just provided radar data for the stretch that flew over them. Russia, maybe because they were asked to tell the federalists to let investigators do their work (a stupid but real way of thinking, as if Putin hired all these people). Maybe they were asked for their own radar data too. Indonesia's connection is not too obvious, but I suppose there is one. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 08:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
:: Buks--which were widely reported to be suspected rocket and which Ukraine is known to have , is designed and manufactured in Russia, and ONLY Russia would know exact technical details, if those are at issue to the investigation. It is NOT having Russia is what would make zero sense. --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 09:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: Good point there. We could use more detailed specs here too (though reliable airliner measures and hole size needs settled first anyway) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::It says " on the days following the incident (when Ukraine was still leading the investigation), several Ukrainian aviation investigators visited the crash site briefly several times for investigative purposes." They must have sneaked in disguise as rescue workers collecting bodies. And maybe it was they responsible for some of the "cutting up and removing evidence" and maybe they decently handed it over to the Dutch, whatever they found useful. <br />
:::: Are you SURE the BUKs are made in Russia? I know they ere designed there, so were the Antonovs and helicopters which Ukraine not only makes but exports to other countries. They make radar and big rockets too. Mostly in the south east...8th largest arms manufacturer in the world.<br />
<br />
<br />
:::::I do not have means to verify that no plant in Ukraine is producing books, but my understanding based on press reports, is that production is in Dolgoprudnyi, Moscow. That makes logical sense and I do not have a reason to think that this report is not accurate . There is no way for me to check this 100 sitting on my chair. Did anybody even claimed that there is a plant based in Ukrain capable of producing Buks? I have not seen such reports. It is possible that some components were normally exported from somewhere else in former SU, but it looks like final assembly at least is near Moscow . (That would also make logical sense, and I do not have grounds to dispute the report [http://www.ibtimes.com/maker-buk-missile-may-have-shot-down-mh17-targeted-recent-us-sanctions-1632698] --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 01:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
::::Anyway this is only Air Safety report. Criminal investigation if any has to be done by different department (but could be in any country involved). There won't be criminal charges. The finding will be "missile fired by persons unknown". [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 12:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
* [http://en.ria.ru/world/20140823/192273535/Russia-Wants-Regular-Transparent-Reports-on-MH17-Crash.html Russia Wants Regular, Transparent Reports on MH17 Crash Probe] – RIA Novosti, 23/08/2014 -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) aug 24 not signed<br />
<br />
:This story looks like for domestic consumption, <br />
<br />
::Maybe in small part, but mostly it is more like you accused us--where is the proof? With intention to have the matter dropped, not to escalate the matter. This is not working very well, it just gets stuck, because the other part is not paying much attention. They are not trying to work together at all, and so it just reflects that there is a lot of unresolved tension. --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 05:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:to make it look like the "West" is hiding something. <br />
::::A bit of that , --certainly they want to recieve as early as possible all available evidence, and they were saying in the past that they had not. But in terms of tone, the reason is concern with insufficient respect to Russia, so the payback is, hey,go bring us some pointless paper. So there are tone problems, not just substance problems, --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 07:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:It refers to <br />
Resolution 2166 adopted by the UN Security Council in July calls for a thorough and impartial investigation into the MH17 tragedy and requires the secretary-general to provide the Security Council with investigation progress reports". which is nonsense, as Security Council has no access, will not do own investigation, and it is being done under international laws by the Dutch. Furthermore, as a member of the investigation panel, Russia knows this. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 22:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::The original story is that separatists shot it down with a BUK. The physical evidence only points to a proximity fuse missile ''of some sort'', several types of these available including air to air ones. USA claims but has not shown satellite evidence of a BUK being fired frm "rebel held territory". This is UNTRUE as satellite would not show the type of evidence they claim to have. So to produce evidence they would have the show what they really have, which must be off a spy plane. Domestically they want to hide that they had enough interest in the area to operate such a plane there, though everyone locally knows. They will not produce this for a criminal case. No criminal case is possible without proof of who (what person or unit) shot it. Anyway the consensus also was that they were aiming at a legitimate military target, so was accidental.<br />
::Several other accidental "wrong target" scenarios are possible, and almost as equally likely. If there WERE Ukrainian aircraft near MH17 (and witnesses said there WAS a fighter there) they may have been the target, of separatists OR RUSSIAN AIRCRAFT which of course are not meant to be in Ukrainian air space -- but would not have to be, to be close enough to shoot a missile at one. Alternatively a Russian one may have been the target of a Ukrainian plane. Either way the much larger and intervening B777 would have captured the attention of the missile. <br />
::The Russian "radar proof" of SUs being there were fake. But based on some knowledge that there WERE some there. If their own planes saw them, they can't admit to that.<br />
::There is enough doubt for all parties to NOT WANT a thorough investigation. Nobody can do one with hopes of blaming the other, without potentially incriminating themselves. <br />
::So it will not happen. Whichever way it was, the missile was aimed at a legitimate target. So at most the charge could only be negligence. Discovering whose negligence would only escalate hostilities. Nobody wants that. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 07:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
:::All signed and should-be-signed chit chat should ideally be on a talk page, not front (article) page. Friendly reminder. (and I say ideally as I and others have done this before and sometimes never fixed it, but it's not ideal) (good talk though) :) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 08:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::sorry, I started it there, fixed now. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 08:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== November 2014 ===<br />
<br />
Dutch experts are back at the scene, this time collecting the wreckage. As [http://www.sputniknews.com/europe/20141111/1014605576.html RIA Novosti reports], an agreement with the DPR has been signed yesterday, but there were some shenanigans with the Dutch delivering a second version of the agreement in which any mention of "DPR" was erased. Grow a spine, cheeseheads, FFS. ''Your'' children died there. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Correspondents in the area say there was shelling of the wreckage area by Ukraine on 10 of November [http://rusvesna.su/news/1415708946 (KP correspondent-rusvesna)] . They have a video from the scene; I don't think shelling is heard there, but it is a very brief clip. They show damage in the metal, a thin crack which goes from the inside out. It may be missile shrapnel shooting the plane through, entering, than exiting on the other side of the plane, there is no problem with that. Cracks looks most consistent with missile shrapnel (which may be a rhombus plate). Woman in the second half does not say things of help to investigation, she heard explosion and seen smoke, but that was about it. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
What are they on about?? they went there weeks ago to pick up luggage and belongings,no problems, no OSCE help either. Left most of it behind.Few days later Graham Phillips showed heaps of stuff still there -- including BONES. They were quietly invited back (BY DPR)went back and found some bones. Few days ago went back, found more remains WITH DPR PEOPLE WITH THEM. Well yeah, it's only about 25 km from Debaltseve, true. Ukies shelling that way on purpose to scare them off, was nothing when they were there secretly. On other hand their PM didn't knows they were there either? he's a snarling venom-spitter agaist Putin. "Rutte has always said he doesn’t want to negotiate with the pro-Russian separatists because he doesn’t recognize their self-proclaimed regional government." what BS you negotiate with whoever is there, who else? the man in the moon? Malaysia negotiated with them and got back all the bodies and the black boxes. Kiev was not going to give them, even if they'd been able to. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 14:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
=== December 2014 ===<br />
At SBU press conference given by Vasilii Vovk, and lasting some 30 minutes, MH17 crashed was mentioned. It was said that final outcome of investigation may be not exactly the same as initially announced, and that investigators have recovered fragments in passengers bodies which may show that the plane was shot by a missile. [http://rusvesna.su/news/1419023898 Reports on this (rusvesna)] came out with a title claiming that SBU admitted that MH17 could be shot from a plane; that seems to be a lot stronger than what SBU actually announced. They did say that [http://112.ua/glavnye-novosti/v-telah-passazhirov-boinga-obnaruzheny-elementy-kotorye-mogut-byt-chastyami-raket-sbu-163012.html "there are many reasons to think that those were missile fragments"]. Here is [http://112.ua/glavnye-novosti/v-sbu-ne-uvereny-chto-iznachalnaya-versiya-krusheniya-samoleta-naydet-100-procentnoe-podtverzhdenie-163013.html 112.ua report, and press conference video (Ukrainian)] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 08:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* http://uatoday.tv/crime/bodies-of-mh17-victims-contain-missile-fragments-sbu-says-398439.html <br />
"Chief of the Investigation Department of the Security Service of Ukraine and the co-chair of the international investigation group into the crash, Vasiliy Vovk." This is one and the same person, then, not a joint statement. UNIAN reports from this "the bodies of some of the passengers killed in the plane crash contain metal objects that were not part of the aircraft," now citing external forces. Apparently, per the above, he said a jet-fired missile was possible, and Russian media latches onto that. UNIAN emphasizes the other half of the options: "One of the main theories being considered is that the plane was shot down by a Buk missile system from territory controlled by terrorist groups," Vovk said." --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Eliot Higgins [https://twitter.com/EliotHiggins/status/546064079350411264 tweets]: Preview of interview with the head of the #MH17 criminal investigation ‘Geen satellietbeelden van neerschieten MH17’ http://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2014/12/19/geen-satellietbeelden-van-neerschieten-mh17/ --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:Translated, Westerbeke basically says there is no video-movie type satellite imagery proof of what happened, as many had come to expect. Makes sense to me. But there should be data that can be read and then presented graphically, that should indicate what happened. Should be forthcoming? To note, new to me, Malaysia has maybe been invited into the JIT (Joint Investigation Team, once a total secret) - the article lists member states as "Oekraïne, Australië, Maleisië, België en Nederland." --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: Malaysia was finally allowed into the club [http://www.nst.com.my/node/60321 on or around December 8]. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===February 2015===<br />
The team of international aviation investigators who investigate the cause and contributing factors of the crash of flight MH17 concluded the investigation meeting at Gilze-Rijen. In the past week they conducted several investigations on the wreckage, including the fractures, the failure mechanisms and the impact patterns. This meeting is part of the procedures prescribed by the ICAO provisions on international aircraft accident and incident investigation.<br />
<br />
The investigators represented the countries involved in the MH17 investigation: Ukraine, Malaysia, Australia, United States, United Kingdom and the Russian Federation. The representatives of Belgium and Germany attended the meeting on February 17. A representative of ICAO was also present.<br />
<br />
Next week preparations will be made for the visit of next of kin to see the recovered wreckage in the first week of March. The planned three-dimensional reconstruction of a part of the aircraft will start soon. The next of kin will be allowed to view this three-dimensional reconstruction at a later time. [http://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/en/onderzoek/2049/investigation-crash-mh17-17-july-2014/onderzoek/1622/international-aviation-investigators-conclude-meeting-at-gilze-rijen#fasen /Dutch Safety Board, 20.02.2015] <br />
: and ...? --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 21:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: The great Alex Thomson has been there lately, finding [https://twitter.com/alextomo/status/566945066284228608 piles of Malaysian Airlines jet wreckage] still around. Guess that's not needed for their 3D reconstruction. All very shady and quite disappointing if one (like me) has held the Dutch in high regard when it comes to thoroughness and integrity. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 21:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===March 2015===<br />
[http://nos.nl/artikel/2027660-justitie-zoekt-getuigen-van-neerhalen-mh17-door-buk-raket.html Something from Netherlands emerged], claimed to be International Investigation team (with Ukraine, but not Russia) with old stuff,+ some (newly?) recorded, some of it at studio quality, zero emotions, suspiciously accented conversation in RUssian about a Buk being moved direct from Russia to somewhere near Snezhnoe by some unknown, but surely opolchenie member, characters --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 16:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
: Some Western operation, announcer quite clearly lived in the West for a while, newly emerged recording of bad guys--something strange about accents (something out of place), and tone (supercalm in presumably tense circumstances, curses with no fire to them appear staged)--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 16:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::[http://www.newsru.com/world/02apr2015/mh17.html Now saying ] [http://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2015/04/01/russische-legerofficier-herkend-op-justitietape-mh17/ (and here)] looking for Petrovskii-Khmuryi, who can be one of the guys on the recording (Do not remember comments from him on the matter...kind of curious) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::Pro-opolchenie blog say that this is old Ukrainian fake presented now as coming from Netherlands. Have not seen Petrovskii comments on the matter. (Manner of speech somewhat reminds him, in a kind of exaggerated way; to me sounds as more likely to be a play-up, --having hard time believing the tone). Recordings attributed to crash day were [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgdqdklrqDA#t=238 published by SBU] on 18 July. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===April 2015===<br />
[http://www.nltimes.nl/2015/04/08/dutch-release-hundreds-of-emails-tied-to-mh17/ Dutch Release Hundreds Of Emails Tied To Mh17]--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Russian demands ===<br />
* [http://en.itar-tass.com/world/750377 Russia proposes appointing UN special envoy for MH17 crash probe — Churkin] – ITAR-TASS, 20 Sept 2014<br />
:''He said that Russian delegation has seen no will on the part of the secretariat to display any initiative to promote international investigation of the crash. “We think it important that the United Nations Secretary General should analyze the state of things on the above problems and deliver a detailed report to the Security Council, including his suggestions about additional measures to promote the investigation,” he said.<br />
:''“It would probably be expedient to look at establishing a post of a secretary general’s envoy on that matter and sending, in collaboration with the OSCE [Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe], a mission to the crash area,” Churkin said.<br />
: Russians are annoyed by disrespect, and by sanctions. [http://itar-tass.com/politika/1455360 During the meeting of the UN Security Council, Churkin urged his colleagues] to work together to clarify the tragic story of the airliner "without any hints and insinuations" and references to the evidence which has not been submitted. "If you do not submit (any proof) than this is not evidence, but just as we say," фига в кармане " ("the 3-finger gesture exhibited in one's own pocket"- basically meaning bullshit). And such things to investigate such serious situations is completely inappropriate," - he stressed. Russians support the official investigation, -but still emit some noise indicating their annoyance. Also, they may have some beliefs regarding the circumstances. <br />
:At the time, it appeared that sanctions and MH17 are [http://time.com/3025173/eu-sanctions-russia-mh17-putin/ linked ] ; and despite a progress towards peace, new sanctions were imposed. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 12:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: [http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1407/18/cnr.04.html UN Ambassador Power Addresses Security Council Meeting] "we cannot rule out technical assistance from Russian personnel" "If indeed Russian-backed separatists were behind this attack on a civilian airliner, they and their backers would have good reason to cover up evidence of their crime. Thus, it is extremely important that an investigation be commenced immediately."--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Germany Decides Rebels Dunnit==<br />
<br />
German Intelligence has decided for definite that the first story was correct - MH17 was downed by a BUK operated by [http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/mh17/prorussian-rebels-downed-mh17-with-ukraine-missile-germans/story-fno88it0-1227095832498 separatists] after all. <br />
Not really surprising, as this is (a) the easiest result based on Occam's Razor and (b) comes at a time Germany would like to do something to help Russia in the sanctions mess but Merkel can't back off yet (and/or different parts of Germany have different degrees of friendship with The Bear). It may also be a smack on the fingers for Ukraine for the neo-nazi mess. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 04:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
We also covered this elsewhere [[Category_talk:Leaks#BND |BND leak]]. (As for positives, they seem to say Ukrainian photos are fake). As for rebel Buk, Bolotov said on 20 July that his Buk is broken, and offered anybody to come and check. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 04:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
:And Kiev also agrees the rebels had no Buk of their own, saying Russia (not Kiev) brought it in on their behalf and fired it. How does BND think it can just make up claims no in the region believes or supports? Will need to have a look, especially at their take on the images used to support Kiev's version of the "not separatists" narrative. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::There's nothing for you to take a look at. This "presentation" was towards a fig leaf secret service control instance, and even [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Ströbele one of the few people on it], a kind of German Ron Paul when it comes to argue against the grain, said he doesn't buy it. And another one of those "kleine Anfragen" made them admit that [https://www.jungewelt.de/schwerpunkt/»keine-eigenen-erkenntnisse« "no own insights" went into that "leaked" statement]. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 23:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/mh17-chief-investigator-says-no-actionable-evidence-yet-in-probe-a-999485.html Chief MH17 Investigator on German Claims: 'We Will Need Evidence'] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 18:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Joost Bosman photos ==<br />
[https://www.flickr.com/photos/33705716@N05/14687945100/sizes/l This one] is interesting. Also [https://www.flickr.com/photos/33705716@N05/14872160254/in/set-72157646326477044 this.] -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 00:14, 12 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Other MH17 analysis ==<br />
<br />
Half-way decent [http://0serg.livejournal.com/146553.html analysis] of the known facts on MH17 in Q & A format. Use Bing translator as google gives up half way through.--[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 01:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== R-27 long-range air-to-air missile? ==<br />
<br />
Work in progress, please leave alone for a an hour. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 15:56, 13 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-27_(air-to-air_missile) R-27 (air-to-air missile)]<br />
* [http://belsat.eu/en/wiadomosci/a,20935,official-russian-military-aircraft-to-blame-for-shooting-down-ukrainian-su25-plane.html Official: Russian military aircraft to blame for shooting down Ukrainian Su-25 plane] – 7 July 2014<br />
* [http://www.ukrinform.ua/eng/news/nsdc_russian_aircraft_shot_down_ukrainian_su_25_plane_323908 NSDC: Russian aircraft shot down Ukrainian Su-25 plane] – July 17, 2014<br />
* [http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/russian-military-plane-shot-down-ukrainian-su-25-aircraft-in-ukraine-356422.html Russian military plane shot down Ukrainian Su-25 aircraft in Ukraine] – Interfax-Ukraine / Kyiv Post, July 17, 2014<br />
<br />
<br />
== R-60 ==<br />
Basic info. Infrared-homing, proximity fuse (radar or optical); range 8 km, altitude 20 km [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/62/Rakiety_R-60_i_R-13M_A381.jpg Photo] (but rods not shown--dummy warhead). [http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-101.html More photos]. Older versions warhead use tungsten expanding rods, newer (R60 M, R60 MK) may use depleted uranium . 3-3.5 kg warhead weight. Exact rod shapes, and whether encasing is suitable to produce fragmentation on top of that, are not found/hard to find.<br />
<br />
It is thought that R 60 rod damage will look similar to [http://s711.photobucket.com/user/smi6086/media/visit61.jpg.html sidewinder,] but straight cut, not L shape --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 23:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 23:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: <s>Here's what R-60 warhead ''allegedly'' [http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/evanesce_girl/8305736/101880/101880_original.jpg looks like] (I can neither confirm nor deny that it is indeed an R-60 warhead, as I simply do not know for sure). If it is true, then there's no way the holes will look even remotely close to Sidewinder damage. (Note that the ruler at the bottom of the photo is in centimeters, not inches).</s> -- [[User:Ed3218|Ed3218]] ([[User talk:Ed3218|talk]]) 17:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::But [http://imperiya.by/news.html?id=139809 other sources] call it anti aircraft shell (artillery) , WW2 times---and it does look like (artillery) shell. patronen.su is a source of the photo (typed on the photo)--, but I could not find that photo there--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 18:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::It got an outer rotating band , those grooves outside. Also material seems to be cast iron, not tungsten-as far as it's possible to tell from the photo --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 18:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::: Looks like you are correct. -- [[User:Ed3218|Ed3218]] ([[User talk:Ed3218|talk]]) 23:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Disinformation? ==<br />
<br />
Chris Harrison [https://www.facebook.com/groups/IOUCO/permalink/631575156955542/ on Facebook:]<br />
* [http://www.discussionist.com/101445081 Overlooked....the mysterious imprisoned US spy who gave the Daily Mail witness testimony about MH-17] – Clarity of Signal, Aug 16, 2014<br />
:''Needing a little help form Novorossiya blogging investigators in regards to this individual who I put a thread up about back in August. He is a very intriguing character that supplied the Daily Mail UK with information that doesn't seem to be mentioned in the ATC to plane transmissions for MH-17 (the ones released by the Dutch Safety Board). The Daily Mail quoted him as saying that the pilots of MH-17 "felt bad". However, this quote and conversation is missing from the DSB's preliminary report. After having performed some minor investigation I found that this same individual was also a key source of misinformation for last years false flag chemical weapons attack in Syria. I'm curious if any other Novorossiya blogging investigators want to attempt to dig deeper on this guy and bring more info to light? He could be somewhat of a 'smoking gun'.<br />
<br />
== Radar jamming and spoofing? ==<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vYaRtY27iY Proof of NATO false flag attack on MH17] – Patrick Roddie, Jul 22, 2014<br />
:''Just one month before the Malaysian airliner was shot down, NATO ran a live exercise using fighter jets to jam the transponders of commercial airliners and spoof them as military jets by broadcasting a military transponder signal at close range. NATO forces seem to have made the doomed Malaysian 777 appear to be a hostile military jet and forced the separatists to open fire. <br />
:''The video evidence of military chaff falling at the crash site reinforces the argument that military fighters were very close to MH17 when it was shot down.<br />
The Russian civilian radar data however shows that the MH17 transponder was not jammed. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 05:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Cause of death? ==<br />
<br />
Up to now it has generally been assumed that the pilots may have died from the "high-energy objects" hitting them while the passengers died almost instantly from hypoxia after the explosive decompression of the cabin. This rapid death might explain the odd "[[/Debunked topics#Bloodless bodies – fake Facebook profiles?|bloodless bodies]]".<br />
<br />
Dutch Foreign Minister Frans Timmermans now says that at least one passenger was found with an oxygen mask on.<br />
* [http://en.itar-tass.com/world/753427 Malaysia Airlines MH17 passenger found with oxygen mask on — Dutch FM] – ITAR-TASS, October 09, 2014<br />
:''The latest finding questions the earlier theory that the 298 victims on board the tragic flight had been killed instantly and indicates that they may have remained conscious after the Boeing aircraft was shot down.<br />
* [http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-10-09/mh-17-false-flag-exposed-after-revelation-passenger-was-wearing-oxygen-mask MH-17 Report False Flag Exposed After Revelation Passenger Was Wearing Oxygen Mask] Zero Hedge, 10/09/2014<br />
:''The mask found around the neck of the unnamed passenger, one of 88 Australian citizens and residents on board, was tested for fingerprints, saliva and DNA but produced no forensic evidence, De Bruin said. "So it is not known how or when that mask got around the neck of the victim," he said.<br />
:''The discovery of the mask and the implications it raised about the passengers' final moments were conveyed to the Australian's family before Timmermans' interview on Wednesday night, the prosecutor's office said. But information was sent out to other family members of the MH-17 victims only on Thursday morning.<br />
-- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 18:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Russia Blames Buk, Secret Info ==<br />
[http://rusvesna.su/news/1413027395 "CyberLeaks" on russvesna] claims 9H314 warhead of 9M38 missile, Buk M1 system. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:11, 11 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* [http://rt.com/news/195128-mh17-crash-cyberberkut-leak/ Kiev secretly received data from MH17 crash investigators – Ukrainian hacktivists] RT Oct. 11<br />
:''Ukrainian CyberBerkut hacktivists claim that they have penetrated the internal network of Ukraine’s Defense Ministry and found proof that Kiev is getting secret data from MH17 crash investigators, including information which implies its involvement.''<br />
<br />
:''A document, posted on the website cyber-berkut.net, and allegedly downloaded from Ukraine’s Defense Ministry network, dates back to August 7 and appears to be signed by Colonel Igor Zorin, the chief of Ukraine’s air defense forces. It is a report which maintains that a fragment of a projectile found together with the debris of the crashed flight MH17 is in fact a damage agent of a 9M38 surface-to-air guided missile belonging to the mobile air defense complex Buk or Buk M1.''<br />
<br />
:''... CyberBerkut claimed that the documents are evidence that the MH17 crash investigation commission and the Ukraine Defense Ministry have “special relations.”'' --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* [http://rt.com/news/194848-mh17-ukrainian-missile-buk/ MH17 crash: Ukraine security chief says missile only Kiev has may be found at crash site] RT Oct. 10 <br />
:''Investigation of the MH17 Boeing-777-200 crash in July will be completed when the remains of the Buk-M air defense missile are found, Valentin Nalivaichenko, head of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), told Ukrainian TV.<br />
::Because:<br />
:''“It will be Russian servicemen who used the Buk-M missile” to take down the passenger jet, he said.''<br />
However, they might have also said it was a certain type - Soviet-era but modernized. I'm not sure if that's so, but if so, Russia's military says they use only "modified" not modernized Buk M-1 and M-2, and only Ukraine has the ones it "modernized." <br />
:''When Mr Nalivaichenko mentions a ‘modernized Buk’ system, he probably means an air defense system that was upgraded by the Ukrainian defense industry. We know that Ukraine has been working in this direction,” the source said, adding that the information about the modernization of Ukrainian Buk systems was confirmed in late June on the Ukrainian Defense Ministry’s website, which reported renovated missile systems becoming operational.''<br />
::And a couple weeks later:<br />
:''On the day that the MH17 was shot down, Ukraine’s 156th SAM regiment carried out an unauthorized missile launch, an emergency situation that is being investigated by the SBU and obviously being hushed up by Kiev authorities, the official said.''<br />
::Therefore:<br />
:''“The confusion and inconsistency of Nalivaichenko’s responses leaves no doubt that he mentioned a plan that definitely had not been developed by the SBU, but rather brought in the other day from their overseas mentors,” the Joint Staff source said. “This is Nalivaichenko and his big mouth blunder.”''<br />
--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
There is no analysis, only conclusion, which is said to be based on the photo. The first question about the photo is where it is coming from. The Netherlands investigation? (Than why it was not also sent to Moscow)? From SBU office? (It is too easy to fake a photo, and with so many fakes already THEY have the burden of proof it is not a fake) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
:There's supposedly analysis behind the match, and my guess is it's all valid. But, that's a guess. Why would it not be sent to Moscow? Apparently its being sent to Ukraine is an issue or scandal, so apparently it's not supposed to be sent to anyone (?) Later it'll be seen by others and us, and our guesses can get better. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 14:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
==Investigation of Buk producer Almaz-Antay==<br />
Russian concern Almaz-Antay held a press conference, aimed at quashing sanctions against them, to say that (if it was Buk, then) it was Buk missile 9M38M or 9M38M1 with missile warhead 9М314 or 9М314М1, because only those have X shape elements. That was taken off production in 1999, while the concern was formed in 2002, so they did not provide this missile to anybody; but Ukraine has it. Their conclusion is based on publicly available photographs; they also participate in the investigation and has exclusive competences. They say that Snezhnoe is inconsistent as that will take cabin off at once; offer to do an [http://rusvesna.su/news/1433241635 experiment] to prove/establish who is responsible (an experiment seems right thing to do-and interesting how you account for movement)- [http://www.interfax.ru/russia/445152 interfax]. They seem to repeat the version given in Novaia Gazeta [[Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17/Forensics#Novaya_Gazeta |(discussion)]], placing launch in Zaroshenskoe. They essentially say that some 40% of elements go perpendicular to the missile and so it needs to be on intersecting course to (have a chance to) account for all the damage. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:33, 2 June 2015 (UTC) <br />
:Severe damage to the flap, illustrated in NG, with less damage to the wing, raises a possibility of a multiple event. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 16:33, 2 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
: Their presentation is on youtube now [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAMY2SpohDA in Russian] and [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsohFzbJ-vs with English translation]. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 15:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Full presentation by Almaz-Antey ( Buk-m2 manufacturer ) about the incident [http://tass.ru/boeing-presentation/vvedenie/2023629#/2023629].<br />
Still only in Russian. Unfortunately even in Russian somebody the diagrams are not self-explanatory. But main arguments are clear. It includes calculations of the attack angle of the rocket in order to cause such damage. - --[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 09:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
They say it was incoming at about 78 degrees; they reject Snezhnoe at 20 degrees; schematically in 2D cones are smth like this, with one extra alternative at -110 degrees shown [[File:Cones.jpg|thumb|Cones for various incoming angles, relative to the plane's frame. MH17: 0.8 Mach, missile: 3 Mach, projectiles 2400 m/s]]--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 05:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
Resup, thanks for shifting my comment to more relevant location. I would like to add here one more analysis. Minimum Distance between Hit point (based on Dutch castrated report) and Snizhne is 24 km (Bellingcat magical tricks placed the launch spot even further). Buk-M1 missile goes at 860m/s, but let's assume 1km/s. Let's also assume that missile immediately travels at highest speed. For such distance the trajectory will be parabolic (slide 49 from Almaz-Antey). Than the time of flight will be way more than 30 sec and it will even intersect the pilot's vertical field of view. Dutch officially declared that there is nothing interesting on black box voice recorder. How is it possible for the pilot not to notice a 5 meters rocket, that ejects violent plume behind, flies directly at him for more than 30 sec and even goes across his vertical field of view? And according to Dutch report pilot was informed of another airliner in proximity that he had to watch out for, so he was alert . It is just impossible for pilot not to comment on it, at least WTF. Even cloudy day doesn’t explain the issue.<br />
--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 09:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=='Unauthorized launch?' ==<br />
[http://russian.rt.com/article/42405#ixzz38ShRpr00 Such theory appeared] around 25 July 2014. According to quoted source said to be from defense structures of Ukraine, on 17 of July, commander of 156 UAF anti-aircraft defense regiment was ordered to perform training of crews to support ground forces in a Donetsk suburb. They had to deploy batteries, and perform routing of target and all procedures of tracking target and its training destruction with Buk M1. Commanders received unblocking keys for launch, but real launch of 9М38М1 (Buk) was not planned. To participate in the exercise, two SU 25 planes from 229 tactical aviation brigade were sent from Kulbakino airbase in Nikolaev to Dnepropetrovsk. They were charged with aerial reconnaissance and to mark control targets in ATO area to the West from Donetsk. After one of the planes entered detection zone of Buk, it was tracked by a crew of battery located near Zaroshenskoe (Зарощенское). It appears that due to tragic accident after some time, and despite height difference, the azimuth of SU 25 and MH17 coincided, in which case the missile will go after the target with bigger area. The source says that he does not know why accidental launch happened, and this is investigated by SBU. "Battery commander and the whole crew were taken". <br />
<br />
There are some details, but sources are not revealed, and details were neither confirmed nor denied. Location seems a bit suspicious, it suggests a right side hit; not clear how reacquiring target from SU 25 at a coinciding azimuth will result in the other side hit. Not totally impossible, (lost target, overshot to the North, than reacquired). But this is not very likely, on top of unexplained accidental launch. Little solid details makes this theory to be on shaky footing. Apparently was recycled in later versions (Nikolaev air base mentioned in recent film). The worst is that it is unclear what is the source, and could he really know. Otherwise, piece of cake to tell such tale (of 'my aunt told me' sort) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
10.10.2014, 14:05 "Rossiiskaia Gazeta" (official publisher of documents of the Russian Government) [http://www.rg.ru/2014/10/10/buk-site.html says in part:] A week after Boeing (i.e. MH17) catastrophe, a source in the armed forces of Ukraine shared information, definitely not matching the official version of Kiev. This source said: on the day of the tragedy, in the 156th air defense missile regiment of the Ukrainian army, armed with modernized "Buk," there was an unauthorized missile launch, which happened in the course of an exercise . Investigation of the incident involved "impartial" SBU investigators. No need to be a genius to put together elements of a puzzle - said a source in the MoD General Staff of the Russian Federation. " <br />
<br />
The number (156) in this report does not match the number in Bezler account on the video (section below); maybe some mix-up on the way to newspaper; but otherwise it all looks consistent. Bezler was operating in the nearby area, and likely would be more knowledgeable. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 23:48, 5 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Bezler Account==<br />
[http://rusvesna.su/news/1413549200 Bes:] " I do not have weapons to shoot Boeing at 10,000 m. Boeing was shot by 154 anti-aircraft regiment of UAF stationed in Artemovsk, using Buk system. My reconnaissance team has spotted "Buk" as it left. Former Defense Minister Geletey knows about it. It was a provocation. The day before the accident, we shot Ukrainian SU-25, two pilots ejected and we went to look for them. My conversation was intercepted and mis-represented as a talk about the downed Boeing. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 05:35, 18 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: Of all the people making statements in this matter, Bezler was probably the only one actually there on the ground to know what was where. The area he claims is borderline for distance, but not impossible. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 21:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Yes, what he says needs to be taken very seriously --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 22:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
A straight line S-SE to the approximate impact point (as we've narrowed down) is 61.5 km. That's significantly out of range, isn't it? [http://wikimapia.org/#lat=48.4572063&lon=38.2935846&z=10&l=0&m=b&gz=0;380113220;481550929;5094910;0;0;4351413 The line on Wikimapia] for second thoughts on that. Clearly, center of downtown was not the firing spot, but even presuming a bit south of town (and not north) this doesn't readily line up. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 00:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Launcher can drive around easily. While personnel is better of sleeping in a city, not out in the field (even if they do, one would not say 'stationed in a cornfield'). There is nothing to defend in the city itself--Novorossia does not use planes. And also, the range is approximate, it has listed ceiling of 20 km, actual range would depend on height and other things.--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Actual range depends on the actual rocket used, not the launcher. Nobody is suggesting they were defending anything, he's saying it was a provocation,ie deliberate. There have been other reports of Ukies starting to test/train on BUKs,perhaps preparing for a war with Russia directly involved. Now, practice, I've had it from numerous ex-military (various Western nations) that they used civilian planes to practice the BUK type radars on as (a) always available and (b) less likely to knows you've lit them up so won't retaliate. That is meant to be radar practice, not actual shooting, of course.<br />
::There was doubt about why "rebels" would be taking this BUK on a scenic tour, especially in mostly KIEV-held territory. But if it was a Kiev BUK?? carted around on a very conspicuous truck to be later identified as having been stolen by rebels? (in interview with very anti-Russian Lithuania's reporter??)<br />
::The Kiev story was, rebels were going to shoot down an Aeroflot, to fall onto Ukie territory, to give Russia excuse for war. However, if looks like rebels shot down something, falling on their territory, Russia can still be blamed and NATO might come help Kiev obliterate the subhumans. Hitting an actual Aeroflot was too risky in case Russia does come in but NATO doesn't. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 07:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::Oh, as if "stationed in" changes anything from a presumption of "firing from" ... lol. Obviously. I sit corrected on that, unless that is what he means... Good points on Obviously no real reason for air defense to be doing anything. True claim or not, it's worth considering these units were just sitting around with no use, freeing up their schedules for off-the-books work. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 08:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Bezler repeated the claim, 154 anti-aircraft regiment of UAF stationed in Artemovsk, using Buk system, Gelatei as overall commander has to answer eventually. This answer is recorded on video <br />
during an interview with Ukrainian news channel 1+1, starting 2:10:00 of the last, long video on [http://rusvesna.su/news/1414630752 rusvesna]. But 1+1 news report did not have that, they put old known fakes instead (first video in russvesna report). Russvesna responds to claims made by Ukrainian news report in detail, with video time stamps referring to Ukrainian news report; the long tape (last video) was made as a safeguard against false claims. Bezler himself does not have any equipment which can shot a plane even at 7000 m (he than mentions Strela 10 which cannot shoot a plane at such height; listed ceiling for Strela 10 is 3500 m)<br />
::Man in black leather next to Bezler is Василий Будик (Vasilii Budik), who was Bezler prisoner for 88 days (according to Budik himself, a 'guest'), and now is in Ukraine and helping Ruban to release more prisoners. He is listed as "Adviser to Defense Ministry, Ukraine" on the long tape<br />
:: --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 04:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references /></div>Antidyatelhttps://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17&diff=22625Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH172015-06-09T09:41:07Z<p>Antidyatel: /* Investigation of Buk producer Almaz-Antay */ why didn't pilot of MH17 see an incoming missile if it was coming from Snizhne ?</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:Ukraine]] [[Category:MH17]]<!-- Cats go to the top on talk pages--><br />
<br />
{{Mainpage}}<br />
== Subpages ==<br />
* [[List of MH17 airframe parts]]<br />
* [[Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Dutch preliminary report|Dutch preliminary report]] ([[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Dutch preliminary report |talk]])<br />
* [[Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Map|Maps]] – ([[/Map|talk]])<br />
* [[/Forensics]]<br />
* [[/Witnesses]]<br />
* [[/Fighter jets]]<br />
* [[/BUK Tracking]]<br />
* [[/Debunked topics]]<br />
* [[/Cyber Berkut leak]]<br />
* [[/SBU Audio Evidence]]<br />
* [[/Archive]]<br />
<br />
== General ACLOS Investigation Thoughts ==<br />
<br />
===Brilliant Analysis of the Propaganda===<br />
American writer on [http://rt.com/op-edge/183132-only-truth-flight-mh17/ RT.com] Brilliant and funny. And sadly true. Well worth a read. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 18:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::I didn't read it all, but it's excellent. A couple steps up from T.B. Hinchey-class writing. I didn't notice any lazy jet-blaming. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Considering Possibilities ===<br />
Only so many theories have been seriously proposed for what happened to MH17. But it seems worthwhile to create a master list of basically all logical possibilities to consider - what has and hasn't been proposed, by whom, why? Anyone can start or add to a sub-section below to conmment on that possibility. I inserted simple notes to many, hoping they're not too controversial - suggest or, hey, make a change as you see fit. I sign here for the initial list and notes only. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''All possibilities:''' Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 was brought down by (A Buk, B Jet, C Other) operated by (1 Russia, 2 Kiev, 3 Rebel) in an attack that was (a accidental, b intended, c intent + error)<br />
<br />
'''A Buk/SA-11''' (supported by some evidence, claimed by Kiev, presumed by Western powers)<br />
* A.1 Russian (Kiev's story - known stocks - border and logic issues)<br />
** A1a - accidental (intended legit/defensive downing - possible)<br />
** A1b - intended (not likely - Russia would stand little to gain and some to lose)<br />
** A1c - intent+error (SBU theory - intended to hit Aeroloft civilian flight, blame Kiev, invade - hit MH17 by mistake)<br />
<br />
* A.2 Kiev (known stocks, alleged movement at the time) (why: make seps/Russia look bad) (how: snuck in totally, approval snuck in too, or fired from outside rebel areas after all) <br />
** A2a - accidental (intended legit/defensive downing - not likely having snuck behind enemy lines to do it)<br />
** A2b - intended (most likely - going behind the lines suggests false flag intent) <br />
** A2c - intent+error (they aimed for the Aeroloft flight, etc. - possible)<br />
<br />
* A.3 Rebel (no known stocks, some evidence for, some against - rebel Buk is/was the Western presumption outside Kiev)<br />
** A3a - accidental (intended legit/defensive downing) (presumed by intelligent outsiders who blame them)<br />
*** (variations: launcher supplied by Russia, seized by separatists, brought by defector - crew came with it, or not - etc.)<br />
*** (variations: sliding scale of culpability from drunk and negligent operators with all blame, to blameless but fooled by false signals and such) <br />
** A3b - intended (not likely, soft implication from Kiev against the "terrorists") <br />
** A3c - intent + error (intent of a criminal kind still seems unlikely, so all error options probably under A3a.)<br />
<br />
'''B Jet''' <br />
(supported by some evidence, promoted by many revisionists) <br />
(var: used air-to-air missile, used auto-cannon/other, or combination)<br />
* B.1 Russian (had to violate Kiev's airspace without being mentioned)<br />
** B1a - accidental (intended legit/defensive downing)<br />
** B1b - intended (not likely - Russia would stand little to gain and some to lose)<br />
** B1c - intent + error (triple unlikely - it's just a possibility slot)<br />
<br />
* B.2 Kiev (denied by Kiev)<br />
** B2a - accidental (intended legit/defensive downing) (of what?)<br />
** B2b - intended (implication of those proposing it - to make seps/Russia look bad)<br />
** B2c - intent + error (possible)<br />
<br />
* B.3 Rebel (no known jet holdings - no one proposes this)<br />
<br />
'''C Other''' nothing seriously suggested. Lets not go digging for all outlying theories, but if one worth listing emerges, it can be option C and Other will be D, etc.<br />
<br />
:moved material to [[Category talk:Ukraine#Ruban's Third Force]] - theories might say "perpetrator unknown," and thus reason and motive ... but this list is all about actual possibilities more than theories. To the truth, the perp is known, and these are all poss. truths. ''Most'' people's theories will fit a slot here... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Questions Raised ===<br />
<br />
In the end of the day, we may not be able to pronounce a forensic conclusion, for the rest of the world to accept, as we may not have full information or all the needed expertise. Perhaps the best to hope for will be to RAISE (a rather short) list of main questions which we hope the official investigation will not ignore. <br />
I think it will be worthwhile to identify such questions (may be followed by voted answers or something of sort and some supporting arguments). <br />
<br />
In my list, it would be questions establishing basic facts, like <br />
<br />
*impact coordinates<br />
*where blast(s) were coming from<br />
*confirmed evidence about launch and launchers (a.k.a " any high-resolution photos with known coordinates and times?") <br />
*navigation and control methods (a.k.a. " can it curl from forward right to back-left?")<br />
* land based or air based launch? (a.k.a "can satellite see well under the cloud?" )<br />
*anything to learn from radar data (publicized or otherwise)?<br />
*and any other relevant confirmed evidence to consider<br />
<br />
Once all of that is in stone, will be good time for theories.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 19:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Question #1, since it's looking like a Buk fired from Snizneh ... what does that really prove as to who was running it? Nothing. That's why the State Dept. has to add on the Youtube and twitter evidence where it doesn't even matter if those are the real people"admitting" it was them. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:17, 11 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: No confirmed evidence for a Buk, or from Snizhne, yet. Knowing who runs that would be perfect. --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 00:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::Definitions of "confirmed" might differ, but I've been recommending people at least prepare for that coming true, in case the SU-25 thing doesn't pan out. There's a burnt field, somewhere quite near where that supposed launch contrail photo was placed to. And that, I just saw, supposedly [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/exif-data-in-mh17-missile-launch-photo.html had its ex/if data verified] as July 17, 16:25:48. So it might be that figuring who runs that becomes totally crucial. So far, just the fact of what it was and where it was fired is supposed to be proof it ''was not'' the party that was equipped for this - physically and morally - and has benefited from it. Anyway, we're on it somewhat - [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/BUK Tracking#Who Has the BUK Launchers in Ukraine?|who controls the Buks,]] whose got moved - [[#A Rebel-Held Area|what does "rebel-held" mean]] when someone's trucking in a anti-aircraft unit just after [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/07/25/snizhne-mh17-and-rebel-held-territory/ Kiev primed the locals with a bombing of civilians in Snizneh two days before]? Stuff like that I think has extra value to develop. I should get to it... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: If there is confirmed photo of launch, that would go under one of already listed items. With electronic evidence on social networks, I am not sufficiently knowledgeable, but presume it is too easy to edit those to fit any agenda, easier than to refute. Government releases, like satellite photos, is different, as they can't change stories overnight and have something to loose if proven fake. Faking hard physical evidence would be fairly impossible. It is good to know who is to blame of course. (But most people would already have their own intuitive answer,which is not likely to change, so how exactly we are going to focus on such an issue? --For myself, the best outcome will be for truth to come out, wherever that may lead).<br />
--[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 19:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== TASS: According to Our Sources ==<br />
23 December, Moscow. "Russian special services are in procession of information, that Malaysian Boeing crash over Donbas in July 2014 may have happened as a result of operation of Ukrainian special services, however it remains unclear whether the plane was the initial target, or a tragic mistake has occurred. This information was conveyed to journalists by a reliable source in one of the Russian competent agencies". <br />
"We can also assume that the operation involved the Ukrainian Air Force and ground air defense, combined". "SBU, which is investigating the accident with the Ukrainian side has already destroyed all the data on the movements of air defense systems in the area of disaster and all the data on the departure of the aircraft". Earlier, the Ukrainian authorities stated that on the day of the crash Ukrainian military aircraft did not leave the airfields in the area of military operation in the south-east of the country. "They did fly - said the source - or yes, they did" [http://itar-tass.com/politika/1667289 TASS] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 20:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==More Remains found ==<br />
<br />
Photo journalist Graham Phillips has found a human bone on the burn site. Doesn't obviously show up on [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0o4SAaCEpk&list=UUbwfUqs5Y6_jblWJwMIfRzA&index=7 this video]. While you're there, from playlist at right you can see he has about 12 videos about the crash scene. They're all just a minute or two long. Meanwhile Zakharchenko is offering for investigators to come back and [http://en.ria.ru/world/20141013/194011115/Donetsk-Ready-to-Grant-Ukrainian-Investigators-Access-to-MH17.html clean up]. Actually he should send a group of people to comb the burned area, not as if he's short on people who cab recognise body parts. Chance to shows up the Dutch who spent a few hours there picking up a token few pieces of luggage and not looking for bones,when they KNOW 12 or 15 people are still missing. HEAPS of belongings they left behind, too.[[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 07:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Story from October 31 from the Dutch, confirming [http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/mh17-dutch-pm-mark-rutte-confirms-more-human-remains-have-been-found/story-fnizu68q-1227109165667 more remains] had been found (in a site visit that had not been publicised). Stories from the current visit also mentioned bodies found but they are wrong -- there are no "bodies" left from MH17. Anything found now that still looks anything like a body is going to be from [http://www.news24.com/World/News/More-remains-of-MH17-passengers-found-20141107 later fighting].[[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 02:51, 8 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Novorossia reported on the visits, [http://rusvesna.su/third_world/1413295402 14.10 (russvesna)], about site exploration (lots of personal belongings found); [http://rusvesna.su/third_world/1415293335 06.11 (russvesna)], agreement is reached on transporting wreckage, 4 open and 1 closed wagon. They did not report pro-Kiev Ukrainian site interested or participating (while news24 report above talks about "A team of Dutch, Ukrainian and Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe workers"). --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 05:25, 8 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Witness Accounts ==<br />
:''Moved to [[/Witnesses]]<br />
<br />
== ANNA News - Crash Scene Imagery ==<br />
=== Jet Wreckage ===<br />
How did we miss this? From mid September, 50 minute video of the crash site, the burn areas substantially [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rt-QIsgjQkg cleaned up]. A lot of close-ups, walking around every angl of pieces (eg broken wing). Boring until about 38 min mark, when gets onto cockpit area. This is first area with voice, too, with someone explaining their theory of what happened (Russian) and showing shrapnel damage from angles we've not seen on any stills. "Ukraine" mentioned a few times, so I'm assuming it's a theory that blames Kiev. Can anyone translate please? [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 15:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
: A shorter video, just the part with the explanation, better audio. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rt-QIsgjQkg#t=2785 [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 15:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: Shorter video: they guy says that the holes are small, and so he thinks it is air-to-air missile. (Well, we now know presumed size of buk shrapnel as it is on a recent photo with a ruler; 15 millimeters or smth; and what he shows appears to be like finger-tip wide; so it is not too much off as far as I can tell, and does not seem to prove or disprove buk). He also says that it is known effect that when pressurized plane is punctured, it falls apart. (Well, that certainly did not happen with Korean Boeing over USSR, so it seems a bit exaggerated) . That's all he has to say, so what we gained is more video evidence --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 16:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::More new footage, taken about Oct 5 or 6 (just before OSCE visit) with someone who was there within first hour, interspersed with some footage be took at the time, never before seen [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5j5Bpa010Q English subs]. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 20:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::: Graham Phillips from the scene on October 16 [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAhqWi5cavY in] two [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAf8PFx3tmY parts]. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 16:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Great find, good quality footage. helps set the spread of things ... hope the section re-org works for everyone (did destroy the original title, but I don't think much was linking here...) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::I posted it before I finished watching it. It has a lot of interviews, rebel leaders, experts. They're saying Kiev stalled and lied to scare off investigators. The rebels took over the bodies by force to make sure they go for proper investigation ie Kiev can't mess things up. The Malaysians came to get the black boxes against Kiev's wishes and got shot at on the way. <br />
:::They say on TV that morning was Andriy Lysenko boasting about planning 8 bombing runs that day; after the crash he said they didn't have a plane up that day. Then they bombed the site to say it's too dangerous for investigators (they show some rocket craters). What were they hiding? [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 20:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
A curious detail is that we are told at 9:34 that UAF was at Nikishino. That would be roughly on the line to Chernukino, so behind-and-left from the crash. That theme featured in ACLOS discussions already; there is nothing new to add. We also hear about two planes, and get some hand waving explanations. That was covered as well; perhaps now there is somewhat better idea where the witness is located. It is curious that a German guy says that Pechora missile system was located in Ukraine; as I remember, what was released was more vague; I am not clear why he says 'Ukraine' now. Indeed, we get a sense that Novorossia side is not trying to hide something; and we do get a sense that pro-Kiev side has something to hide. What is that exactly, would be a speculation. If they are serious about peace, perhaps some PR professionals can advise them as appropriate, that is, likely, to release whatever is there to hide. This appears to be rather popular method employed before elections. (Than after the elections, they can say, we told that already, and got elected anyway; but if something new comes up, somebody may say why it was hidden, and argue that it changes the balance). --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 23:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: The Nikishino reference is meant to show distance, ie that they were not close enough for any fighting to be happening at the crash site, therefore "too dangerous to let in investigators" was just an excuse. Definitely Novorossiya is not trying to hide anything -- they have nothing to hide, and did the right thing all the way through. The video is meant to show how much Kiev was obstructing all the way...this was obvious as soon as shelling started in the area the minute the bodies were gone. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 17:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
For example, one odd thing is that Ukrainian high officials are reported to make recent comments discussing 'that Buk' which shot the plane; and leaked document suggests the same, that they think it is "Buk', moreover very specific info on warhead, missile, and launcher. But how do they even know it was Buk? (if they just have some murky photo of the shrapnel piece? ) If they have shrapnel piece itself, not just the photo, why it was not sent to Netherlands? --Nobody in Netherlands seem to be certain what are those penetrating 'high velocity objects'. And how Ukrainians determined not only the missile type, but also '''launcher type''' just from this warhead shrapnel piece? Finally, after all that, why is that they are saying the launcher used is the one apparently only they have and Russians no longer use?([https://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%91%D1%83%D0%BA_(%D0%B7%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81)&previous=yes#.D0.A1.D0.BE.D1.81.D1.82.D0.B0.D0.B2_.D0.BA.D0.BE.D0.BC.D0.BF.D0.BB.D0.B5.D0.BA.D1.81.D0.B0_9.D0.9A37_.C2.AB.D0.91.D1.83.D0.BA-.D0.9C1.C2.BB Buk M1] they claim is the first and oldest launcher system from around 1979, no computer, etc. Russian Buk would be a more modern version, perhaps some 10 years older, and may use some computer already). So, the impression is, that UAF is, kind of, saying itself, that it is us to blame, and than also keeps this secret for 2 months. But somehow we are supposed to keep believing it was '''not''' them. Well, I dunno, this appears to get harder by the day. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 00:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
::I don't think it's UAF saying about this rocket, the whole movie is from the Russian side. They believe it was a Kiev job; movie stresses how they blocked investigation. There was an interview by Joern Akkermans with the local fire brigade chief which also showed this, how they sabotaged the investigators getting the first responders' detailed notes. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 17:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::Comments in above paragraph is not about the movie, it is about leaked documented dated 2 months ago, we have it elsewhere discussing leaks --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 17:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::On "how did they know from the debris fragment, they'd say they know because they had a bunch of photos of the launcher driving that way, plus the supposed audio of people talking about it as "Buk" (covered in their spots here) Of course, they sure got all that submitted and analyzed a bit too quick, so it seems more of that strange omniscience that suggests they aren't just reading along with the story but actually writing it. In reality I guess they know because it was theirs and used by them, but officially they have at least the video and audio evidence besides the later debris. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 22:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::You lost me there. What fragment do they have? they had no access to the site and who,in that mess, would anyway recognise a fragment the size of a coin? if they have a blurry photo, well, blurry means you can't see what's on it, and still doesn't prove where it came from, so....what are they on about? are they just saying "debris fragment" to mean those few skin sections with the lots of holes in them? from that they claim to know the model number of the BUK?<br />
:::I'm back to thinking about the movie, the women saying the 2 planes. people said that on day one, too. All people used to the idea of planes being SHOT WITH ROCKETS, by then there'd been about 15 or 20 of those, so why would they suddenly invent or imagine this was NOT? [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 22:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::Corrected; they have the audio-visual plus, '''they say,''' this scrap photo. Point was the Buk claim isn't based on the alleged scrap but the other stuff, fake or not, which they had from the start. Numerous potential reasons it isn't what they claim, but again I've always suspected they would know and properly ID the murder weapon, so I'm not very doubtful that they will have consistent evidence sooner or later (and it's been a while now) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Plane spotting story: could not detect any signs it was invented, sounded like simple folks telling what they saw, no signs it was forced on them to say, or tension/second thoughts in saying this, could be detected --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 00:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[http://www.cyber-berkut.org/en/ Leaked document ] is based on the photo, and apparently UAF do not have fragments<br />
:: "остаточний висновок щодо належності .... можливо зробити при наявностi оригінали" means "final conclusion on the association can be done in the presence of the original." <br />
Nalivaichenko (SBU) [http://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=2040949&cid=5 is said] to make this comment recently on 5 channel, Ukraine (Poroshenko channel): "Ukrainian investigators need to execute the plan, developed in collaboration with the Dutch side and the other members of the international investigation, arrive at the scene and find what we need, - fragments of a particular rocket specific "Buk" - said Nalyvaychenko." (The latter comments may possibly belong to the humor section). C-B appears to suggest that photo may be from the Netherlands. <br />
: (Nalyvaychenko has [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentyn_Nalyvaichenko a major in linguistics,] so his "plan" sounds odd).<br />
::[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIpD2eebJ_c Nalivaichenko report] appears essentially accurate, he did talk (in Ukrainian) about the investigation, starting at 7:30 timestamp; he did say "Buk M modernized" at 8:30, and "Buk" is even captured by automatic transcript (more->transcript ; but transcript is not working well overall. )<br />
. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Guys: he said "Ukrainian investigators need to execute the plan, developed in collaboration with the Dutch side and the other members of the international investigation, arrive at the scene and find what we need, - fragments of a particular rocket specific "Buk""<br />
The collaboration part might be along the lines of, "Ukrainians should go there as it seems too dangerous for anyone else" (which Ukies have made sure of all along). Now I'll strip down the rest to the vital parts:<br />
execute the plan...arrive and find...what we NEED<br />
Not search for. '''FIND.'''<br />
How hard is it to find something you just dropped? of course if they now said they found it, the whole world would just belly-laugh. Luckily it's in NR hands so they can't get near the site.<br />
I do believe Russia may be keeping an ace up their sleeve so to speak.[[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 03:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:"Investigation" would be the right word for what one should implement, while "plan" suggests something else, something one hatches in secret... With all this time to have been found and hidden by the separatists, he seems confident the smoking gun is still right there to be found. Maybe Putin's business card as well. Only Kiev's specially rigorous investigators can find it, and only after they've taken full control of the area. Indeed, "search for" would be a better term, if he meant "investigation," which seems hopeless But he said "plan" and apparently one that involves a pre-planned finding of the right clue, and is far from hopeless. Maybe they're just asking for help in conquering this area. No one will expect, need, or want them to follow through on such a plot, just to control more territory and have a fruitless look for good measure. Seems to me the US and allies probably already have enough evidence to blame Russia and carry out whatever punishment they can. It's always more about will than evidence anyway. <br />
:So... is the linguist just this sloppy? Or is he up to something dropping hints like this? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Reminds me of what Putin once said about the Iraqi WMDs: "If I were the Americans, I would have found some". Maybe his CIA overlords told Naliwhatshisname about that... ;oP --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
::: Haha, I didn't know that about Putin. Good on him for saying so out loud, too (tho that's a hint of menace as well). Ukraine police and secret services don't strike me as needing advice about faking evidence. oh, though on second thoughts, they're more used to just saying it and being believed, like the Big Invasion and 2 nukes on airport guys. USA has not said a word about Russia on this matter for ages, ie about the time the black boxes got read.[[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 12:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::: Tried to locate the origin of that quote but failed. Nothing in English and all the references in German indicate that they had it from the same source I have: German "comedians". It is in character though, if you add some "they can't even control their own plots" Russian humour. And I think he really said it, but at the current state of evidence don't reference it to me, please. ;o) --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 19:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Bloodless Bodies, Photo Proof? === <br />
Two days ago ANNA News [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAlC7HhfkrU uploaded a video] of some kind of presentation of photos from the aftermath and clean-up operation. Camera shows a Laptop with an apparently rather large collection of photos, a woman is operating and explaining what is shown (in Russian). As to the nature of it, this is really gruesome stuff showing the victims as they ended up on the ground, and I only made it a good minute in. The video description seems to allege [[Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17/Debunked_topics#Bloodless bodies – fake Facebook profiles?|what Strelkov reported his men reporting]] to the outrage of everyone: Smell of chemicals, many naked, no or very few blood, in decay. <br />
<br />
Doesn't fit there ("debunked topics"), because the photos are certainly not debunked and evidence independent of any conclusions. So it's here. Should be watched by someone who can judge what they see and have a good stomach. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:It might've been flippant to put the theory right into debunked, but it made a fair point that it sounds really dumb on the surface ... but this is presented as evidence, okay. I had a look, indeed some horrible images - people broken and smeared in several different ways (look out esp. from 4:49-5:08). I'm guessing these are mostly next morning photos near the site? Ones further out, found later, will be rotting. I'm not expert enough to settle this, but fresh bodies normally should not have these signs we see: darkening skin, black lips, etc. - lack of visible surface blood - (heard about) bad decay smell. <br />
:But then again, bodies don't normally - suffer massive decompression / oxygen cut-off / etc. - move at high speed as they're torn up (smeared people = wiped clean?) - have all their tussues and guts torn up so badly - and do all this in mass numbers at the peak of summer. No maggots yet - they must have been pre-killed somewhere there were no flies, (or gassed with a pesticide-like poison!) or very quickly before loading ... no, my semi-educated guess is still some combination of these factors will explain what we see, even in these select photos. But at least, this lets us see more of it ourselves for comparison. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Yeah, it sounds bizarre but Strelkov mentioned it himself saying he just relayed what he was told from the ground. Anyway, to speculate about it we first need more details about the claims. Went back to ANNA to see if anybody subtitled it ... but they don't seem to do that the same way as in Syria. But I noticed just recently they have a German team which produces little news shows. Didn't look into it yet. But hey, [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8YycmILC2M there it is], a German version with hardwired subtitles. Which means there is no transcript to copy & paste like with the CC function. Which means I will have to watch at least a bit of it. *sigh* Maybe later, maybe tomorrow. <br />
::From the German description I can already say that the woman alleges to be an eyewitness who arrived "immediately" at the scene. Description is written in sceptical language. Her claims: Very few Europeans (as opposed to Asians, I guess), disgusting smell, rotten bodies. They checked Laptops and USB-Sticks and found "no photos" younger than October 2013. Let me guess (I don't know out of hand), that's when the other MH disappeared? --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 00:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::I'm so not trusting this narrative - these are also people who were (kept alive?) from ... no MH370 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370 wp] was in March this year (that recent?) - All I can find October 2013 related is an alleged Israeli acquisition of the jet's twin (sale in Florida, October 21, 2013 [http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2014/03/malaysian-jet-in-israel-identical-to-hijacked-plane-2927532.html per Chris Bollyn (quack)] He speculates it would be rolled out for another false flag attack, unless maybe people were alerted. So ... maybe passengers bought at the same time at that plane, kept alive but not allowed to take pictures, for nine months, but killed long enough before the July crash date they were just then rotting ... lot of fake families implied for the missing new (alleged) victims ... lot of proof in the rotting bodies and nine-months lack of new photos ... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 08:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: FTR [http://info.kopp-verlag.de/hintergruende/enthuellungen/gerhard-wisnewski/ausfuehrlicher-augenzeugenbericht-passagiere-von-flug-mh-17-definitiv-dosenfleisch-.html here] is a detailed German language article about the claims in the video, which makes them more accessible per autotranslation than the embedded subtitles. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
If you think the subtitles are worth it, you can cover the whole screen besides that and still even get time-stamps. Like, at 0:40 is she saying here are more blood free body parts, and the wet pavement under them is from the day's rain? (tried typing into Google translate - my High School German mostly catches "the ... of ... and" - but still "a "wet" aureole were umwolkt" didn't help enough) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 08:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
::What nonsense. Anyone who would go to this much trouble would surely EASILY put some more recent photos on the USB sticks.<br />
::As well as fake families,they'd have to create fake social media going back years, plus fake old school/work friends and neighbours. In 10 countries. Oh and a fake AIDS conference. <br />
::None of these idiots has yet come up with WHY? what benefit does anyone get from faking all this? If it was meant for putting the blame on one country or another, they could have got THAT bit right and shoot it in a way that 100% identifies that country.<br />
<br />
::Most if not all the passengers would have been killed by the shock wave of the missile detonation, causing internal injuries including mashing of the lungs and intestines. Black lips etc would be from lack of oxygen. Then while the plane was thrashing around/diving/spinning they'd get thrown around, among seats and luggage also flying around. This would cause numerous injuries. These would hardly bleed at all, because the hearts were no longer pumping. Blood in their veins/arteries would be barely liquid by the time they hit the ground a few minutes later. <br />
::This is consistent with what Strelkov's people were reporting - bloated blackening bodies with "no blood" where they expected to see blood. Any mangled bodies these guys would have recently seen were fresh killed in front of their eyes, a different result altogether.[[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 10:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: FWIW Double plus that! Simple explanations win over conspiracy theories every time --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 11:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::: Not worth much without examination of the evidence. As Sir Arthur Conan Doyle once said: "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." Just saying. ;o) --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::: I suppose this one's been well-enough piled on. All points including the last seem totally valid. I'm still not inclined to pursue it, but it might be worth double-checking. If things besides decay can be ruled out or whatever, ... eh, I'll just have to see.--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 00:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==What Can Forensics Prove?==<br />
:''Investigation moved to [[/Forensics]]<br />
We're now getting organized, with [[List of MH17 airframe parts]] - a picture of how the plane was impacted will emerge. The BUK alleged ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buk_missile_system Wikipedia]) has radar guided missiles that can track, turn, change altitude, etc. So I conclude the damage won't tell us if the missile was air-to-air or from the surface, or what direction it was fired from. It's still worth knowing, of course, but ... could use some discussion maybe on what we can/can't/should be aiming for here. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:The damage will tell us it was an air-to-air missile with rod warhead fired from the front, that exploded when its proximity fuse passed the cockpit window. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 23:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
DPR and Netherlands reached [http://rusvesna.su/third_world/1415293335 an agreement] that plain wreckage will be transported to Netherlands by train, using 4 open and one closed wagons. Loading will be done by Netherlands. OSCE will accompany. <br />
'Laying out' wreckage and forensics may help to determine the cause of the crash. This is currently open, with surface-to-air missile 'the most likely' scenario, and military planes involvement not excluded. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 04:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Fighter Jet? ==<br />
:''Moved to [[/Fighter jets]]<br />
<br />
== General Discussion ==<br />
=== Slightly informed comment on air defences ===<br />
<br />
See [http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com.au/2014/07/memories-recollection-guesses-and.html vineyardsaker]. Certainly biased, but internally reasonably consistent --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 02:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I'll just add various rumours / propaganda I've heard so far.<br />
<br />
- US Satellites tracked the missile<br />
<br />
- Russia did it (at least morally)<br />
<br />
- Ukraine did it (for continuing the battle)<br />
<br />
- The plane was deliberately diverted to the location it was shot down<br />
<br />
- There was a storm over Crimea causing the diversion<br />
<br />
- add your rumour here<br />
<br />
What I haven't heard yet is the terrorist bomb theory. If the plan had crashed in say Poland that would have been the only game in town.<br />
--[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 02:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Anton Gerashchenko: case solved in under 3 hours ===<br />
Anton Gerashchenko, adviser to Ukraine's Interior Ministry, must have some serious detective skills. Within 6 hours of the plane's disappearance from radar screens, he already had almost exactly the full official story Kiev is still rolling with 6 months later. This is illustrated by at least these three Facebook posts from July 17 (any other timed sources we find I'd like to add): --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC) <br />
<br />
The earliest I found was [https://www.facebook.com/anton.gerashchenko.7/posts/694787050608145 July 17, 6:20 PM local time] from crash at about 15:19 local = 3 hours after. Auto-translated with repair attempts, he says:<br />
:''Just over the Torez Putin kindly passed to terrorists anti-aircraft missile complex "Buk" that shot down civilian aircraft Kuala Lumpur-Amsterdam.'' <br />
:''This morning local patriots detected this being moved from Thorez to Snezhnoye'' <br />
:''He was flying at an altitude of 10 thousand meters Claimed 280 passengers and 15 crew members.'' <br />
:''There is not limit to the cynicism of Putin and his terrorists!'' <br />
:''Europe, the United States, Canada, the civilized world-open your eyes! Help us all than we can!'' <br />
:''It is a war of good versus evil!''<br />
:''Here's a video of the crash site! Some scoundrels shouted that "beauty! Beautifully lit!"!'' <br />
:''The Inhumans!'' ( Нелюди! )<br />
In less than three hours he was only able to show [http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JhUkqs9CQ0w#t=57 this video of the smoke plume after crash,] but with unexplained prior knowledge, apparently, of a Buk launcher from Russia, moved through Torez to Sneznhnoye. None of that is remotely evident from this video. But somehow he had and was sure of this information and had it all put together into this certain diagnosis of who's "evil" here, in under three hours. Hm. It's noted there was an edit at 6:28, to insert "He was flying at a height of 10 thousand meters." This might be due to the fact that at this point, he wasn't supposed to know for sure it was that Russian Buk that fired, as opposed to a MANPADS or the like, and suggests he or whoever he talked to had deduced that from the altitude (too high for other known weapons). --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
At least two more early posts come from [http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/805272-anton-gerashchenko-buk-missile-photo-ukranian-official-accuses-putin-of-sponsoring-terrorists/<br />
Epoch Times] <br />
<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=694844643935719&set=p.694844643935719&type=1 20:45] = app. 7.5 hours after the crash; by now he has the Torez launch plume photo as well, finally a visual clue giving him a good reason to specify the town the firing was near (if there was time to analyze it). In part: "Putin! You and your cronies did not escape from the International Tribunal. This is a photo ... a few minutes after the launch ... Thousands of people have seen the launch and flight of the rocket, which you kindly handed your sponsored terrorists!"<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=694849760601874&set=p.694849760601874&type=1 20:59,] just 14 minutes later, posting with (?) Gennady Bakalar (Геннадий Бакаляр), he added this post with the launcher driving through Torez, finally confirming the (reports?) he heard earlier that it passed through there. Did "thousands" of people see that too? He says in part "Oh and to permanently close questions about when and who committed this outrageous act of international terrorism is further evidence of the International Tribunal: installing Buk passes through the city of Torez this morning!" But we already heard all about that hours earlier. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The Lugansk launcher video of the next morning was also allegedly handed right over to the SBU for their own publication, by the (tipped-off?) police agent who filmed it passing by just before dawn. But everything else, ostensibly, they had to find themselves from public sources, posted by people with no such SBU/MoI links. But man is that swift work. Almost entirely found - and effectively analyzed for clues, understood and double-checked good enough for them - that they were spouting off complete answers within three hours. Clearly suspect. Suggested: he had it solved instantly, sent in pre-packaged like planned. Even this three hour delay is his way of appearing realistic; considering how blatantly evil Putin is and how friggin' brilliant these Ukie Fascists are, why would it take any longer? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: the most fascinating part of this is, at the 3 hour mark it was still burning...and ALL the bits with the bullet holes in them were at another village, and nobody KNEW it had not just crashed all by itself, like planes do sometimes. The video he posted is the Antonov the day before which had also appeared on Strelkov's VK that was taken as boasting of MH17. Strelkov's was posted at 17.50 local time so about 40 mins after the MH17 crash and HALF HOUR before the expert solved the case, using an image stolen from Strelkovs VK. That was not discovered by SBU until next day, after it had been "hurriedly withdrawn". [http://cdn0.dailydot.com/uploaded/images/original/2014/7/18/Screen_Shot_2014-07-18_at_12.03.03_PM.png screenshot] [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 12:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Just occurred to me. If he decided it was shot down entirely because of Strelkov's badly timed post, and it turned out later it crashed from eg pilot error or onboard hijacking, WOW how silly he would have looked then. But nah, they knew, couldn't believe their good luck when Strelkov put that up. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 12:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::It is well known that Strelkov VK is not managed by Strelkov (he said it explicitly a number of times).That post is not his. He occasionally posts things himself (elsewhere) but this thing was not posted by him, it may be somebody posting far from the battlefield and not having direct knowledge, or confused opolchenie (says it comes from opolchenie in the post). (Strelkov is also accused of other publicity crimes he did not commit, for example having intention to run for President of Russia and other misdemeanors not actually committed. Articles about him are typically such mis-attributions.). --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===What's a Bellingcat?===<br />
[https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2015/05/25/whats-a-bellingcat-anyway/ What’s a Bellingcat Anyway?] --Studied at DeepResource, and reported on 25.5.2015. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 17:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
:Looks like a great piece, and I know it wasn't a question, but to the extent it might be: it refers to "belling the cat," or smthg like "who dare bell the cat," from an old fable about mice who decide to make their world safe by taking on some tyrant (cat) and stringing a bell around his neck so they'll always know before he attacks. But everyone's too afraid to go put the bell on him. Implied: Higgins is not afraid to blame Putin for stuff (or here, to analyze the recordings of a bell already placed? Or...?). In practice, it's more a one-trick bellingpony. Site creation: about a week before MH-17 shootdown, FWIW. Far and away their #1 obsession since then: the geo-location epic of that stupid (irrelevant?) BUK launcher multi-stop field trip. It's only natural - in fact it could hardly be tailor made any better for him and his well-connected team to unravel 'in the open' like that, all on video. Cases not so well-suited to yield his desired results, of course, [http://taldoutruth.blogspot.com/2014/12/brown-moses-on-hook.html he will never have time for,] even when the work's done and all he has to do is review it. No time - there's probably yet another seam of the MH-17 case to discover that these sooper-seekret Russian terrorists just left laying around. And always, there is praises and biscuits to collect. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 08:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
::Number of times bellingcat recently tweeted or retweeted on [https://twitter.com/GeoffPyatt Geofrey Pyatt]: 17/page; while us = 0. 'Russia's finest propagandists are no match for bellingcat, who have picked apart yet more shaky claims about MH17' (now something wrong with Russian MoD satellite photos)--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 12:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
::: Their latest stunt with the "faked" Russian satellite images isn't going well. Not "only" has our friend Charles Wood given it [http://7mei.nl/2015/06/01/about-bellingcats-claim-russian-sat-pics-fake/ a quick treatment], but the man behind the online tool they used [https://twitter.com/hackerfactor/status/605362347616526337 agrees] with a [http://life.lanzone.eu/?p=30 devastating analysis] telling them essentially to read the f... manual. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 18:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::: Had a look at both, well-lodged points. Neither even says the photos must be real, just that bellinputin are clearly not the vaunted "experts" they're getting praised as and the meaningfulness of their findings is open to question. Didn't actually look at the original work. Aside from Charles at least, we're not really qualified experts in much either, might make mistakes too, etc. But when this supposed competence plus clear Putin-blame come together suddenly the media lackeys are amplifying their expertise (or rather shifting it from experts at blaming Putin to experts at how to do it with scientific rigor, which it seems they're not). --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::: [http://life.lanzone.eu/?p=53 Here]'s the promised part 2 of "Myghty"'s analysis. More of the same amateurish errors for pic 5. The real scandal here is that they are still peddled by the "MSM", not that they aren't real experts. But, miracles happen, DER SPIEGEL [http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/mh17-satellitenbilder-bellingcat-betreibt-kaffeesatzleserei-a-1036874.html has an interview] ([http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/expert-criticizes-allegations-of-russian-mh17-manipulation-a-1037125.html English translation] --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)) this morning with a German digital photo forensics expert who says the same as Charles and the others, and they even put disclaimers linking to it on their earlier "praise Brown Noses" articles. Good sign. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::::: Was about to note the Spiegel piece but it's done. Good. So the problem is those who pushed headlines like [http://mashable.com/2015/05/31/russia-fake-mh17-report/ Satellite images show clearly that Russia faked its MH17 report] (Mashable)-[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2836245/Report-slams-new-surveillance-photos-released-Russian-state-broadcaster-MH17-shot-shoddy-fake.html Were MH17 'satellite images' photoshopped? Report slams new surveillance pictures released by Russian state broadcaster as a 'shoddy fake'] (Daily Mail) - [http://www.joinfo.com/world/1002451_British-experts-accuse-Russian-Defense-Ministry.html British experts accuse Russian Defense Ministry of forging photos of MH-17 crash] --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 22:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::::: In case you wondered, [http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/bellingcat-autor-war-hauptamtlicher-stasi-mitarbeiter-a-1037297.html "Timmi Allen" is a former Stasi operative], according to the latest SPIEGEL exposure. I've stacked huge amount of popcorn to make sure to survive the weekend. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 15:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::::: Oh, and [http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10692555#post10692555 I already came up with a conspiracy theory about that]. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 15:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== A Rebel-Held Area ==<br />
The presumption behind blaming separatists at all is that the blamed surface-to-air missile was fired from an area under control of separatist forces. But most people seem to just presume the entire eastern area (past what line, who knows?) is all rebel turf, with no Ukrainian military inroads anywhere. That's part of why it's taken as so obvious, even though no one's sure just where the firing was from. The Russian military presentation took BUK itself as meaning Ukrainian military. They claim satellite images of them in Kien-run army bases as close as 5 km from Donetsk, moved on the 17th to a site closer to the shoot-down area, then moved away again.<ref name="RT10">[http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ 10 more questions Russian military pose to Ukraine, US over MH17 crash] RT. July 21, 2014</ref> It seems the "just where" question is far more important than most presume (that is, if there was a ground launch that even mattered, as I suspect) Does anyone have a good analysis of the general control-accessibility situation on that day? Some nerd might have made a map that's reliable? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
:For the NATO narrative on the Novorossiyan Buk you can look at the Ukraine@war. He will you the exact location in Snizhne (the town that was bombed two days before, with 13 civilians killed inside their apartment block). I am no longer interested. All that interest me is the technical aspects of the of the crash investigation. What hit the MH17 where and when.<br />
:P.S. – There is supposedly a video somewhere of a Buk fired. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 12:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
:WSJ has a crappy map: [http://graphics.wsj.com/mh17-crash-map/?standalone=1 How MH17 Came Apart Over Ukraine] – Fails to show any of what the title claims. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 12:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== The Defector Theory ==<br />
* [http://eyesopenreport.com/u-s-prepares-to-blame-mh17-shoot-down-on-ukrainian-army-defector/#more-13012 U.S. Prepares to Blame MH17 Shoot Down on Ukrainian Army “Defector”] Paul Joseph Watson , July 23<br />
:''In an attempt to explain away the existence of evidence which shows Ukrainian troops firing the missile that brought down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, Washington may be preparing to fix the intelligence by pinning the blame on a “defector” in order to absolve Kiev.''<br />
:''As we reported on Monday, award winning former AP and Newsweek reporter Robert Parry was told by an intelligence source that the U.S. is in possession of images which show men dressed in Ukrainian Army uniforms operating the Buk missile system which shot down MH17. If proven accurate, such information would completely eviscerate Washington and Kiev’s already shaky narrative that Russian-backed separatist rebels were responsible for the attack.''<br />
:''The U.S. State Department now appears to be shifting the emphasis of its narrative to discount the possibility that Kiev itself was responsible for shooting down MH17. As the L.A. Times reported yesterday, “U.S. officials said it was possible the SA-11 [anti-aircraft missile] was launched by a defector from the Ukrainian military who was trained to use similar missile systems.” Blaming the incident on a “defector” would allow the U.S. to explain why the culprit was wearing a Ukrainian Army uniform when he shot down the airliner.''<br />
Sounds intriguing, and Robert Parry is usually pretty reliable.Seems worth a section here to see how it pans out. Skipping the prior Infowars article, [http://consortiumnews.com/2014/07/20/what-did-us-spy-satellites-see-in-ukraine/ This from July 20] seems to be the original explanation by Parry at Consortium News. I'm not encouraged by the details - the images aren't video or photo, but satellite. Parry mentions the limits of what satellites can see, but rightly points out they could see any Buk system component. Russia's satellites saw the ones run by Kiev's pro-America junta, first at their normal base, then somewhere else '''on July 17.''' What you can't as likely see is smaller details like the exact pattern on a person's shirt, or what the label on a bottle says, if even its shape. But he says:<br />
:''What I’ve been told by one source, who has provided accurate information on similar matters in the past, is that U.S. intelligence agencies do have detailed satellite images of the likely missile battery that launched the fateful missile, but the battery appears to have been under the control of Ukrainian government troops dressed in what look like Ukrainian uniforms.''<br />
:''The source said CIA analysts were still not ruling out the possibility that the troops were actually eastern Ukrainian rebels in similar uniforms but the initial assessment was that the troops were Ukrainian soldiers. There also was the suggestion that the soldiers involved were undisciplined and possibly drunk, since the imagery showed what looked like beer bottles scattered around the site, the source said.''<br />
Ooh, bad move when, as John Kerry, knows, it's the separatists that are the drunken ones in the area. As for where the image was taken, the evidence suggests it was a separatist-policed one. It probably was non-defected Kiev soldiers running it, but false claims to that effect make that possible truth harder to see, in the end. I think Parry's source stopped being credible prior to this latest. Anyone else more inclined to accept this evidence? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Everyone is trash talking everyone else. I'm not believing any of it. It was partly cloudy that day and you'd have to be very lucky to have a satellite pass overhead just when a BUK gets launched. It is much more likely that whatever the US has it got from a spy plane, such as the RC-135 they have operating in the area.(On July 18 some Russian MIGs approached it and it had to fly off over Sweden without permission). https://medium.com/war-is-boring/u-s-spy-plane-reportedly-violated-swedish-air-space-to-escape-russian-fighters-424d05e11bd5 Sorry can't find it now, but another story said land radar had locked onto them, which is why they left in such a hurry. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 03:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: [http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ Russian press conference:] "As far as we know, there was indeed a US satellite flying over southeastern Ukraine on July 17 from 17:06 to 17:21 Moscow time." That will be 16.06 to 16.21 local. _If true_, this is likely to show at least part of the trajectory. No need for satellite's beer bottle photos. -- [[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 03:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: As I recall, somewhere on the news there was a claim that there is no US radar data (too far) --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 03:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: US: “We saw the take-off. We saw the trajectory, we saw the hit. We saw this aeroplane disappear from the radar screens. So there is really no mystery about where it came from and where these weapons have come from." [http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/foreign-affairs/we-saw-the-hit-we-saw-plane-disappear-says-john-kerry-on-mh17/story-fn59nm2j-1227022300618?nk=9b529f73960c26d0085eae5193a5b6b7] (Hope not on a fake photo)? --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 05:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::The photo that popped up for me showed lots of flowers and photos of Diana, Princess of Wales, i.e from 1997. So in true ''The Australian'' tradition a fake. FYI ''The Australian'' is one of the least accurate papers in Australia and runs a very heavy anti-Russian and pro-Israel line. --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 05:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== False-Flag Theories ==<br />
=== Andriy Parubiy again? ===<br />
<br />
Pepe Escobar names Andriy Parubiy as a possible suspect.<br />
* [http://rt.com/op-edge/174088-was-it-putin-missile/ It was Putin’s missile!] – ''RT'', July 19, 2014<br />
:''Carlos’s assessment: the missile was fired by the Ukraine military under orders of the Ministry of Interior - NOT the Ministry of Defense. Security matters at the Ministry of the Interior happen to be under Andrey Paruby, who was closely working alongside US neo-cons and Banderastan neo-Nazis on Maidan.<br />
-- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 02:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
::From what I've read on the guy, he's likely enough to be behind this that, really, all Ukraine's airspace should be closed until he's no longer on the loose. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Robert Parry introduces Parubiiy in [http://consortiumnews.com/2014/07/20/what-did-us-spy-satellites-see-in-ukraine/ his July 20 article,] and mentions:<br />
:''It was this same Parubiy whom the Post writers turned to seeking more information condemning the eastern Ukrainian rebels and the Russians regarding the Malaysia Airlines catastrophe. Parubiy accused the rebels in the vicinity of the crash site of destroying evidence and conducting a cover-up, another theme that resonated through the MSM.''<br />
:''Without bothering to inform readers of Parubiy’s unsavory neo-Nazi background, the Post quoted him as a reliable witness declaring: “It will be hard to conduct a full investigation with some of the objects being taken away, but we will do our best.”'' --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
FTR, Andriy Parubiy [http://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/30934.html resigned yesterday]. Same day the following came out. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Valentyn Nalyvaichenko ===<br />
<br />
On August 7, SBU head Valentyn Nalyvaichenko introduced a new narrative ([http://www.sbu.gov.ua/sbu/control/en/publish/article?art_id=129860&cat_id=35317 release on SBU website] / [https://archive.today/KItnx archived snapshot]) apparently contradicting their released audio tapes that early on helped form the narrative of an accidental shoot-down of MH17 by "rebels" who thought it was a military plane. Now the story goes that the Russians planned to shoot down an Aeroflot plane in a false flag operation blaming it on Ukraine, to have a pretext for invasion. But the "Russian mercenaries" moved their Buk to a different location than planned and mistook MH17 for the Aeroflot machine with their own people they wanted to kill. What exactly they prepared to blame it on Ukraine (maybe Ukrainian uniforms or something?), or why a plane full of AIDS researchers and Dutch children couldn't be used as a pretext (Russian people don't care about Dutch children?), is not explained. Nalyvaichenko [[Talk:Ukraine_2014#Mercenaries_commanded_by_Andriy_Parubiy|has been implicated by his predecessor]] in the sniper killings on Maidan, together with Andriy Parubiy.--[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*Human Rights Investigations, Aug. 7 - [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/08/07/in-ukraine-the-lunatics-have-taken-over-the-asylum/ In Ukraine, the lunatics have taken over the asylum] This relates a SBU statement of earlier in the day outlining their latest theory. As said before, Russians did it, with a system they brought in and took right back with them. Most people have presumed there's no motive for Russia to shoot down an airliner into the separatist's area on their behalf, and it must have been an accident. The SBU's thinkers decided it was intentional, but with an accidental part too. '''They meant to shoot down a Russian airliner''', but set themselves up in the wrong town, so they hit MH17 instead. The original plan was to use dead Russians blamed on Kiev as a reason to invade Ukraine, but when it was other people dead, he said never mind. Awesome theory, no? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: Beat you to it, put it here where it belongs... bizarre. Interesting that Parubiy resigned (see above the subheadline) the same day this came out, isn't it?--[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::Awesome, tag-teamed it with similar technique. Parubiy, huh! That gave zero reason, didn't it? It's not 'to spend more time with my family.' No, he notes on the way out, he still belongs at the "forefrongfront." --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]])<br />
:::: FTR [http://rt.com/news/178760-ukraine-security-chief-resigns/ RT says] "On Monday, reports appeared in Ukrainian media about Parubiy’s resignation. The Local Zn.ua website, citing its source, said that the security chief is due to resign due to diverging opinions with the country’s president. The media stated that Parubiy decided to resign after he was ordered to declare another ceasefire in Kiev’s military operation in the southeast of the country, but he refused to do so." --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:22, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::: [http://www.unn.com.ua/ru/news/1374133-p-poroshenko-doruchiv-rozsliduvati-proval-spetsoperatsiyi-na-kordoni-z-rf-zmi This article] announces an investigation into the "Southern Cauldron" disaster and calls Parubiy the "main author" of the plan that led to it. Maybe that's the reason. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 16:47, 10 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/08/ukrainian-sbu-comes-with-conspiracy.html Ukraine@War views the theory favorably] --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:34, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
* And [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/08/debunking-sbu-theory-of-afl2074-mh17.html not impressed with one de-bunk effort] but rather more convinced!<br />
<br />
: Yeah, we got it the first time already. The guy is a knucklehead. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Cyber Berkut leak ===<br />
{{Main|Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Cyber Berkut leak}}<br />
* [http://en.voicesevas.ru/news/analytics/2793-kolomoyskiy-assistants-facebook-account-hacked-the-boeing-downed-by-junta.html Kolomoyskiy assistant’s Facebook account hacked - the Boeing downed by junta!]<br />
<br />
=== SBU wiretap video ===<br />
:''Moved to [[/SBU Audio Evidence]]<br />
<br />
===Corbett report===<br />
Petri just put this on the main page<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWlAARb0fN4<br />
<br />
I ASSUME it is going to be a false flag nonsense. After 8 whole minutes of introductory waffle and advertising, he still has not started on the topic, so I am not watching any more of it. It is titled "MH17 FULLY EXPOSED!! You Won't Believe The SHOCKING TRUTH About the Ukraine FALSE FLAG ". they are right, I won't believed a word of it. Don't bother with it. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 01:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== A False-Flag Defector Theory ==<br />
Here's one way the facts might wind up going: an SA-11 was fired from outside Snizneh, as alleged, and that's what killed MH17. The Buk launcher was even welcomed in by local commanders, heard saying so in audio communications that could prove true (or not), was sent to the spot by them, and then disavowed in embarrassment. And also the launcher came from Kiev's arsenal, the shootdown was not a mistake, and the crime carried out by pro-Kiev false-flaggers in the proud Euromaidan tradition. Here's how that could all be so:<br />
<br />
Some secret Right-winger in the army playing a disgusted defector makes contact with local rebels on July 15. He heard about the apartment bombing that day in Snizneh, and about the junta's plans for another run at the same place two days later. But, he said, he could get access to a launcher at the base north of Donetsk, a disloyal guard who'd take a bribe (small, covered) plus even a couple local defectors trained to run it, and even a truck from his part time job - the boss wouldn't notice it missing, he's such a clueless junta-supporter... Yeah, he could have it all mobile, drive it himself, make all the contacts, have their guys check it out, it works! It'll shoot down anything. They can get it put in place and wait. In this version, the "SBU wiretap" audio was maybe their defector's own phone - he was undercover the whole time, "wearing a wire" - the launcher was a trojan horse, and its crew were evil and knew just what they where they were and just what they were doing. <br />
<br />
On the rebel end, having no clue there will be a mass murder ensuing, and seeing nothing criminal in preventing a second junta air force atrocity, happily waved the thing in. They were supposed to meet someone in Snizneh, but drove off mysteriously. Then MH17 came down and, in dread and shock, the rebels decided to dis-acknowledge the whole deal, and no one's simply come clean about it yet. But the "defector" meme coming out might be spurred by its partial truth, along lines kind of like this, and not from some satellite photos. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: Hey CL, apart from your vivid imagination, do you have even just a whisper to back this up? And if we're speculating, how would you like to forget Snizneh and look at Chornukhyne as the launch site? At the time was on almost no man's land, under Don Cossack Control. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 14:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::: Do I have evidence? Yes. There are these pieces we're considering, supposed to point that way, that might or might not. This theory here is sort of a "worst case scenario" where all those come out true, or an idea for those who believe all those clues, to show how alternate explanations still exist even then. Im am fairly convinced of the core parts, much less on the calls, but this is more a though exercise than "my theory," although it's not far from my working theory and become it if the audio is genuine after all. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 22:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: Yeah, similar to KatKan question is bugging me as well . Why not to look, let's say, perhaps somewhere else? (hopefully without creating sudden burst of fighting or urgent land management work just right exactly there, if possible )? --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 14:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: yeah, early intercepted call said ""These are Chernukhin folks who shot down the plane. From the Chernukhin check point. Those Cossacks who are based in Chernukhino." and nobody's ever looked there. It is same distance as Snizneh and 90 degrees to the flight path so an easy shot. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 15:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: I certainly would not know why a reputable news-maker would pay travel expenses going to Snezhny but not this other well-flagged place nearby. The only new comment I have to make here is that this is a big expensive truck, not a flag costing one grivna/ruble {nor is it a can of some chemicals). It is your best air defense, and there aren't many. So it is either off front line or it is there, somewhere, for a real strong reason. --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 19:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: Okay, the other town being named is one clue for another site, and no one looking could be why there's nothing else. I'm not sure how Chernukin connects - If the burned spot is up there, or there's another one... maybe the defector made his contact with those guys, and so his little team was called part of theirs - Miner brought them. As for why the other area, it was indicated and they say it had burn marks at the end (can't be checked and ruled in or out), so they went and it ''appears'' to have been smart. In the other direction, a mention the responsible people are ''from'' there, not even that they fired from there. But at least it's not pulled out of thin air. If there becomes more to support it, I'll consider more. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 22:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::: We may want to put the audio story in order separately, someplace, if it was not done. I was following it initially, but now references are hard to find. <br />
<br />
:::::Agreed. This happens here sometimes. Hoping it helps, I made [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/SBU Audio Evidence|a page for that subject]] and moved comments from both of you guys over there. Hope I didn't mess anything up in the process - please review. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::::You did indeed delete a whole bunch of stuff instead of "moving" it. Restored here. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::As I recall (but do not have links saved), this is Bes recordings, glued together from genuine pieces. (I believe Bes said pieces are genuine early on himself) The first piece, mentioning Enakievo, is about a different earlier episode--as he himself responded. His response about second piece, mentioning Cossacks, was much more evasive, something like 'if every block post has a Buk, than I'll be in Kiev'. But it is clear that at the time of event, he had reason to believe that something was going on over there. That does not say this happened as he thought, Cossacks may be shooting pistols not Buks or whatever; but it may looked like something is launched from there, or whatever the case might be. This does suggest some notable event at that location. I do not see genuine evidence pointing to the current official version; it is more consistent with somebody trying to put a false flag there so that all attention of social networkers go that way. Chasing this flag further is a waste of time in my opinion, and is unlikely to produce anything new which is not known already. Looking the other way, even pointing out there is SOME other way, might. (Actually, it looks like attempts were made to place SEVERAL false flags, and than whatever was picked up , was supported by some further noise). --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 23:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::: (Coincidently) just above I posted [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T34AB6CImTE an alleged proof of audio fakery] of some SBU-released audio, likely from the first batch. As I said, I didn't look into it really closely. Maybe worth doing so. Claim is that it was cut together from several audio tapes. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 23:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::::Bes in the audio (perhaps glued from pieces) does [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJnD1wgofYM say] Cossacks from Chernukhino block post shot the plane down, those Cossacks _standing_ at Cherknukhino. Why everybody is looking the other way just beats me --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 00:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::::: This brief piece on Chernukhino Cossacks is disconnected from the first piece (about Miner, apparently another rebel) and from discussion of discovering that it was a passenger plane and of the bodies. Chernukhino piece is timed at 16.33 on the crash day. First piece (Miner) is timed earlier, actually, at 16:40, and talks about a different location (really bad gluing skill here; this miner thing is most likely from another day, and I recall that was claimed in discussions which followed. ) Gluing is beyond any doubt; but individual pieces sound genuine for my ears. So he does not actually say it was his Cossacks or what they shot was a passenger plane; just that (some) Cossacks standing at Chernukhino shot (some ) plane, and than it cuts off; rebel blame is rather what this gluing order is trying to convey on us. I would certainly check this out. --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 01:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::I've gone back to early things to refresh my memory. And the whole tone of voice was different then. Today it is all propaganda and fantastic stories from everyone.The first 2 days everyone sounded genuine, spoke unthinking,not for effect. So I am thinking, things said early are more likely true. Yes that video with the telephone calls was from 3 separate calls, and at least one maybe not from July 17. The one about Yenaklevo I think is another day. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 00:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Debunked topics ==<br />
:''Moved to [[/Debunked topics]]<br />
<br />
This link http://adam1baum.blogspot.fi/2014/08/another-journalist-exposes-mh17-false.html <br />
<br />
just added to the main page under "Analysis"<br />
is FULL of items already debunked. Are the "analysis" items being added without comment? just to collect them? [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 16:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Yes, basically the main page is for pre-scrutiny source material. Analysis is mainly to collect them. I had a quick look at the blog post, but noticed most of the topics were debunked long ago. Or should be debunked. For example, it seems that MH17 may have flown a different route on previous days, but there were plenty of other Asia flight in the Donetsk airspace. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 20:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Warhead damage ==<br />
:''Moved to [[/Forensics#Warhead damage]]<br />
<br />
== Radar Evidence ==<br />
:''Moved to [[/Map#Radar Evidence]]<br />
<br />
== Cockpit Voice Recorder ==<br />
Thanks for a start, Charles, will review. I was watching for that, gathering a bit of background on the CVR angle. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
* July 23: good condition http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/malaysian-airlines-flight-mh17-cockpit-voice-recorder-in-good-condition-1.2715671<br />
:''The cockpit voice recorder of the Malaysian airliner downed over Ukraine is in good condition, the UN civil aviation body said on Wednesday,'' <br />
:''"The cockpit voice recorder is in good condition ... the digital flight data recorder is still under review," ICAO said in a statement.''<br />
* July 23, downloaded: http://www.eturbonews.com/48306/mh-17-cockpit-voice-recorder-data-downloaded<br />
:''On Tuesday 22 July 2014 at 22:00 inKiev, Ukraine, the flight data and cockpit voice recorders (the 'black boxes') from the Malaysian Airlines flight 17 were taken into custody by the Dutch ambassador and a team of investigators led by the Dutch Safety Board. The Dutch Safety Board requested that the Air Accident Investigation Branch of theUnited Kingdom (AAIB) perform the data download from both the recorders. The recorders were transported to the AAIB's laboratory at Farnborough, arriving 23rd July in the early morning.''<br />
<br />
::I just got a real TinFoil idea. The black boxes were found in the wheatfield where they also found some bodies on day ONE. There were daily reports that they had been found and were going to be sent to Russia. Then on July 21 they were "found" ON CAMERA...and the guy carried it a long way, stuck out in front of him, to a command post of some sort, the camera following him the whole way. Not a rebel but an official Emergency Services guy. Nice "evidence" of chain of possession. BUT there is a 3-day gap there, when something could be taken the 80 miles or so to a place called Rostov, and back again. Black boxes have ports for cables to be attached,they don't need to be pulled apart to be read. What if Russia already has a copy of what was on the black boxes? adding to their confidence? [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 15:21, 26 December 2014 (UTC) <br />
:::If something is doable, but they have not done it, than one can ask, why have not they. But also, propaganda warfare is on (recently seeing ex-official Kudrin interview voicing displeasure over propaganda being on). This is mostly for internal consumption, Channel 1 TV and the like, but it can spill over elsewhere, presumably. [http://www.nytimes.com/video/world/europe/100000003011003/malaysian-planes-black-box-retrieved.html July 20 video (NY Times)] (indeed, looks like staged 'find") --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:43, 26 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== AAIB Analysis ===<br />
Analysis of the CVR from here on should be by the UK Air Accidents Investigation Branch. We shall see. For the record, they came out far less shady in the Lockerbie investigation 25 years ago than the now-fazed out RARDE and its hacks Hayes and Feraday, or the FBI's stumblebum "Tom" Thurman (see [http://lockerbiedivide.blogspot.com/2010/11/political-scientists-of-lockerbie.html The Political Scientists of Lockerbie.] I might have been overly fair - Dr. Morag Kerr could tell you in more detail some of the problems with even the AAIB's work there setting the explosion center. But this was 25 years ago, They're only looking at the flight data this time, not the wreckage. We're on the verge of world war, with this the latest information front. They're in London. They'll tell us the truth only if it fits okay with their narrative. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::The crash investigation of Lockerbie was fine. It was the criminal investigation that was messed up. They didn't do that, FBI got involved, same as in TWA800. Some facts seem to depend a fair bit on who is looking at them. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 03:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== New Straits Times - CVR ===<br />
<br />
THE preliminary analysis of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17’s cockpit voice recorder (CVR) revealed “nothing out of the ordinary”.<br />
<br />
A source close to the international investigation told the New Sunday Times that the CVR downloaded by the United Kingdom’s Air Accidents Investigation Branch had picked up the communications between the Malaysia Airlines’ pilot and an unspecified personnel with an air traffic controller (ATC).<br />
<br />
“So far, from what the team has heard, there was nothing unusual. The last voice heard was not the pilot’s. No, there was no indication that the pilots saw or sensed anything off,” the source said without elaborating further to protect the investigations.<br />
<br />
This may mean that whatever happened was very sudden.<br />
<br />
The CVR records all communications on the flight deck, including transmissions with air traffic controllers, discussions between the flight crew, cabin announcements and conversations with any other crew entering the cabin.<br />
<br />
In this case, it could provide investigators with some insight into the flight crew’s mindset and emotional state if they had to deal with an emergency in the final moments.<br />
<br />
However, it remains unclear if the Dutch-led investigation team had secured the recordings from the Ukrainian air traffic controllers to match the conversations between the ATC staff and the MH17 flight crew.<br />
<br />
Asked about the Ukrainian government’s revelation on Monday that the aircraft was brought down by “a massive explosive decompression”, the source said the statement was “unconfirmed”.<br />
<br />
The source told the NST that the “initial factual findings” of the probes into the shootdown of MH17 were expected to be released next week.<br />
<br />
It is learnt that investigations also centred heavily on the findings provided by the group of three Malaysian investigators, who were among the first to reach the crash site and conduct probes.<br />
<br />
The NST was told that instead of the 200 reported earlier, the experts dissecting the flight data recorder (FDR) were looking at 1,500 parameters of the black box.<br />
<br />
The FDR records essential flight data parametres at least 10 times per second and defines the aircraft’s flight path and motion.<br />
<br />
The data also include primary information, such as position, altitude, airspeed and heading. This allows investigators to reconstruct the aircraft’s flight path.<br />
<br />
Also recorded in the FDR are the aircraft’s aerodynamics and engine parameters, including information from the air data computer and sensors.<br />
<br />
The Dutch Safety Board (DSB), which is leading the international investigation into the downing of the aircraft, had said the findings would likely provide a picture of how the investigation would proceed.<br />
<br />
Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak had said the aircraft’s flight data recorder and the CVR were among the “hard evidence” the investigation team needed to find out what happened.<br />
<br />
DSB spokesman Sara Vernooij was quoted as saying the board would likely say “what it can rule out” and “what it is going to focus on”.<br />
<br />
It is understood that the team of investigators at the crash site in eastern Ukraine would carry out verification of information that had been gathered from other sources.<br />
<br />
This is to allow them to search<br />
for possible new information and collect material for the investigation, such as pieces of the wreckage.<br />
<br />
The Dutch police had earlier this week received 150 photos<br />
and video clips on their server<br />
set up to piece together the mystery.<br />
<br />
The photos were uploaded by eyewitnesses from what has been described as “the world’s biggest crime scene”.<br />
<br />
[http://www.nst.com.my/node/19598 New Straits Times CVR report]<br />
--[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 12:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== ATC recordings ==<br />
Initially it was reported that the SBU confiscated the ATC air-to-ground-communication. After weeks the Malaysians asked the Ukrainian ambassador to their country about this, and he denied that it had happened. He said he had no idea what happened to them and no formal request of any investigating party has been made. The Malaysian Attorney General then announced that he will make a formal request to get the recordings. This according to:<br />
* [http://www.nst.com.my/node/21260 Malaysia wants the ‘missing’ Ukrainian ATC tapes], New Straits Times, August 8, 2014<br />
--[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Investigation==<br />
talk moved here from accidental location on Main page [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 08:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* [http://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/en/onderzoek/2049/investigation-crash-mh17-17-july-2014/onderzoek/1559/questions-and-answers-concerning-the-investigation-into-flight-mh17 Investigation crash MH17, 17 July 2014 Donetsk – Dutch Safety Board] 21 Aug 2014<br />
<br />
<br />
:Interesting list of countries involved. I wonder how Russia and Germany got on this list? from the above report<br />
<br />
:"The following countries have contributed (to a greater or lesser extent) to the international investigation team into the crash of flight MH17: '''Ukraine, Malaysia, Australia, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States, Germany, France, Italy and Indonesia.''' The ICAO and the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) also contributed to the investigation as organisations. The leadership of the investigation rests with the Dutch Safety Board, which will publish both the preliminary and final report. The countries that have a formal role as participants in the investigation under the ICAO agreement will be given access to the draft reports, and may provide feedback. The country leading the investigation may offer other countries access to the draft reports at its discretion." [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 07:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Germany, maybe just provided radar data for the stretch that flew over them. Russia, maybe because they were asked to tell the federalists to let investigators do their work (a stupid but real way of thinking, as if Putin hired all these people). Maybe they were asked for their own radar data too. Indonesia's connection is not too obvious, but I suppose there is one. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 08:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
:: Buks--which were widely reported to be suspected rocket and which Ukraine is known to have , is designed and manufactured in Russia, and ONLY Russia would know exact technical details, if those are at issue to the investigation. It is NOT having Russia is what would make zero sense. --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 09:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: Good point there. We could use more detailed specs here too (though reliable airliner measures and hole size needs settled first anyway) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::It says " on the days following the incident (when Ukraine was still leading the investigation), several Ukrainian aviation investigators visited the crash site briefly several times for investigative purposes." They must have sneaked in disguise as rescue workers collecting bodies. And maybe it was they responsible for some of the "cutting up and removing evidence" and maybe they decently handed it over to the Dutch, whatever they found useful. <br />
:::: Are you SURE the BUKs are made in Russia? I know they ere designed there, so were the Antonovs and helicopters which Ukraine not only makes but exports to other countries. They make radar and big rockets too. Mostly in the south east...8th largest arms manufacturer in the world.<br />
<br />
<br />
:::::I do not have means to verify that no plant in Ukraine is producing books, but my understanding based on press reports, is that production is in Dolgoprudnyi, Moscow. That makes logical sense and I do not have a reason to think that this report is not accurate . There is no way for me to check this 100 sitting on my chair. Did anybody even claimed that there is a plant based in Ukrain capable of producing Buks? I have not seen such reports. It is possible that some components were normally exported from somewhere else in former SU, but it looks like final assembly at least is near Moscow . (That would also make logical sense, and I do not have grounds to dispute the report [http://www.ibtimes.com/maker-buk-missile-may-have-shot-down-mh17-targeted-recent-us-sanctions-1632698] --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 01:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
::::Anyway this is only Air Safety report. Criminal investigation if any has to be done by different department (but could be in any country involved). There won't be criminal charges. The finding will be "missile fired by persons unknown". [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 12:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
* [http://en.ria.ru/world/20140823/192273535/Russia-Wants-Regular-Transparent-Reports-on-MH17-Crash.html Russia Wants Regular, Transparent Reports on MH17 Crash Probe] – RIA Novosti, 23/08/2014 -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) aug 24 not signed<br />
<br />
:This story looks like for domestic consumption, <br />
<br />
::Maybe in small part, but mostly it is more like you accused us--where is the proof? With intention to have the matter dropped, not to escalate the matter. This is not working very well, it just gets stuck, because the other part is not paying much attention. They are not trying to work together at all, and so it just reflects that there is a lot of unresolved tension. --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 05:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:to make it look like the "West" is hiding something. <br />
::::A bit of that , --certainly they want to recieve as early as possible all available evidence, and they were saying in the past that they had not. But in terms of tone, the reason is concern with insufficient respect to Russia, so the payback is, hey,go bring us some pointless paper. So there are tone problems, not just substance problems, --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 07:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:It refers to <br />
Resolution 2166 adopted by the UN Security Council in July calls for a thorough and impartial investigation into the MH17 tragedy and requires the secretary-general to provide the Security Council with investigation progress reports". which is nonsense, as Security Council has no access, will not do own investigation, and it is being done under international laws by the Dutch. Furthermore, as a member of the investigation panel, Russia knows this. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 22:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::The original story is that separatists shot it down with a BUK. The physical evidence only points to a proximity fuse missile ''of some sort'', several types of these available including air to air ones. USA claims but has not shown satellite evidence of a BUK being fired frm "rebel held territory". This is UNTRUE as satellite would not show the type of evidence they claim to have. So to produce evidence they would have the show what they really have, which must be off a spy plane. Domestically they want to hide that they had enough interest in the area to operate such a plane there, though everyone locally knows. They will not produce this for a criminal case. No criminal case is possible without proof of who (what person or unit) shot it. Anyway the consensus also was that they were aiming at a legitimate military target, so was accidental.<br />
::Several other accidental "wrong target" scenarios are possible, and almost as equally likely. If there WERE Ukrainian aircraft near MH17 (and witnesses said there WAS a fighter there) they may have been the target, of separatists OR RUSSIAN AIRCRAFT which of course are not meant to be in Ukrainian air space -- but would not have to be, to be close enough to shoot a missile at one. Alternatively a Russian one may have been the target of a Ukrainian plane. Either way the much larger and intervening B777 would have captured the attention of the missile. <br />
::The Russian "radar proof" of SUs being there were fake. But based on some knowledge that there WERE some there. If their own planes saw them, they can't admit to that.<br />
::There is enough doubt for all parties to NOT WANT a thorough investigation. Nobody can do one with hopes of blaming the other, without potentially incriminating themselves. <br />
::So it will not happen. Whichever way it was, the missile was aimed at a legitimate target. So at most the charge could only be negligence. Discovering whose negligence would only escalate hostilities. Nobody wants that. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 07:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
:::All signed and should-be-signed chit chat should ideally be on a talk page, not front (article) page. Friendly reminder. (and I say ideally as I and others have done this before and sometimes never fixed it, but it's not ideal) (good talk though) :) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 08:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::sorry, I started it there, fixed now. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 08:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== November 2014 ===<br />
<br />
Dutch experts are back at the scene, this time collecting the wreckage. As [http://www.sputniknews.com/europe/20141111/1014605576.html RIA Novosti reports], an agreement with the DPR has been signed yesterday, but there were some shenanigans with the Dutch delivering a second version of the agreement in which any mention of "DPR" was erased. Grow a spine, cheeseheads, FFS. ''Your'' children died there. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Correspondents in the area say there was shelling of the wreckage area by Ukraine on 10 of November [http://rusvesna.su/news/1415708946 (KP correspondent-rusvesna)] . They have a video from the scene; I don't think shelling is heard there, but it is a very brief clip. They show damage in the metal, a thin crack which goes from the inside out. It may be missile shrapnel shooting the plane through, entering, than exiting on the other side of the plane, there is no problem with that. Cracks looks most consistent with missile shrapnel (which may be a rhombus plate). Woman in the second half does not say things of help to investigation, she heard explosion and seen smoke, but that was about it. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
What are they on about?? they went there weeks ago to pick up luggage and belongings,no problems, no OSCE help either. Left most of it behind.Few days later Graham Phillips showed heaps of stuff still there -- including BONES. They were quietly invited back (BY DPR)went back and found some bones. Few days ago went back, found more remains WITH DPR PEOPLE WITH THEM. Well yeah, it's only about 25 km from Debaltseve, true. Ukies shelling that way on purpose to scare them off, was nothing when they were there secretly. On other hand their PM didn't knows they were there either? he's a snarling venom-spitter agaist Putin. "Rutte has always said he doesn’t want to negotiate with the pro-Russian separatists because he doesn’t recognize their self-proclaimed regional government." what BS you negotiate with whoever is there, who else? the man in the moon? Malaysia negotiated with them and got back all the bodies and the black boxes. Kiev was not going to give them, even if they'd been able to. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 14:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
=== December 2014 ===<br />
At SBU press conference given by Vasilii Vovk, and lasting some 30 minutes, MH17 crashed was mentioned. It was said that final outcome of investigation may be not exactly the same as initially announced, and that investigators have recovered fragments in passengers bodies which may show that the plane was shot by a missile. [http://rusvesna.su/news/1419023898 Reports on this (rusvesna)] came out with a title claiming that SBU admitted that MH17 could be shot from a plane; that seems to be a lot stronger than what SBU actually announced. They did say that [http://112.ua/glavnye-novosti/v-telah-passazhirov-boinga-obnaruzheny-elementy-kotorye-mogut-byt-chastyami-raket-sbu-163012.html "there are many reasons to think that those were missile fragments"]. Here is [http://112.ua/glavnye-novosti/v-sbu-ne-uvereny-chto-iznachalnaya-versiya-krusheniya-samoleta-naydet-100-procentnoe-podtverzhdenie-163013.html 112.ua report, and press conference video (Ukrainian)] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 08:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* http://uatoday.tv/crime/bodies-of-mh17-victims-contain-missile-fragments-sbu-says-398439.html <br />
"Chief of the Investigation Department of the Security Service of Ukraine and the co-chair of the international investigation group into the crash, Vasiliy Vovk." This is one and the same person, then, not a joint statement. UNIAN reports from this "the bodies of some of the passengers killed in the plane crash contain metal objects that were not part of the aircraft," now citing external forces. Apparently, per the above, he said a jet-fired missile was possible, and Russian media latches onto that. UNIAN emphasizes the other half of the options: "One of the main theories being considered is that the plane was shot down by a Buk missile system from territory controlled by terrorist groups," Vovk said." --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Eliot Higgins [https://twitter.com/EliotHiggins/status/546064079350411264 tweets]: Preview of interview with the head of the #MH17 criminal investigation ‘Geen satellietbeelden van neerschieten MH17’ http://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2014/12/19/geen-satellietbeelden-van-neerschieten-mh17/ --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:Translated, Westerbeke basically says there is no video-movie type satellite imagery proof of what happened, as many had come to expect. Makes sense to me. But there should be data that can be read and then presented graphically, that should indicate what happened. Should be forthcoming? To note, new to me, Malaysia has maybe been invited into the JIT (Joint Investigation Team, once a total secret) - the article lists member states as "Oekraïne, Australië, Maleisië, België en Nederland." --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: Malaysia was finally allowed into the club [http://www.nst.com.my/node/60321 on or around December 8]. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===February 2015===<br />
The team of international aviation investigators who investigate the cause and contributing factors of the crash of flight MH17 concluded the investigation meeting at Gilze-Rijen. In the past week they conducted several investigations on the wreckage, including the fractures, the failure mechanisms and the impact patterns. This meeting is part of the procedures prescribed by the ICAO provisions on international aircraft accident and incident investigation.<br />
<br />
The investigators represented the countries involved in the MH17 investigation: Ukraine, Malaysia, Australia, United States, United Kingdom and the Russian Federation. The representatives of Belgium and Germany attended the meeting on February 17. A representative of ICAO was also present.<br />
<br />
Next week preparations will be made for the visit of next of kin to see the recovered wreckage in the first week of March. The planned three-dimensional reconstruction of a part of the aircraft will start soon. The next of kin will be allowed to view this three-dimensional reconstruction at a later time. [http://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/en/onderzoek/2049/investigation-crash-mh17-17-july-2014/onderzoek/1622/international-aviation-investigators-conclude-meeting-at-gilze-rijen#fasen /Dutch Safety Board, 20.02.2015] <br />
: and ...? --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 21:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: The great Alex Thomson has been there lately, finding [https://twitter.com/alextomo/status/566945066284228608 piles of Malaysian Airlines jet wreckage] still around. Guess that's not needed for their 3D reconstruction. All very shady and quite disappointing if one (like me) has held the Dutch in high regard when it comes to thoroughness and integrity. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 21:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===March 2015===<br />
[http://nos.nl/artikel/2027660-justitie-zoekt-getuigen-van-neerhalen-mh17-door-buk-raket.html Something from Netherlands emerged], claimed to be International Investigation team (with Ukraine, but not Russia) with old stuff,+ some (newly?) recorded, some of it at studio quality, zero emotions, suspiciously accented conversation in RUssian about a Buk being moved direct from Russia to somewhere near Snezhnoe by some unknown, but surely opolchenie member, characters --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 16:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
: Some Western operation, announcer quite clearly lived in the West for a while, newly emerged recording of bad guys--something strange about accents (something out of place), and tone (supercalm in presumably tense circumstances, curses with no fire to them appear staged)--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 16:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::[http://www.newsru.com/world/02apr2015/mh17.html Now saying ] [http://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2015/04/01/russische-legerofficier-herkend-op-justitietape-mh17/ (and here)] looking for Petrovskii-Khmuryi, who can be one of the guys on the recording (Do not remember comments from him on the matter...kind of curious) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::Pro-opolchenie blog say that this is old Ukrainian fake presented now as coming from Netherlands. Have not seen Petrovskii comments on the matter. (Manner of speech somewhat reminds him, in a kind of exaggerated way; to me sounds as more likely to be a play-up, --having hard time believing the tone). Recordings attributed to crash day were [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgdqdklrqDA#t=238 published by SBU] on 18 July. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===April 2015===<br />
[http://www.nltimes.nl/2015/04/08/dutch-release-hundreds-of-emails-tied-to-mh17/ Dutch Release Hundreds Of Emails Tied To Mh17]--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Russian demands ===<br />
* [http://en.itar-tass.com/world/750377 Russia proposes appointing UN special envoy for MH17 crash probe — Churkin] – ITAR-TASS, 20 Sept 2014<br />
:''He said that Russian delegation has seen no will on the part of the secretariat to display any initiative to promote international investigation of the crash. “We think it important that the United Nations Secretary General should analyze the state of things on the above problems and deliver a detailed report to the Security Council, including his suggestions about additional measures to promote the investigation,” he said.<br />
:''“It would probably be expedient to look at establishing a post of a secretary general’s envoy on that matter and sending, in collaboration with the OSCE [Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe], a mission to the crash area,” Churkin said.<br />
: Russians are annoyed by disrespect, and by sanctions. [http://itar-tass.com/politika/1455360 During the meeting of the UN Security Council, Churkin urged his colleagues] to work together to clarify the tragic story of the airliner "without any hints and insinuations" and references to the evidence which has not been submitted. "If you do not submit (any proof) than this is not evidence, but just as we say," фига в кармане " ("the 3-finger gesture exhibited in one's own pocket"- basically meaning bullshit). And such things to investigate such serious situations is completely inappropriate," - he stressed. Russians support the official investigation, -but still emit some noise indicating their annoyance. Also, they may have some beliefs regarding the circumstances. <br />
:At the time, it appeared that sanctions and MH17 are [http://time.com/3025173/eu-sanctions-russia-mh17-putin/ linked ] ; and despite a progress towards peace, new sanctions were imposed. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 12:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: [http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1407/18/cnr.04.html UN Ambassador Power Addresses Security Council Meeting] "we cannot rule out technical assistance from Russian personnel" "If indeed Russian-backed separatists were behind this attack on a civilian airliner, they and their backers would have good reason to cover up evidence of their crime. Thus, it is extremely important that an investigation be commenced immediately."--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Germany Decides Rebels Dunnit==<br />
<br />
German Intelligence has decided for definite that the first story was correct - MH17 was downed by a BUK operated by [http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/mh17/prorussian-rebels-downed-mh17-with-ukraine-missile-germans/story-fno88it0-1227095832498 separatists] after all. <br />
Not really surprising, as this is (a) the easiest result based on Occam's Razor and (b) comes at a time Germany would like to do something to help Russia in the sanctions mess but Merkel can't back off yet (and/or different parts of Germany have different degrees of friendship with The Bear). It may also be a smack on the fingers for Ukraine for the neo-nazi mess. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 04:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
We also covered this elsewhere [[Category_talk:Leaks#BND |BND leak]]. (As for positives, they seem to say Ukrainian photos are fake). As for rebel Buk, Bolotov said on 20 July that his Buk is broken, and offered anybody to come and check. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 04:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
:And Kiev also agrees the rebels had no Buk of their own, saying Russia (not Kiev) brought it in on their behalf and fired it. How does BND think it can just make up claims no in the region believes or supports? Will need to have a look, especially at their take on the images used to support Kiev's version of the "not separatists" narrative. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::There's nothing for you to take a look at. This "presentation" was towards a fig leaf secret service control instance, and even [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Ströbele one of the few people on it], a kind of German Ron Paul when it comes to argue against the grain, said he doesn't buy it. And another one of those "kleine Anfragen" made them admit that [https://www.jungewelt.de/schwerpunkt/»keine-eigenen-erkenntnisse« "no own insights" went into that "leaked" statement]. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 23:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/mh17-chief-investigator-says-no-actionable-evidence-yet-in-probe-a-999485.html Chief MH17 Investigator on German Claims: 'We Will Need Evidence'] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 18:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Joost Bosman photos ==<br />
[https://www.flickr.com/photos/33705716@N05/14687945100/sizes/l This one] is interesting. Also [https://www.flickr.com/photos/33705716@N05/14872160254/in/set-72157646326477044 this.] -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 00:14, 12 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Other MH17 analysis ==<br />
<br />
Half-way decent [http://0serg.livejournal.com/146553.html analysis] of the known facts on MH17 in Q & A format. Use Bing translator as google gives up half way through.--[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 01:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== R-27 long-range air-to-air missile? ==<br />
<br />
Work in progress, please leave alone for a an hour. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 15:56, 13 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-27_(air-to-air_missile) R-27 (air-to-air missile)]<br />
* [http://belsat.eu/en/wiadomosci/a,20935,official-russian-military-aircraft-to-blame-for-shooting-down-ukrainian-su25-plane.html Official: Russian military aircraft to blame for shooting down Ukrainian Su-25 plane] – 7 July 2014<br />
* [http://www.ukrinform.ua/eng/news/nsdc_russian_aircraft_shot_down_ukrainian_su_25_plane_323908 NSDC: Russian aircraft shot down Ukrainian Su-25 plane] – July 17, 2014<br />
* [http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/russian-military-plane-shot-down-ukrainian-su-25-aircraft-in-ukraine-356422.html Russian military plane shot down Ukrainian Su-25 aircraft in Ukraine] – Interfax-Ukraine / Kyiv Post, July 17, 2014<br />
<br />
<br />
== R-60 ==<br />
Basic info. Infrared-homing, proximity fuse (radar or optical); range 8 km, altitude 20 km [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/62/Rakiety_R-60_i_R-13M_A381.jpg Photo] (but rods not shown--dummy warhead). [http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-101.html More photos]. Older versions warhead use tungsten expanding rods, newer (R60 M, R60 MK) may use depleted uranium . 3-3.5 kg warhead weight. Exact rod shapes, and whether encasing is suitable to produce fragmentation on top of that, are not found/hard to find.<br />
<br />
It is thought that R 60 rod damage will look similar to [http://s711.photobucket.com/user/smi6086/media/visit61.jpg.html sidewinder,] but straight cut, not L shape --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 23:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 23:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: <s>Here's what R-60 warhead ''allegedly'' [http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/evanesce_girl/8305736/101880/101880_original.jpg looks like] (I can neither confirm nor deny that it is indeed an R-60 warhead, as I simply do not know for sure). If it is true, then there's no way the holes will look even remotely close to Sidewinder damage. (Note that the ruler at the bottom of the photo is in centimeters, not inches).</s> -- [[User:Ed3218|Ed3218]] ([[User talk:Ed3218|talk]]) 17:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::But [http://imperiya.by/news.html?id=139809 other sources] call it anti aircraft shell (artillery) , WW2 times---and it does look like (artillery) shell. patronen.su is a source of the photo (typed on the photo)--, but I could not find that photo there--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 18:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::It got an outer rotating band , those grooves outside. Also material seems to be cast iron, not tungsten-as far as it's possible to tell from the photo --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 18:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::: Looks like you are correct. -- [[User:Ed3218|Ed3218]] ([[User talk:Ed3218|talk]]) 23:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Disinformation? ==<br />
<br />
Chris Harrison [https://www.facebook.com/groups/IOUCO/permalink/631575156955542/ on Facebook:]<br />
* [http://www.discussionist.com/101445081 Overlooked....the mysterious imprisoned US spy who gave the Daily Mail witness testimony about MH-17] – Clarity of Signal, Aug 16, 2014<br />
:''Needing a little help form Novorossiya blogging investigators in regards to this individual who I put a thread up about back in August. He is a very intriguing character that supplied the Daily Mail UK with information that doesn't seem to be mentioned in the ATC to plane transmissions for MH-17 (the ones released by the Dutch Safety Board). The Daily Mail quoted him as saying that the pilots of MH-17 "felt bad". However, this quote and conversation is missing from the DSB's preliminary report. After having performed some minor investigation I found that this same individual was also a key source of misinformation for last years false flag chemical weapons attack in Syria. I'm curious if any other Novorossiya blogging investigators want to attempt to dig deeper on this guy and bring more info to light? He could be somewhat of a 'smoking gun'.<br />
<br />
== Radar jamming and spoofing? ==<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vYaRtY27iY Proof of NATO false flag attack on MH17] – Patrick Roddie, Jul 22, 2014<br />
:''Just one month before the Malaysian airliner was shot down, NATO ran a live exercise using fighter jets to jam the transponders of commercial airliners and spoof them as military jets by broadcasting a military transponder signal at close range. NATO forces seem to have made the doomed Malaysian 777 appear to be a hostile military jet and forced the separatists to open fire. <br />
:''The video evidence of military chaff falling at the crash site reinforces the argument that military fighters were very close to MH17 when it was shot down.<br />
The Russian civilian radar data however shows that the MH17 transponder was not jammed. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 05:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Cause of death? ==<br />
<br />
Up to now it has generally been assumed that the pilots may have died from the "high-energy objects" hitting them while the passengers died almost instantly from hypoxia after the explosive decompression of the cabin. This rapid death might explain the odd "[[/Debunked topics#Bloodless bodies – fake Facebook profiles?|bloodless bodies]]".<br />
<br />
Dutch Foreign Minister Frans Timmermans now says that at least one passenger was found with an oxygen mask on.<br />
* [http://en.itar-tass.com/world/753427 Malaysia Airlines MH17 passenger found with oxygen mask on — Dutch FM] – ITAR-TASS, October 09, 2014<br />
:''The latest finding questions the earlier theory that the 298 victims on board the tragic flight had been killed instantly and indicates that they may have remained conscious after the Boeing aircraft was shot down.<br />
* [http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-10-09/mh-17-false-flag-exposed-after-revelation-passenger-was-wearing-oxygen-mask MH-17 Report False Flag Exposed After Revelation Passenger Was Wearing Oxygen Mask] Zero Hedge, 10/09/2014<br />
:''The mask found around the neck of the unnamed passenger, one of 88 Australian citizens and residents on board, was tested for fingerprints, saliva and DNA but produced no forensic evidence, De Bruin said. "So it is not known how or when that mask got around the neck of the victim," he said.<br />
:''The discovery of the mask and the implications it raised about the passengers' final moments were conveyed to the Australian's family before Timmermans' interview on Wednesday night, the prosecutor's office said. But information was sent out to other family members of the MH-17 victims only on Thursday morning.<br />
-- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 18:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Russia Blames Buk, Secret Info ==<br />
[http://rusvesna.su/news/1413027395 "CyberLeaks" on russvesna] claims 9H314 warhead of 9M38 missile, Buk M1 system. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:11, 11 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* [http://rt.com/news/195128-mh17-crash-cyberberkut-leak/ Kiev secretly received data from MH17 crash investigators – Ukrainian hacktivists] RT Oct. 11<br />
:''Ukrainian CyberBerkut hacktivists claim that they have penetrated the internal network of Ukraine’s Defense Ministry and found proof that Kiev is getting secret data from MH17 crash investigators, including information which implies its involvement.''<br />
<br />
:''A document, posted on the website cyber-berkut.net, and allegedly downloaded from Ukraine’s Defense Ministry network, dates back to August 7 and appears to be signed by Colonel Igor Zorin, the chief of Ukraine’s air defense forces. It is a report which maintains that a fragment of a projectile found together with the debris of the crashed flight MH17 is in fact a damage agent of a 9M38 surface-to-air guided missile belonging to the mobile air defense complex Buk or Buk M1.''<br />
<br />
:''... CyberBerkut claimed that the documents are evidence that the MH17 crash investigation commission and the Ukraine Defense Ministry have “special relations.”'' --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* [http://rt.com/news/194848-mh17-ukrainian-missile-buk/ MH17 crash: Ukraine security chief says missile only Kiev has may be found at crash site] RT Oct. 10 <br />
:''Investigation of the MH17 Boeing-777-200 crash in July will be completed when the remains of the Buk-M air defense missile are found, Valentin Nalivaichenko, head of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), told Ukrainian TV.<br />
::Because:<br />
:''“It will be Russian servicemen who used the Buk-M missile” to take down the passenger jet, he said.''<br />
However, they might have also said it was a certain type - Soviet-era but modernized. I'm not sure if that's so, but if so, Russia's military says they use only "modified" not modernized Buk M-1 and M-2, and only Ukraine has the ones it "modernized." <br />
:''When Mr Nalivaichenko mentions a ‘modernized Buk’ system, he probably means an air defense system that was upgraded by the Ukrainian defense industry. We know that Ukraine has been working in this direction,” the source said, adding that the information about the modernization of Ukrainian Buk systems was confirmed in late June on the Ukrainian Defense Ministry’s website, which reported renovated missile systems becoming operational.''<br />
::And a couple weeks later:<br />
:''On the day that the MH17 was shot down, Ukraine’s 156th SAM regiment carried out an unauthorized missile launch, an emergency situation that is being investigated by the SBU and obviously being hushed up by Kiev authorities, the official said.''<br />
::Therefore:<br />
:''“The confusion and inconsistency of Nalivaichenko’s responses leaves no doubt that he mentioned a plan that definitely had not been developed by the SBU, but rather brought in the other day from their overseas mentors,” the Joint Staff source said. “This is Nalivaichenko and his big mouth blunder.”''<br />
--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
There is no analysis, only conclusion, which is said to be based on the photo. The first question about the photo is where it is coming from. The Netherlands investigation? (Than why it was not also sent to Moscow)? From SBU office? (It is too easy to fake a photo, and with so many fakes already THEY have the burden of proof it is not a fake) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
:There's supposedly analysis behind the match, and my guess is it's all valid. But, that's a guess. Why would it not be sent to Moscow? Apparently its being sent to Ukraine is an issue or scandal, so apparently it's not supposed to be sent to anyone (?) Later it'll be seen by others and us, and our guesses can get better. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 14:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
==Investigation of Buk producer Almaz-Antay==<br />
Russian concern Almaz-Antay held a press conference, aimed at quashing sanctions against them, to say that (if it was Buk, then) it was Buk missile 9M38M or 9M38M1 with missile warhead 9М314 or 9М314М1, because only those have X shape elements. That was taken off production in 1999, while the concern was formed in 2002, so they did not provide this missile to anybody; but Ukraine has it. Their conclusion is based on publicly available photographs; they also participate in the investigation and has exclusive competences. They say that Snezhnoe is inconsistent as that will take cabin off at once; offer to do an [http://rusvesna.su/news/1433241635 experiment] to prove/establish who is responsible (an experiment seems right thing to do-and interesting how you account for movement)- [http://www.interfax.ru/russia/445152 interfax]. They seem to repeat the version given in Novaia Gazeta [[Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17/Forensics#Novaya_Gazeta |(discussion)]], placing launch in Zaroshenskoe. They essentially say that some 40% of elements go perpendicular to the missile and so it needs to be on intersecting course to (have a chance to) account for all the damage. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:33, 2 June 2015 (UTC) <br />
:Severe damage to the flap, illustrated in NG, with less damage to the wing, raises a possibility of a multiple event. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 16:33, 2 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
: Their presentation is on youtube now [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAMY2SpohDA in Russian] and [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsohFzbJ-vs with English translation]. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 15:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Full presentation by Almaz-Antey ( Buk-m2 manufacturer ) about the incident [http://tass.ru/boeing-presentation/vvedenie/2023629#/2023629].<br />
Still only in Russian. Unfortunately even in Russian somebody the diagrams are not self-explanatory. But main arguments are clear. It includes calculations of the attack angle of the rocket in order to cause such damage. - --[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 09:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
They say it was incoming at about 78 degrees; they reject Snezhnoe at 20 degrees; schematically in 2D cones are smth like this, with one extra alternative at -110 degrees shown [[File:Cones.jpg|thumb|Cones for various incoming angles, relative to the plane's frame. MH17: 0.8 Mach, missile: 3 Mach, projectiles 2400 m/s]]--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 05:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
Resup, thanks for shifting my comment to more relative location. I would like to add here one more analysis. Minimum Distance between Hit point (based on Dutch castrated report) and Snizhne is 24 km (Bellingcat magical tricks placed it even further). Buk-M1 missile goes at 860m/s, but let's assume 1km/s. Let's also assume that missile immediately travels at highest speed. For such distance the trajectory will be parabolic (slide 49 from Almaz-Antey). Than the time of flight will be way more than 30 sec and it will even intersect the pilot's field of view. Dutch officially declared that there is nothing interesting on black box voice recorder. How is it possible for the pilot not to notice a 5 meters rocket, that ejects violent plume behind, flies directly at him for more than 30 sec and even goes across his vertical field of view. And according to Dutch report pilot was informed of another airliner in proximity that he had to watch put for. It is just impossible for pilot not to comment on it, at least WTF. Even cloudy day doesn’t explain the issue.<br />
--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 09:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=='Unauthorized launch?' ==<br />
[http://russian.rt.com/article/42405#ixzz38ShRpr00 Such theory appeared] around 25 July 2014. According to quoted source said to be from defense structures of Ukraine, on 17 of July, commander of 156 UAF anti-aircraft defense regiment was ordered to perform training of crews to support ground forces in a Donetsk suburb. They had to deploy batteries, and perform routing of target and all procedures of tracking target and its training destruction with Buk M1. Commanders received unblocking keys for launch, but real launch of 9М38М1 (Buk) was not planned. To participate in the exercise, two SU 25 planes from 229 tactical aviation brigade were sent from Kulbakino airbase in Nikolaev to Dnepropetrovsk. They were charged with aerial reconnaissance and to mark control targets in ATO area to the West from Donetsk. After one of the planes entered detection zone of Buk, it was tracked by a crew of battery located near Zaroshenskoe (Зарощенское). It appears that due to tragic accident after some time, and despite height difference, the azimuth of SU 25 and MH17 coincided, in which case the missile will go after the target with bigger area. The source says that he does not know why accidental launch happened, and this is investigated by SBU. "Battery commander and the whole crew were taken". <br />
<br />
There are some details, but sources are not revealed, and details were neither confirmed nor denied. Location seems a bit suspicious, it suggests a right side hit; not clear how reacquiring target from SU 25 at a coinciding azimuth will result in the other side hit. Not totally impossible, (lost target, overshot to the North, than reacquired). But this is not very likely, on top of unexplained accidental launch. Little solid details makes this theory to be on shaky footing. Apparently was recycled in later versions (Nikolaev air base mentioned in recent film). The worst is that it is unclear what is the source, and could he really know. Otherwise, piece of cake to tell such tale (of 'my aunt told me' sort) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
10.10.2014, 14:05 "Rossiiskaia Gazeta" (official publisher of documents of the Russian Government) [http://www.rg.ru/2014/10/10/buk-site.html says in part:] A week after Boeing (i.e. MH17) catastrophe, a source in the armed forces of Ukraine shared information, definitely not matching the official version of Kiev. This source said: on the day of the tragedy, in the 156th air defense missile regiment of the Ukrainian army, armed with modernized "Buk," there was an unauthorized missile launch, which happened in the course of an exercise . Investigation of the incident involved "impartial" SBU investigators. No need to be a genius to put together elements of a puzzle - said a source in the MoD General Staff of the Russian Federation. " <br />
<br />
The number (156) in this report does not match the number in Bezler account on the video (section below); maybe some mix-up on the way to newspaper; but otherwise it all looks consistent. Bezler was operating in the nearby area, and likely would be more knowledgeable. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 23:48, 5 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Bezler Account==<br />
[http://rusvesna.su/news/1413549200 Bes:] " I do not have weapons to shoot Boeing at 10,000 m. Boeing was shot by 154 anti-aircraft regiment of UAF stationed in Artemovsk, using Buk system. My reconnaissance team has spotted "Buk" as it left. Former Defense Minister Geletey knows about it. It was a provocation. The day before the accident, we shot Ukrainian SU-25, two pilots ejected and we went to look for them. My conversation was intercepted and mis-represented as a talk about the downed Boeing. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 05:35, 18 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: Of all the people making statements in this matter, Bezler was probably the only one actually there on the ground to know what was where. The area he claims is borderline for distance, but not impossible. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 21:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Yes, what he says needs to be taken very seriously --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 22:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
A straight line S-SE to the approximate impact point (as we've narrowed down) is 61.5 km. That's significantly out of range, isn't it? [http://wikimapia.org/#lat=48.4572063&lon=38.2935846&z=10&l=0&m=b&gz=0;380113220;481550929;5094910;0;0;4351413 The line on Wikimapia] for second thoughts on that. Clearly, center of downtown was not the firing spot, but even presuming a bit south of town (and not north) this doesn't readily line up. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 00:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Launcher can drive around easily. While personnel is better of sleeping in a city, not out in the field (even if they do, one would not say 'stationed in a cornfield'). There is nothing to defend in the city itself--Novorossia does not use planes. And also, the range is approximate, it has listed ceiling of 20 km, actual range would depend on height and other things.--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Actual range depends on the actual rocket used, not the launcher. Nobody is suggesting they were defending anything, he's saying it was a provocation,ie deliberate. There have been other reports of Ukies starting to test/train on BUKs,perhaps preparing for a war with Russia directly involved. Now, practice, I've had it from numerous ex-military (various Western nations) that they used civilian planes to practice the BUK type radars on as (a) always available and (b) less likely to knows you've lit them up so won't retaliate. That is meant to be radar practice, not actual shooting, of course.<br />
::There was doubt about why "rebels" would be taking this BUK on a scenic tour, especially in mostly KIEV-held territory. But if it was a Kiev BUK?? carted around on a very conspicuous truck to be later identified as having been stolen by rebels? (in interview with very anti-Russian Lithuania's reporter??)<br />
::The Kiev story was, rebels were going to shoot down an Aeroflot, to fall onto Ukie territory, to give Russia excuse for war. However, if looks like rebels shot down something, falling on their territory, Russia can still be blamed and NATO might come help Kiev obliterate the subhumans. Hitting an actual Aeroflot was too risky in case Russia does come in but NATO doesn't. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 07:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::Oh, as if "stationed in" changes anything from a presumption of "firing from" ... lol. Obviously. I sit corrected on that, unless that is what he means... Good points on Obviously no real reason for air defense to be doing anything. True claim or not, it's worth considering these units were just sitting around with no use, freeing up their schedules for off-the-books work. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 08:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Bezler repeated the claim, 154 anti-aircraft regiment of UAF stationed in Artemovsk, using Buk system, Gelatei as overall commander has to answer eventually. This answer is recorded on video <br />
during an interview with Ukrainian news channel 1+1, starting 2:10:00 of the last, long video on [http://rusvesna.su/news/1414630752 rusvesna]. But 1+1 news report did not have that, they put old known fakes instead (first video in russvesna report). Russvesna responds to claims made by Ukrainian news report in detail, with video time stamps referring to Ukrainian news report; the long tape (last video) was made as a safeguard against false claims. Bezler himself does not have any equipment which can shot a plane even at 7000 m (he than mentions Strela 10 which cannot shoot a plane at such height; listed ceiling for Strela 10 is 3500 m)<br />
::Man in black leather next to Bezler is Василий Будик (Vasilii Budik), who was Bezler prisoner for 88 days (according to Budik himself, a 'guest'), and now is in Ukraine and helping Ruban to release more prisoners. He is listed as "Adviser to Defense Ministry, Ukraine" on the long tape<br />
:: --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 04:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references /></div>Antidyatelhttps://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17/Fighter_jets&diff=22619Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Fighter jets2015-06-09T01:21:15Z<p>Antidyatel: /* Missile? */ Slides from Almaz-Antey regarding missile type, attack angle and direction from which the rocket came</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:MH17]]<br />
[[Category:Weapons]]<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17_New_Straits_Times.jpg|thumb]]<br />
==Crash videos==<br />
On March 28, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkygYsvITSY Ukraine news report] tells about "100 fighter jets (some SU 27/ Mig 29 shown actually flying), 23 bombers, 36 (or 39 as presented) 'strurmovik' attack aircraft, 60 anti-aircraft missile systems (according to the presentation). <br />
<br />
Early minutes [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVkmqJ551KA#t=78 after crash video]. (Plane said to come crashing from the East, from the direction Sokolikha mountain, by one witness). <br />
<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-W70uLCYoY Another crash video], two clips. <br />
:What is that we see [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-W70uLCYoY#t=78 at 1.18-1.20 of this video?]. Thought it might be planes, appears quick and straight, but after looking at more frames, those are birds most likely (wings up and down movement seen) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
This point is disputed, and thus not proven to everyone's satisfaction. But it's clearly a big question: was there,.<br />
<br />
(Russia's details for - forthcoming)<br />
<br />
'''counter-arguments:''' [http://www.interpretermag.com/mh17-and-moscows-magical-mystery-jets/ Interpreter Mag] offers what it claims are serious questions about Russia's fighter jet claims. They don't start out dismissing that there was a radar return the Russians followed, but question - reasonably - if it was really a jet. They latch onto the translation "hover" describing what the "jet" did for four minutes after, and note "to “hover” requires a helicopter," and "the fastest helicopter in the Ukrainian arsenal" is too slow to trail MH17, so ... in case he meant circle (obviously) the article suggests that it's all but impossible for a fighter to circle and loiter in that small area, so probably that also is a clumsy lie, which by the end they're forced to call "Moscow's Magical Mystery Jets." --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:34, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
:Oh, and [https://plus.google.com/118234537318646233652/posts/gVowkkyhbHv James Miller added] "A MAJOR problem with Russia's latest claim, that a Ukrainian Su-25 was tailing MH17. According to the plane's own manufacturer, who has incentive to inflate the SU-25's performance numbers, that aircraft can't even fly high enough to be 3 kilometers away as Russia claims." My response to that is ... sorry what? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
::On that point, I understand the SU-25 is a ground attack craft, that normally operates under 25,000 feet, while MH17 was at 33,000. Still, it might be able to go higher, and could still be 305 km away plus or including 8,000 feet or whatever. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: ''They latch onto the translation "hover"'' — gosh, you have no idea how much I hate retarded Russian translators (see [[#Why everyone is throwing around "Su-25"?]] for a sample of difference between ''their'' translation and what has ''actually'' being said). <br />
: Here's the [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSpeo5RcQQo&t=19m47s relevant quote from the video]:<br />
<br />
: '''Russian:''' ''Ранее обнаружение данного воздушного объекта не представлялось возможным, так как контроль воздушной обстановки осуществляется радиолокационными средствами дежурного режима с возможностями по обнаружению на данной дальности на высоте полета более 5000 метров. Обнаружение стало возможным при наборе высоты.''<BR><br />
: '''Retarded translator:''' ''The early detection of this aircraft appeared to be quite impossible because the air situation control is usually performed by radars working in a standby mode which detection possibilities at the given distance are over 5000 m altitude.''<BR><br />
: '''Proper translation''': ''The detection of the said aircraft any sooner was not quite possible, due to the fact that the monitoring of the airspace is performed by the means of stand-by mode radars, detection capabilities of which are limited, at this range, to [targets flying at] altitude above 5000 meters. The detection had become possible upon the increase of the [target's] altitude.''<BR><br />
: '''Russian:''' ''Дальнейшее изменение параметров полета объекта по курсу свидетельствует о том, что он '''барражирует''' в районе разрушения Боинга 777 и осуществляет контроль за развитием ситуации.''<BR><br />
: '''Retarded translator:''' ''The further aircraft flight properties changes on its route testified the fact that it is now '''flying''' in the area of Boeing crash and is monitoring the situation.''<BR><br />
: '''Proper translation''': ''The consecutive changes in the object's flight variables, direction wise, demonstrate that it is '''loitering''' in the area of Boeing 777 breakdown and monitoring the development of the situation.''<BR><br />
<br />
: Honestly, those translators must be punished by 2-year solitary confinement with nothing but books in English, so they will have ample opportunity to fill their vocabularies. -- [[User:Ed3218|Ed3218]] ([[User talk:Ed3218|talk]]) 01:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Witnesses==<br />
We discussed witnesses [[Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17/Witnesses| elsewhere]]. Now [http://lenta.ru/news/2014/12/25/boeing/ Zakharchenko] can be added to the witness list. He says he saw it himself. "There were 2 (military) planes and there was the Boeing. Than the planes flew away. And the Boeing fell down". "DPR did not shot it down, it could not even occur to us to do such a thing, we are people, not animals. And we do not have technical means to do it." I saw in Ukrainian media detail that Zakharchenko was in Shaktersk at the time (not mentioned in this article). He also says he has 'dozens' of other witnesses who saw it.--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 17:09, 25 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: strange...normally nobody notices planes going over...but I guess they were watching for them all the time there. I hope they have taped witness accounts from the first few days, as any who come forward now, especially with matching stories, will be accused of being fake. I also hope the tapes have been passed on to the right people.[[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 14:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Air-to-air missile? ==<br />
<br />
* [http://guruinterneta.livejournal.com/32590.html Вот и первые признаки БЧ. Сбивал не Бук-М1] (Here are the first signs of warheads. Not hit by Buk-M1)<br />
<br />
This is disproved. It's confirmed a Grad Missile was used. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiAO3D_j8qk GRAD Missile downed aircraft] :-)<br />
--[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 10:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Pilot confesses? -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 00:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
* [http://wahrheitfuerdeutschland.de/?p=3622 Ukrainischer Pilot gibt Abschuss von MH17 zu]<br />
::I started out skeptical, checked, and didn't see where they explain just what he said, to whom, etc. Our readers will need more alleged details. I'm still skeptical, obviously. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::: It's satire. Says so trilangually in bold red right there at the top. Original is [http://amr.amronline.de/2014/07/25/ukrainische-pilot-gibt-abschuss-von-mh17-zu-meinungsfreiheit/ here] on a quite funny satire site. It's full of valid information but the premise of the piece is to show how propaganda would react and integrate such a confession into their narrative. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* [http://www.unn.com.ua/uk/news/1364795-piloti-zbitogo-litaka-an-26-scho-viyshli-na-zvyazok-kazhut-scho-yikh-pidbili-raketoyu-z-vinischuvacha Пілоти збитого "Ан-26" кажуть, що їх підбили ракетою з винищувача] An Ukrainian Antonov An-26, a military transport aircraft shot down above Lugansk near the village of Izvaryne on July 14 (just 3 days prior to Malaysian Airlines flight MH17) was, according to its bailed-out pilots, struck by an air-to-air missile (ракетою класу "повітря-повітря"). The Antonov was flying at an altitude of 6500 m at the time it was hit, far beyond the reach of most man-portable air-defence systems (MANPADS). Even before the MH17 disaster this event lead to speculation in the Western press of the east-Ukrainian rebels possessing more sophisticated anti-air weapons. [http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20140714-0 accident description at ASN] --[[User:Pasparal|Pasparal]] ([[User talk:Pasparal|talk]]) 10:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
::At the time it was "known" the rebels had a BUK since late June, 25 or 26th. Air to air would have implied Russian planes; as they didn't say they saw them, to identify, this claim was never made again. This was I think the one the videos were of, circulating in the first days as being MH17. As it happened in Lugansk, I'd say it was the BUK,as it was them that had it. MH17 went down in Donetsk territory and they've been truthfully saying they never had such a weapon. True that Lugansk prime minister Borodai said so too, but a PM doesn't necessarily know what the men liberated last week.<br />
:: But as I say in the TEST section below, they'd need a backup plan, as they can't afford to leave the plane able to call for help or maybe land. In that case it would not be a Russian pane of course. The An-26 pilots' belief may have given them the idea though. This may ALSO explain why witnesses say they saw another plane and why they said they HEARD TWO EXPLOSIONS ... a BUK that did almost no damage and a ''coup de grace'' from a fighter????[[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 11:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I was not following claims on An 26, but "Igla" ([https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%98%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B0_(%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B7%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81) 9К338 «Игла-С»]) has a listed altitude of 6000, so shoulder-fired system hit at 6000 is not out of question. There are also old surface-to air anti-aircraft systems less powerful than Buk: Osa ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SA-8_Gecko SA-8 Gecko], altitude 12000), Strela [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K35_Strela-10 9K35 Strela-10] , listed altitude 3500). --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 12:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=="Carlos"==<br />
Okay, what the heck? This has been called a hoax (as noted even at the first link) but I'm not so sure. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
* http://www.globalresearch.ca/spanish-air-controller-kiev-borispol-airport-ukraine-military-shot-down-boeing-mh17/5391888 <br />
<br />
* 10:21 – 17 de jul. de 2014 Autoridades de kiev, intentan hacer que pueda parecer un ataque de los pro-rusos<br />
*:“Kiev Authorities, trying to make it look like an attack by pro-Russians”<br />
*10:24 – 17 de jul. de 2014 Ojo! Que puede ser un derribo B777 Malaysia Airlines en ukraine, 280 pasajeros<br />
*:“warning! It can be a downing, Malaysia Airlines B777 in ukraine, 280 passengers”<br />
*10:25 – 17 de jul. de 2014 Cuidado! Kiev tiene lo que buscaba<br />
*:“Warning! Kiev have what they wanted”<br />
*10:25 – 17 de jul. de 2014 Vuelven a tomar la torre de control en Kiev<br />
*:“[Miitary] has taken control of ATC in Kiev”<br />
*10:27 – 17 de jul. de 2014 El avión B777 de Malaysia Airlines desapareció del radar, no hubo comunicación de ninguna anomalia, confirmado<br />
*:“The Malaysia Airlines B777 plane disappeared from the radar, there was no communication of any anomaly, confirmed”<br />
<br />
* [http://news.yahoo.com/really-happened-mh17-russias-media-answer-203111162.html What really happened to MH17? Russia's media have the answer] says the Christian Science Monitor,laughingly, on July 22. On "Carlos," they say:<br />
:''2. The mysterious Spanish airport controller source. A mysterious Twitter account, @spainbuca, purporting to be a Spanish air traffic controller at Kiev's international airport named Carlos tweeted out that two Ukrainian fighter jets had shadowed the Malaysian airliner and that Kiev was behind its downing. In May, the Spanish-language channel of Kremlin mouthpiece RT interviewed Carlos and blurred out his face because he claimed he was in danger for criticizing the Ukrainian government.''<br />
:''However, the Spanish Embassy in Kiev has no record of Carlos, reports Fox News Latino. “We have no knowledge of ‘Carlos’ having been in Ukraine. There is no record of his passing through the Consulate, and no one from the (relatively small) Spanish colony knows him,” it said. Carlos’s Twitter account no longer exists.''<br />
<br />
Questions: <br />
# What was he saying in May that was newsworthy? [http://actualidad.rt.com/actualidad/view/127516-amenazar-controlador-espanol-ucrania-crisis May 8, Espanol - says he's in Madrid at the time] Does he seem shady like a possible disinfo agent?<br />
# Was he back in Ukraine still (allegedly) working ATC on July 17, or is his knowledge supposed to be from the community? <br />
# Does he claim direct knowledge the fighters brought down the plane, or just speculate based on their presence? <br />
# Does his account deletion similarity to [http://rt.com/news/175828-phillips-arrest-ukraine-details/ the Graham W. Phillips case] mean anything? Or is this just a fakester who called it quits as soon as questions arose? <br />
# How does the embassy know if they do or don't have a record unless they know just who he is? Isn't he supposed to have been anonymous up 'til now? (deduced from Spanish + ATC? = zero? That could work)<br />
# Has anyone anywhere heard from him since? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I was not following 'Carlos' story and it smelled fishy (why a foreigner working there; how do we know he is not a hired troll --lots of those posting somethings). But recently looking at Russian MOD presentation, it is likely that Ukrainian traffic control is integrated (civilian and military). USSR had a habit to make things double-use, and that may not change since. So, if somebody was there, he could see both civilian and military planes on such integrated system. Russia requested ATC information, that seems to be well-justified request, as there were several witnesses reporting plane sightings shortly prior to the crash. Witness reports were presented in Western press, so reports are not fake. Witness statements appear/sound sincere; no evidence they are not. Witnesses do get honestly confused, but there is no indication they are lying or are tense in making statements --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 17:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Escorts? ==<br />
* http://theaviationist.com/2014/07/21/su-27s-escorted-mh17/<br />
:''Iranian defense expert Babak Taghvaee believes the mistake was caused by the fact the Malaysian Boeing 777 was escorted over eastern Ukraine. Taghvaee is always very well informed and an extremely reliable source. Therefore, after he provided some details about this activity of the Ukrainian Air Force on ACIG forum thread about the war in Ukraine, we contacted him for some more insight. Here’s what he wrote to us.''<br />
:''“When the Crimea crisis began, the Ukrainian Air Force air command center quickly forward deployed six Su-27s to the Kulbakino AB. Since beginning of the crisis and the Russia intervention, the 831st TAB has the important task to provide air defense as well as security of whole country. Six fully armed Flankers have always been in the sky especially when the other Ukrainian Air Force airplanes such as transporters and attackers like Fulcrums and Rooks were in the East of Ukraine,” explains Taghvaee.''<br />
:''“But when the Su-25M1 was shot down by the Russia Air Force 6969th AB’s MiG-29 on Jul. 16, the situation and condition became more critical than previous days and more Su-27 sorties were conducted to confront Russian MiG-29s. I believe those two Su-27s were not in sky just for standard practice in that day [Jul. 17], I believe they were involved in HAVCAP (High Asset Value Combat Air Patrol) mission sortie in that day.”''<br />
Hm - an escort patrol starting just that day? Did Russians even shoot down the jet forcing that decision right then? High value asset it was, once it was shot down and blamed on Russia. This could use some further searching, but one Q is why Carlos (or his sources) would be so alarmed at the fighter jets if they were known "escorts." And also, why would Kiev decide on this and then deny it? That looks bad. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Did the Jet(s) Down MH17?==<br />
I don't think so, but it's possible. I hear now [http://www.globalresearch.ca/evidence-is-now-conclusive-two-ukrainian-government-fighter-jets-shot-down-malaysian-airlines-mh17-it-was-not-a-buk-surface-to-air-missile/5394814 the evidence is conclusive,] it's proven and all debate should cease. An OSCE expert said x was "like" y. OMG x is same thing as y proved! <br />
<br />
Petri, I see in comments [http://thesaker.is/detailed-expert-analysis-of-the-mh17-downing/#comment-37807 here] <!-- comment moved by Saker from http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.de/2014/08/detailed-expert-analysis-of-mh17-downing.html --> your working theory:<br />
:''MH17 was brought down by a frontal attack by a fighter jet. The jet fired a "machine gun" or autocannon through the left side windshield right at the captain. The direction of fire was from slightly to the left and slightly above. The bullets left perfectly round holes of about 20 mm diameter in the upper frame of the windshield. Further down the left side the holes became elongated and irregular, some with the appearance of exit holes. The smaller irregular holes on the side are most likely the result of fragmentation rounds mixed in with armor piercing bullets. Some of these may have bounced off the side and exploaded outside.''<br />
<br />
Not to be too harsh, but I just want to lay out all my questions, in the sort of aggressive way they just tend to run at such times. <br />
# 20 mm rounds - others have specified a SU-25 with 30 mm cannon as most likely. What are you proposing? A different craft, I guess? Fair enough - SU-25 doesn't seem to be proven, just a good guess.<br />
# Is there any radar support for a frontal attack from the E-SE (frontal)? The mentioned jet was trailing 3 or more km behind (W-NW)<br />
# altitude - that was a problem for SU-25, made to work below 25,000 feet while MH17 was at 33, and was hit slightly from above. But you're thinking something else - might well answer that automatically<br />
# why can't warhead shrapnel of about 20 mm explain this? Or do we know the SA-11 can only have a different size? Because round machine-gun-like holes seems to be just what they normally do.<br />
# What is up with the Buk launcher moved in that direction, parked right on the flightpath, and apparently having fired a missile towards the jet that would impact it just about head-on like this theorized jet attack? Did they set that up to create the appearance, while using a fighter instead to mimic it? I'd ask where did the missile go, but I guess you could argue the field was fake burnt, the tracks just made, and the contrail photo is from another day or something, <br />
# Is the jet attack theory really the best explanation for what we see or just the one that's overly tempting because it could smoking-gun pin it on Kiev?<br />
--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* [http://www.sott.net/article/284868-MH-17-Who-Dunnit-Western-Media-Silent-on-the-Evidence MH 17 Who Dunnit? Western Media Silent on the Evidence] – Joe Quinn, Sott.net, 01 Sep 2014<br />
"The available images of the fuselage of MH17 support the conclusions of Mr Bociurkiw," he correctly notes, while mischaracterizing both. The OSCE semi-exprrt said the parts of the plane he meant were hit with a spray of small, high-velocity projectiles that "almost looks like machine gun fire," but not quite, to his untrained eye, having seen nothing like it before to compare to for sure. Why Mr. Quinn and so many others insist on pretending this proves it ''was'' a machiney-type-gun is just a mystery. Buk shrapnel should almost, but not quite, look like machine 30 mm auto-cannon fire<br />
<br />
"Regardless of the precise way in which MH17 was brought down," even if it's by a Buk missile as the best evidence suggests, he should point out how Kiev and its psycho false-flaggers were the ones with a known capability either way and the motive to do this on purpose. Instead, he says "at this point we can draw some reasonable conclusions: a BUK missile was most likely not involved." Oh. Well, to some, it almost looks like we can. Close enough? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 22:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I'll just point out (again), 30mm cannon shells either produce individual 30mm or larger holes on the skin if they pass through undetonated; or produce an even larger hole or crater if they detonate on contact.<br />
<br />
:The panel damage seen is way smaller than 30mm and there are no characteristic surface splash marks indicating surface detonation<br />
<br />
:I'm guessing the persistence of this rumour is a combinaton of aggressive fake propagandising by Russian spinmasters (GB I'm looking at you) together with a characteristically dumb audience who are perhaps misled into confusing 30-cal with 30mm - though they may even be dumber than that and not know what 30-cal is or even what 30mm is.<br />
<br />
:For those still confused. 30mm is around 1 1/4" diameter. 30-cal is around 3/10 of an inch --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 23:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Most of these experts never even looked at the available images. They just parrot theories they've read. At most they'll produce the image which originally accompanied the theory. Readers now just vaguely believe whichever one they first liked. I have not seen any new data or information for 3 weeks at least. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 23:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::The five (maybe even six) [https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BxBNE99IAAEYZAa.jpg:large neatly aligned ovoid impact holes] convinced me rapid cannon shelling was involved (if not 30mm shells, then maybe 23mm or even 20mm). One cannot possibly imagine how those can be produced by a fragmentation blast. At [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/10/11/russian-tv-inadvertently-demonstrates-mh17-wasnt-shot-down-by-aircraft-cannon-fire/ Bellingcat] they obviously didn't agree. But in my opinion their arguments simply do not hold water: [http://www.slinfo.de/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=25145&d=1413192330 Buk 9M38 M1 fragments]. --[[User:Pasparal|Pasparal]] ([[User talk:Pasparal|talk]]) 17:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
There would be no reason for Buk shrapnel to align on straight line, it will be random and, overall, evenly spread. What [https://www.flickr.com/photos/jeroenakkermans/14542021030/in/set-72157645471359080 we see] is overall random, but there is indeed something which appears neatly arranged and evenly spaced on a line, as Pasparal notes. For automatic cannon or machine gun, it can land like that. What is everything else we see, than would not be clear. We have not thought much about multiple events, for example Buk downing the plane, and than an attempt to finish it off from a plane, or other such multiple event scenarios. There needs to be more evidence to say something definite. If Bezler says his reconnaissance team spotted Buk, this is to be taken seriously. (But he did not say they saw it was used, or that they know for sure that nothing else was used). --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 18:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: This [http://www.yaplakal.com/findpost/25052325/forum1/topic863845.html 20 July reference] makes a early claim that Buk missed and planes finished it off, referring to some leak from UAF. I would say, trustworthiness of the source is unknown and presumed to be low. There may be earlier essentially similar claims, I do not know who made it first. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 18:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::The leak is highly suspect. We've been over the holes a bit from different presumptions. I don't feel we have a firm measure on the holes so I can't say whether they are even large enough for one or small enough for the other. I've been leaning to Buk shrapnel, with roundness from their complex 3-D shapes plus edge melting (which you can see happened some on closer shots) But if the holes were consistently too big, all or largely over 30 mm, that would have to change. That photo of shrapnel sizes I've never seen (four types not 3? ... the arc looks interesting. If it's worth covering in details, best place to continue would be [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Forensics]]. A couple different sections might work to keep your work where it's best found. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Radar Details ==<br />
I know we have much of the reportage and alleged details up on the various pages, but still I think a space here is good to outline the best-supported details from Russian or other radar used to support their even being a jet. I may pull that together if no one else does, in a simple bullet list below. Locations first and last seen, direction of travel, speed of travel, any maneuvers, anything about altitude, etc. Next step is to compare what that says with fighter jets, SU-25 or other vs., say, a high-drag fragment of the airliner drifting on winds as it falls, a helicopter, dense cloud formation, etc. Maybe I missed something, but on last review, it seemed the evidence presented is just vague enough either could fit and it seemed there was no clear case in support of this jet actually being present in the air ... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 14:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Russian military showed screen shots from unified traffic control in Rostov, second part of presentation. 3 RLS and some unspecified military data used. Recording we see starts at 13.19 UTC time (17.19 pm Moscow). Crash is 13:20 UTC. We see MH17 slows down from about v=1000 km/h to v=280 km/h (speed in km/h goes after # ), [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsvVXDKGnMQ#t=1253 at about 20:56 by the video time-stamp.] At this time, we see one circle representing MH17 becoming two circles (by whatever method they use to process their raw data). The second circle parameters cannot be acquired, so it is either part of MH17 without transponder, or it is a military plane which does not talk to Russians; they interpret this as a military plane. MH17 stays on screen for a bit, (which may be interpolation of earlier received data or new acquired data--unclear); than it disappears (what we see is another flight 351 only) While new circle, orange in color, moves a bit in the opposite direction (and gets stuck steady for a while in the video we see, for whatever reason. Russian military interpretation of data is that their ATC system was in a regular, sleepy mode, and it only sees what is above 5000 m in that mode. They say, military plane showed up once it acquired altitude, and was not seen before as it was lower. I do not think anybody questions the fact that this is genuine screen shot, but interpretation does not appear too convincing. There is no further information to go by, so if there is more to say, THEY have to make the case, and have experienced and knowledgeable people as judges. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 00:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Rostov radar MK report, 12 Nov. 2014, is based on the same data as the Russian MoD report, and is further discussed [[File_talk:MH17_Rostov_radar_MK.jpg|here]]. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 04:54, 15 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Test Shooting to Demonstrate==<br />
<br />
They did a test, Russian fighter shooting at dead planes on the ground. Some interesting results.<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=gzw363q1N3o<br />
As usual I don't understand the audio, but the images are good. I can't make out what he shoots with, I assume cannon (?) [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 12:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
As he say, SU 25, with 30 mm cannon,was used, should be the standard armament. Looks interesting, indeed. But SU 25 will have trouble staying at such height (may be not able to cruise, can only leap there); and it is slow, like about the same speed as Boeing, so it cannot really catch-up. There were reports to the effect that it is not well-pressurized or have oxygen mask in default configuration. It would need truly extraordinary piloting, and realistically a plane should be a fast high altitude type. But that would show up on radars, including civilian radars... And the closest base for such a plane will be in Kiev, so it will likely show there on AVACS as well. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 12:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: Radar we cannot count on. ATC generally uses secondary, ie only picks up transponder squawks. Military aircraft transmit a "friend" squawk on their own frequency. They are just as invisible to civilian ATC as MH17 was to a BUK TELAR looking for a military "friend" signal. This in itself makes a lie of the "Spanish Carlo" ATC story that there were 2 Ukie planes escorting MH17....he would not have seen them. <br />
: The Russian "radar" claimed to see SU 25's or something? the radar would not say what they are, they could be assuming SU's if they didn't know Ukraine had just (about 3 weeks earlier) got two of its MIG's back into the air. MIG 29's easily handle that altitude. <br />
: Kiev denied having any planes in the air that day, although apparently that morning the had gone on TV to say they were planning 8 sorties that day. AWACS for sure would know, BUT as the story was "Russia dunnit" with separatist BUK, they're not going to say, anyway it would point the wrong way, so..... MIGs have/can use that R60 missile.<br />
: It MUST BE A MISSILE otherwise it can't be blamed on a BUK, okay? the fragments are much the same from various missiles. Some even have interchangeable heads. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 19:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: [http://www.yaplakal.com/forum1/st/0/topic863845.html?hl=#entry25052325 That early leak] I mentioned actually say that Buk "missed" (which I interpret as not done the job, really), and air-to-air missiles from planes were used to finish. As for Russian data, I only looked once, and as far as I could tell, there was no other signal before the presumed impact. Than something showed up very shortly after, and they say, stayed there for a while. Objections were raised that there was nothing to be seen before, and what is seen later could be plane starting to dis-integrate. Other, experienced people raised similar issues, as well as that there was some computer issue, like it get frozen and next update showed plane moving at unreasonable velocity. I was not following this since, as I could not say much and experienced people made their comments. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 20:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::With Korean Boeing shot by USSR, it was hit possibly by 1 or two air-to air missiles, but it kept flying for quite a while after that before it crashed; so I interpret "missed" as not dropping it off air at once --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 20:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::Smaller weaker missiles in those days. Another KAL kept flying and landed on ice or something. Both were hit above the wings, opening the fuselage a bit (and not too good result for some passengers). But the pilots alive and control surfaces and engines functioning, so really no worse off than the Aloha Airlines case in Hawaii where the roof blew off from decompression (metal fatigue). The one that crashed did have control surface damage. MH17 had the pilots killed, and all the avionics (computer control) in the bay below them, went into a flat spin that peeled off the roof, then the cockpit broke off, so.....a fair few military craft have survived missile hits, too. Proximity ones from the side, not heat-seekers which always get the engine.<br />
:::So actually, if it was a terrible mistake,they were very unlucky with where it struck. But if it was deliberate, they WOULD have to have a bird up to make sure, as the investigations would be much more thorough if the pilots could call for help, and maybe sort of land and some people survived. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 10:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::Yes, if it was planned, surface to air the main plan, need some planes, perhaps as a taxi to do the bookkeeping, but (mostly), just in case for plan B, if there is job started but not completed. (As I understand, civilian radar watches above 5000 m, so it is consistent with low-flying 'patrol', doing something else if needed). --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Civilian radar is secondary only -- strictly not even radar, they just query the transponders (that's hows MH370 "disappeared" as soon as the transponder went off). Military uses primary, actual radar that sends signals everywhere to see what bounces back. They can also listen for a "friend" squawk ("foe" they never hear as they can't ask the enemy to signal itself, so response = brother, no response = enemy oh oops civilian is also no response, oh...) Anyway point is ATC was not looking because airspace was closed to civilian traffic below 28,000 feet and they were actually only sending them over at 32,000 or 35,000 (in peace time they'd be looking at all levels because of local traffic). But now, could be a whole squadron in formation there and ATC would not know. <br />
::Russia might know, as they've been looking that way. With the curvature of the earth and radar strength, what they'd see would depend on distance and altitude, so this is an unknown to us. They do claim to think they saw something. The AWACS over Romania and Poland may have similar blind spot problems. They would be looking for the threat (Russia) not the Kiev machines, which would be on bombing missions they approved of (blocks of flats, kindergartens and so on).<br />
:: '''brand new conspiracy theory''' they are practising radar aiming, but ooops, the button is not locked. Fighter with bird's eye view sees rocket coming, thinks he'll be a hero and help out if needed. Ooops. Well it's gonna crash anyway, better make a good job of it, dead men don't talk. But no, if it was BUK+plane, it was no accident. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 20:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Pilot Named - Documentary==<br />
<br />
Documentary maker Andrei Karaulov just releasing "How the Boeing Died" which will be sown first on Russian TV. "In the picture the first time is named the 299th Squadron Air Force of Ukraine, Su-25, hull numbers 06,07,08 and 38, which, contrary to the statement of the General Staff of Ukraine, were indeed in the airspace of the country on 17 July 2014. Malaysian "Boeing", according to our data, was shot by Su-25, hull number 08, which was piloted by Lt. Col. Ukrainian Air Force Dmytro Yakatsuts who from July 18 to this day is in the UAE. Malaysian "Boeing" was led by the Kiev center manager Anna Petrenko, who in the morning on July 18, suddenly went on vacation, from which has not returned. The film includes a miraculously obtained admission from the first mate of the current Minister of Defense of Ukraine that the Ukrainian Air Force shot down "Boeing". So says the [http://moment-istini.com/news/newsrus/2087.html teaser] while the full version of the film will be available after the broadcast of Channel Five program Moment of Truth from 24.11.2014 also [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1QH03NtVQ0 on Youtube] [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 13:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
:(essentially identical translation here) (Rather controversial in the past) journalist Andrei Karaulov is promising to show his new documentary "How Boeing died", in 24.11 broadcast of his regular talk show [http://moment-istini.com/news/newsrus/2087.html Moment of Truth], and later on youtube. Akrady Mamontov independent investigation claims that 299 Air Wing of UAF, hull numbers 06,07,08,09, 38 were in Ukraine airspace on 17 July 2014. Authors claim that their data show that Boeing was shot by "SU-25 piloted by Lieutenant Colonel of UAF Dmytro Yakatsuts that from July 18 to this day is in the UAE. Malaysian "Boeing" was routed by the Kiev ATC manager Anna Petrenko, who in the morning on July 18 unexpectedly went on vacation, out of which did not come back until now." "Numerous other evidence" is presented in the film "including an interview, obtained by a miracle, with first mate of the current Minister of Defense of Ukraine, that "Boeing" was shot down by the Ukrainian Air Force. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Video with all that is private, may become public after the broadcast. Not sure what to make of it; looks like evidence is that those guys disappeared shortly after, and there is something being said in the 'miracle interview'. Apart from vacation details, first mate is [http://www.mil.gov.ua/ministry/kerivnicztvo/kerivnicztvo-ministerstva-oboroni-ukraini/rusnak-ivan-stepanovich.html Rusnak Ivan Stepanovich], and his background is Air Defense. He may, or should, know but what did he actually say? Karaulov appears to be 'investigations' talk show man. Now he has this movie , where actual investigation appears to be done by a journalist (and off-air talk show man himself) Arkadii Mamontov. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:18, 24 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
This is a 'propaganda movie', they put together all those things we heard before, and than some more. Video is [http://dnr-news.com/tv/8582-moment-istiny-kak-pogib-boing.html here] . Regarding first mate, at 39:56 author says: I could not reach Defense Minister, but somehow manage to reach first mate "a Russian guy, Ivan Vladimirovich, did not reveeal his last name" (it's on the web! Perhaps he mixed up middle name, or else it's a different guy. Author: "we will show our movie worldwide," so (in preparation to attempted mng with defence minister himself), "is it possible that there is some other leak that your SU 25 jets, 299 air wing, have been in the air" Answer of unseen man said to be "Ivan Vladimirovich": "I (some noise ? do not ?) exclude such possibility" Author: " So please inform the minister this will be the topic of conversation". Ivan Vladimiroich "OK, I understand." From further discussion I think the answer was assumed to be "I exclude such possibility (so just noise, no 'do not') . This is not much information either way, he just did not say much. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 22:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
14:59 witness Vladimir, Rassypnoe: There was a bang, with plane in the clouds. Than out of clouds, and he saw the plane "without cabin" . Than "wing fell off" , and plane started to spin. Hmm, interesting. But could he actually see all that? --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 22:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
1:30 [http://tass-analytics.com/experts/diskin-iosif-evgenevich Iosif Diskin], member of the Civic Chamber of Russia, tells us that "it was established that one of the engine stopped, and only after 1.5 minutes all the other systems went out" (has anybody heard such a thing? I believe preliminary report shows everything out at once?)--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 23:16, 24 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
On top of saying that journos know about the planes somehow, the author in passing mentions an earlier link "by NATO guys," which since "disappeared from the internet". Indeed there is something on internet <br />
[http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ba3_1416456807 liveleak] with Rammstein music accompaniment. But this seems to be about Yatseniuk visit to this well-trained air wing. It does show some of those numbers on hulls, including number 8. So it is plausible that numbers were gleaned from unrelated report about Yatseniuk visit? Or they got it elsewhere? --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 04:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
: [https://arsenalnsoz.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/3l.jpeg Dmytro Yakatsuts photo], more [http://for-ua.info/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8343&start=140 squadron photos] , and [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XL5jTmm6PU flight training video at Kulbakino Airbase, Nikolaev (2013)]--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 02:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Radio Intercept?===<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_d65Adj4s5k This video] is said to be a record of a fighter plane pilot, 17 July, sometime from 16.16 to 16.22 local, 136.000 (MHz) radio frequency. Hard to understand what he says; what I could get is <br />
сброс (discharge/reset)333 на первом (first) ком... 333 контрольная (control) командир (commander)... (than quickly,indistinctly, something ).... 33 контрольная (control) 3 на боевом (active/armed/ready for action) контрольная (control). <br />
Don't know what to make of it; but looks like pilot discharged something (missile or bomb), than activated something (perhaps the thing he discharged); and also that he is a commandeering pilot. Video is uploaded by Sharii. A commentator interprets a fragment as "633-й на 3-ем ТБ 1500-т, контрольная"<br />
hull 633 third Bombing point Altitude 1500 meters...so this is mostly likely bombing, not missile. Another commentator claims that it was produced on 16 July. OK, unlikely to be of help, looks like it is intercept from bombing raid. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 20:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
==Lev Alexandrovich==<br />
[http://7mei.nl/2015/05/30/lev/ Interviewed at 7mei.nl] . He says he saw 3 'sturmovik' (SU 25) planes on the day, one of those 'forsaging' (using engines thrust to go up) in the direction of the Boeing. Than he heard 'bah-bah' 'bah'--three bangs. Can't say for sure what the 'bahs' were, missile or gun. Did not see or hear a Buk launch. Had pieces of the plane falling nearby. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:03, 3 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
:Describes loud "soulbreaking" engine turbines roar after the plane was hit (consistent with engine sucking up broken blades; --we know that happened- spotted by Kat Kan)--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:40, 4 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
::People say they saw his interview in early days, and some say it was vanished by BBC. I am seeing this guy for the first time here. When he describes sounds, bah-bah bah, roaring engine, this sounds strong and vivid, as something he remembers with great confidence. Also goes with smells, he mentioned what smells as cologne/ deodorant (he said 'like Channel no 5', --does not have to be, he is a miner, not cologne tester ) Other things, e.g. how fast it happened, he could not really tell. With other two planes, it sounded as something a bit more distant or more tentative, not by much -FWIW --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 19:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=="Captain Voloshin"==<br />
{{Main|Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Vladislav Voloshin}}<br />
<br />
A guy came to [http://www.kp.ru/daily/26323.5/3204312/ Komsomol Pravda newspaper office o tell a story.] [http://fortruss.blogspot.com/2014/12/meet-pilot-who-shot-down-malysian.html translated] He says that he was in Ukraine, in an airport in small town [https://www.google.com/maps/place/Aviators'ke,+Dnipropetrovsk+Oblast,+Ukraine/@48.3679521,35.081308,13z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x40dbfbc57817aa53:0xd009882666b30b87 Aviatorskoe], near Dnepropetrovsk. (This is Dnepropetrovsk International Airport site.) <br />
* (from video testimony) Three SU 25 flew on a mission about 1 hour from MH 17 crash. He claims that he witnessed departure himself, and saw air-to air missiles on one of the planes. He was located on-site of the airport at the time. Only one plane, piloted by Voloshin, returned back, with air-to-air missiles now missing. <br />
* He says he know the pilot (a bit), and thought he is a guy who could panic. After return, pilot was talking about "a plane in a wrong place at a wrong time".<br />
*3.6.15: [http://rt.com/news/264545-mh17-investigators-key-witness/ Identified:] Evgeny Agapov, an aviation armaments mechanic in the Ukrainian Air Force. The man is currently under Russian state protection. voluntarily crossed the state border of the Russian Federation and expressed a desire to cooperate with the Russian investigation.” Agapov has testified that on July 17, 2014, a Ukrainian Sukhoi Su-25 jet aircraft piloted by one Captain Voloshin “set out for a military task,” Markin said.--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hnYeD77MZo Video of official questioning released]. Confirms details in KP interview: 3 planes went out on 17 July, only one with Voloshin returned. Later on 17 July, while plane was serviced on the return to the airport, Agapov heard a phrase "not the right plane" said by Voloshin. Later in the day, Agapov learned that Boeing was shot down. Later in the evening, at around 11 pm, Agapov overheard a conversation of Voloshin with a group of other pilots. Diakev (another pilot) asked Voloshin, "what's (happened) with the plane?" Voloshin answer was, the plane was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Voloshin plane was equipped with R60 (heat seeking) air to air missiles. There were two planes equipped with R60 missiles, but Voloshin plane was the only such plane in the air on 17 July (and taking off that airport in Dnepropetrovsk). The other R60 equipped plane on some different occasions was accompanying and protecting other planes on bombing missions. Agapov was an air mechanic called for military duty. He objected punishing operation by Ukraine on moral grounds, and left because of that. He had no ill feelings to accuse the pilots without basis. He has nothing of substance to add. Komsomolskaia pravda now published full transcript with their comments, reporters say this guy at some point got scared, and kind of 'froze', needed questions repeated etc, but they did not feel he was lying --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: The [http://7mei.nl/2015/05/30/lev/ new witness] you linked to elsewhere is totally corroborating the story, with the two shot-down planes being very close to the ones recognized on July 23, in the right spots (near Shakhtersk). It just totally makes no sense (why would one of the three pilots suddenly decide to climb up to hit that plane he barely could have been aware of?) --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 19:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::Don't know why, the issue for now are they telling the truth, -I do not spot obvious lies but I have no experience interrogating any people :) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 19:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
Text in the newspaper closely follows testimony. Witness have some professional knowledge, is not nervous. Can be military, or intelligence guy (better/clearer spoken than a typical mechanic; and slower than a salesperson. Boss of mechanics? Maybe. Says he has friends in Novorossia and is against ATO ). Newspaper says they done some (unspecified) checks and did not detect an obvious fake. Not sure what to make of this; not much verifiable details. Just linking the story. Voice is altered, but what we do hear sounds like lower-frequency "Russian Russian", no accent, nothing Southern-sounding <br />
*[http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/russian-military-plane-shot-down-ukrainian-su-25-aircraft-in-ukraine-356422.html 16 of July Su 25 reported shot], [http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=167954 said to be at 19:00 local, at Russian_Ukrainian border], publication dated July 17, 2014, 12:51 p.m; <br />
*[http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/ukrainian-defense-ministry-confirms-damage-of-su-25-in-countrys-east-356347.html another was reported damaged, Gorlovka, Donetsk region, 16 of July], [http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=167950 said to be at 13:00 local], publication dated July 16, 2014, 11:14 p.m. <br />
:So, it appears that at least one, possibly both of those planes said to be shot on 16 July indeed went down on 16, not 17 of July, as our witness claims. That raises some caution as to whether witness report is accurate. <br />
: If I am to speculate, the investigating commission at this point already should know whether a plane was involved, from shrapnel in pilot bodies. Most likely planes '''were''' involved (Buk is just too big to do alone such fine job we seem to see, making downing by single Buk not too likely). So now the question is, was it intentional or accidental. Our witness is there to tell us it was accidental. And prior to that, he was sitting in bushes in Dnepropetrovsk, right on his Novorossian friendship. Don't we have some horns visible there? <br />
:--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:56, 23 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Definitely relevant accusations and worth considering. And good job with the context fill-in. However, if the story is like you related it, I'm calling probably bullshit. Suspicious omniscience, he saw everything needed to know just what happened - and it's a possibility with clear political implications and not clearly backed up as "what we know happened" - traditionally not an indicator of truthfulness. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbTYW2SNxMM An audio interview given by KP correspondents emerged] (posted by [http://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/1958596.html Cassad]). Audio provides some explanation of why the witness ("Alexander") was silent before, saying that he and his family stayed in Ukraine, and only now were able to all move to safety (in Russia, presumably). KP correspondent also relayed that witness was very nervous and fearful, insisting that his voice is changed, etc. (Well, this does not tell a lot, actually). Also, that he explained why there were some powerful aerial explosions, that's because [http://armyrus.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=672&Itemid=2086 volume blast munitions, "Fuel-Air Explosion Aircraft Bomb"] (designed in Afganistan war times and likely banned thereafter) were used. Reporter also said it was kind of difficult to pull words out of witness mouth; and that his role was 'technical services", no further details provided. It was said that missile launches should be recorded in the paperwork and so a record confirming witness story are supposed to be on the books somewhere. <br />
:Cassad also linked videos of some flights of the only SU 25 Novorossia had. First military sortie was [http://novorussia.today/vid/videos/%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%B9-%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B9-%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B5%D1%82-%D1%81%D1%83-25-%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%B8-%D0%BB%D0%BD%D1%80-03-09-14/ on September 3]; but there was an earlier report that it made it to the air, making one flight over Luhansk [http://rusvesna.su/news/1405241886 on 13 of July] . This plane initially [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWYGvx6iLe4 was crash-landed by an Ukrainian pilot at Luhansk airport]. That came about from a discussion on what other plane Voloshin reportedly talked about (as he said "wrong plane") ; this Novorossian SU 25 suggested as an alternative to (outlandish) Putin's plane suggestions.--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:56, 23 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: According to [http://rt.com/news/217295-mh17-ukraine-military-plane/ this RT article], a Vladimir Markin, spokesman for an "Investigative Committee", says they have interviewed the man, tested him with a polygraph and consider his statements to be truthful. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Yeah, there is something about this guy, his KP interview also sounded super-steady. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Missile?==<br />
According to reporter audio, it is [https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0-60 R60]. But R 60 is listed as rod-type with infrared homing, and a proximity fuse (radar or optical); does not seem to be rods damage, looks more like fragmentation warhead. (Reporter said that there are two types of R60. For now, can see details on only one). Witness did not say R60, just some air-to air missile. He also discussed some air-to air missile which shoots some buckshot-like charge, before the main explosion (he was trying to explain pilot cabin damage). Not sure what missile that would be. R60 has high explosives fragmentation-type charge surrounded by rods; do not see details like there is a smaller charge elsewhere on R60 warhead. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I disagree. I find it likely that MH17 was hit with a R 60 or something similar. There are at least these four things that point to a rod warhead.<br />
:# The left engine was hit, pointing to infrared homing.<br />
:# The damage on the upper surface of the left wing was described as likely caused be a rod warhead. I agree. <br />
:#:can be anything fast-flying, does not seem to be a rod to me --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 17:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:# I would be impossible to see the rod damage in the [[List of MH17 airframe parts|MH17 airframe parts]]. The rods would shred the airframe to pieces. The rod damage would be the separation or two sections. One would need to microscopically study edges of the parts to see if they were torn or spliced.<br />
:#:It may be that we do not see rod damage because it shredded some portion to pieces, but it would most likely cause catastrophic disintegration, it would split it into two parts. But it was kind of still flying for a while with stuff coming off (as I understand)--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 17:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:# The bullet hole type holes in the cockpit do not alone explain what brought down the plane. (Killing the pilots would help in the long run.) Even less do they explain the catastrophic breakup of the fuselage. My hypothesis is that rod damage separated the cockpit from the rest of the fuselage. This separation might explain why there was nothing on the flight data recorders. <br />
:#:should be further towards center, damage on pilot cabin are not rods--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 17:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:-- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 16:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
If we look at the Figure on page 22 of [http://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/uploads/phase-docs/701/b3923acad0ceprem-rapport-mh-17-en-interactief.pdf Dutch preliminary report], hypothetical rods should go into a portion shown in white (and cut in a cross-section though there, fully or almost fully; rods are often tied by the ends, and they fly off radially, away from cylindrical missile axes, all designed to cut through plane bodies). So than they have to go almost in the middle of business class in front (or in the rear, which is unlikely). If it through the middle of business class, I guess it will be known by now, from rods lodged in bodies, and as we will expect to have rather large chunk of forward section landing on the ground in one piece. In fact, stuff may come of just because there were holes opened up, while the plane went into spin (from engine and wing damage); no need for rods to bring plane down. It could have disintegrated because of the spin, eventually. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 19:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Full presentation by Almaz-Antey ( Buk-m2 manufacturer ) about the incident [http://tass.ru/boeing-presentation/vvedenie/2023629#/2023629].<br />
Still only in Russian. Unfortunately even in Russian somebody the diagrams are not self-explanatory. But main arguments are clear. It includes calculations of the attack angle of the rocket in order to cause such damage.<br />
<br />
==Vanished ATC dispatcher ==<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnrCyP_crGw#t=77 Anna (Anechka) Petrenko,] dispatcher from Dnepropetrovsk ATC said to be routing MH17, was said to be questioned for 2 hours by SBU, than took a vacation and did not return . Born 16 December 1987. Gradauted from Kirovograd Aviation Academy. [http://www.bolshoyvopros.ru/questions/1072060-chto-govorit-aviadispetcher-kotoryj-zavel-malazijskij-boing-v-zonu-ato.html#answer3286226 This post] also gives those details, photos, and a link to deleted VK account and some friend account. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 17:16, 26 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Vanished dispatcher seems more serious than a vanished military pilot. Military pilot does not have a high salary, even in Ukraine switching to civilian aviation increases salary 10 fold, working for a foreign civilian or private employer may be even more profitable. So there is finance reason to quit military and go 'on vacation'. But for a civilian dispatcher, no such reason. Nobody will hire her abroad. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 04:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Why everyone is throwing around "Su-25"? ==<br />
<br />
One thing that keeps getting me extremely mad about this is WHY everybody on the internet KEEPS INSISTING that it was Su-25 and not something else??? <br />
<br />
How about we look back at the [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSpeo5RcQQo&t=11m41s the source]? I've got a convenient transcript for you:<br />
<br />
'''Russian General:''' ''Кроме того, российскими средствами контроля воздушной обстановки зафиксирован набор высоты самолетом украинских ВВС, предположительно Су-25, в направлении малазийского Boeing 777.''<BR><br />
'''Translator''' (who's experience, to be honest, seems to be limited to thumbing through English dictionary, rather than actually speaking English on a daily basis)''':''' ''Besides, Russian means of air traffic control fixed Ukrainian aircraft climbing to the direction of Malaysian Boeing-seven-seven. It is supposed that it was Su-25.''<BR><br />
'''Proper translation''': ''Additionally, Russian airspace monitoring system has recorded the climbing of a Ukrainian Air Force airplane, '''supposedly Su-25''', in the direction of Malaysian Boeing-777.''<BR><br />
<br />
Excuse me, what part of "supposedly" you do not understand? Nobody ever ''officially'' claimed it ''was'' Su-25. What they claim is that "the radar signature of that plane looked a lot like Su-25", but that is true of a whole lot of planes! -- [[User:Ed3218|Ed3218]] ([[User talk:Ed3218|talk]]) 19:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: I guess we are here perfectly fine with a different plane, but what is the evidence that there was a plane? Witnesses, yes. This Russian MoD presentation, no. It shows something else which does not move much at all. Could be a blip in data or a plane splitting into two-that would not give active response as well as a military jet. If Russian MoD has more to say on this, they need to make a better case, so far it does not really establish the second plane. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 19:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: My personal opinion of that blip is that it's a big radio-reflective part that fell off Boeing after the hit (whatever the hit was), but that's just that: opinion. What I'm trying to say is that the argument "Su-25 cannot climb that high, therefore there was no plane!!!111" is invalid and should be taken off the board whenever it surfaces. (Whereas "the blip was too slow for a plane" ''is'' a valid claim.) -- [[User:Ed3218|Ed3218]] ([[User talk:Ed3218|talk]]) 20:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: In other words, the claim "Witnesses, through the heavy snowfall, saw a man fleeing the crime scene riding a four-legged animal, which looked like a zebra" cannot be dismissed by saying "zebras cannot tolerate extreme cold, therefore the witnesses are lieing"; they could have mistaken a horse (possibly in disguise) for a zebra. There still may be other reasons to not believe the witnesses, but "zebra argument" is not one of them. -- [[User:Ed3218|Ed3218]] ([[User talk:Ed3218|talk]]) 20:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::: We are not dismissing a plane possibility, including an interceptor plane. But what would be a theory, and what is supporting evidence? --At this point, the official investigation likely knows is it air-to-air or surface to air; so proposing a theory with no/little evidence is not very attractive. Comments focusing on SU 25 are from old times when it was not known Ukraine got interceptor planes actually flying (not just listed), and to discuss theories by others. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 23:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::: I do not have anything to add to the plane theory that hasn't been said yet. I'm just pointing out a logical fallacy in the "plane deniers" arguments to make sure our minds are open to ''all'' theories. As Sherlock Holmes said, ''"...when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"'' The only thing I'm saying here is that the "Su-25 can't fly that high" argument doesn't alone make the plane theory impossible, because a) nobody claimed it was ''specifically'' Su-25 (could be anything else) and b) Su-25, in fact, can fly quite high ([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GY_2NoHdNso&t=5m33s video proof of Su-25 flying at 8700 m just fine]). Once again, some rock solid facts disproving plane theory may eventually surface, but the "zebra claim" is not one of them. -- [[User:Ed3218|Ed3218]] ([[User talk:Ed3218|talk]]) 23:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: Interestingly, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-43NmR9ppBo this video] has witness claiming they saw a plane. --[[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 22:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC) ~~\}\}øþþþ¨22:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)~<br />
<br />
:: Indeed. But while eyewitness accounts are valid evidence, they are always subject to greater scrutiny than material evidence (of which we have very little). Once again, I'm neither saying "it was a plane", nor "it wasn't a plane", I'm honestly saying "I don't know". -- [[User:Ed3218|Ed3218]] ([[User talk:Ed3218|talk]]) 00:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I totally agree that SU-25 is silly to get so official. It was deduced from being the most common Ukie jet, I think. I don't believe it was a jet, despite what the anti-Kiev witnesses trying to blame Kiev said. Could be, but I doubt it. But to be fair to jet theories, somewhere on the page here (or maybe a sub-page?) I skipped SU-25 and called the maybe jet an unknown but capable model. Any radar track with speed, etc. could help narrow it down but that's been really vague. But... it's also not part of the plane. Measured it once, eassily too far away. Unknown blip with no clear sign of real movement. A mystery. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 00:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Tin Foil (Hat) theory of Military Chaff falling in crash video ==<br />
<br />
Video shows man explaing that long streamers in crash video are actually military chaff from a Ukranian fighter shadowing MH17<br />
<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUltrf8n_vA Military Chaff Theory]<br />
<br />
Simple debunk. The stuff must have been a metre or more wide and hundreds of metres long to be visible at that range. No such military chaff system has that sizing, least of all one that can be carried by a fighter jet.<br />
<br />
The only foil in this video is on the guy's head.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 00:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I don't even know what "military chaff" is, but I saw someone mention the streamers, connected to the plane having a cargo including textiles. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 22:19, 20 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:No, It seems to me the chaff is falling in the foreground while the smoke cloud is kilometers away. A lucky shot just got them both in the same picture. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 22:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
::just to belatedly clarify - chaff would be emitted by the plane before being shot down, in the hope of causing the missile to home onto the chaff ather than the plane itself. This is the purpose of chaff. So the chaff could be many kilometres behind the plane. The images in that video most likely WERE chaff, because that video has since been proven to be NOT MH17 but a Ukrainian military plane that was downed 2 days earlier. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 19:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
In [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-43NmR9ppBot his video] witnesses claim they saw a plane firing flares and chaff falling from the sky. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 20:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:Woman witness in the above video claim that her '''friend''' saw a military plane releasing shining metallic reflectors; but the friend is not on the video; while the woman herself talks about plane on "fire" (and smoke trail) ; but smoke started only when it hit the ground. A different earlier plane was on fire, though. So it seems that she may be confused.--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 21:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qp5w8HKFnfI Vanished BBC video] witnesses appear to be trustworthy and describe the correct event; but they did not identify the other plane --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 21:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)</div>Antidyatelhttps://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Antidyatel&diff=22589User talk:Antidyatel2015-06-06T14:06:34Z<p>Antidyatel: </p>
<hr />
<div>Hi and welcome to ACLOS, Antidyatel! Please make yourself familiar with the basic formatting as described [http://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/wiki/A_Closer_Look_On_Syria:Community_portal#Editing here]. Thanks! (*clicks the button third from right above the edit window and gets*:) --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 09:45, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
:Thanks, CE, was about to. Antid, I hear it's a device limitation? Row of buttons visible above text box? If so, use! If not, type. If you can't get all symbols can you copy and paste? This <nowiki>--~~~~</nowiki> can be pasted for proper signature. Ext. links you get, etc. Glad to have you. Cheers --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:32, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
:Also at first I didn't know where the tilde ~ was - it's left of the 1 here, + shift --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:39, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Also I've just noticed some comments from you around (have been behind on MH-17, out of loop). Curious what your screen name means. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:32, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
Thank you all for welcoming and advices on how to leave the signature. Just added it to all of my comments. The limitation was not so much of the smart-phone problem but wrong use of signature. I would place to button and replace [[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 13:45, 6 June 2015 (UTC) with Antidyatel. Can't explain why I had to do it like this, but this is how I though it is logical at that moment.<br />
Dyatel is transliteration of russian word Woodpecker. Started long time ago. In a country side, after a drunkard night at 5 am a woodpecker set on the metallic lamp post. And for 30 minutes he was insisting on pecking it. Trust me not the best feeling. Also pecking in Russian has a meaning of annoying, usually based on rubbish talk. Multiple historical and current affairs issues are presented in a manner that qualifies under such talk. So Antidyatel becomes meaningful, for me at least.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 13:45, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Probably need to let all of you know that I was banned from commenting on Bellingcat and the Guardian. Don't think that there wasn't conspiracy topside truth. I did loose control several times. But to my defence the number of woodpeckers on the metallic lampposts was intolerable on those two platforms. Plus if case of Bellingcat I suggested to submit the case of Eliot Higgins to international court for crimes against humanity, siting chemical attack in Damascus episode as a primary evidence. Promise to behave ;))<br />
--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 14:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)</div>Antidyatelhttps://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Antidyatel&diff=22588User talk:Antidyatel2015-06-06T14:04:17Z<p>Antidyatel: </p>
<hr />
<div>Hi and welcome to ACLOS, Antidyatel! Please make yourself familiar with the basic formatting as described [http://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/wiki/A_Closer_Look_On_Syria:Community_portal#Editing here]. Thanks! (*clicks the button third from right above the edit window and gets*:) --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 09:45, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
:Thanks, CE, was about to. Antid, I hear it's a device limitation? Row of buttons visible above text box? If so, use! If not, type. If you can't get all symbols can you copy and paste? This <nowiki>--~~~~</nowiki> can be pasted for proper signature. Ext. links you get, etc. Glad to have you. Cheers --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:32, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
:Also at first I didn't know where the tilde ~ was - it's left of the 1 here, + shift --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:39, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Also I've just noticed some comments from you around (have been behind on MH-17, out of loop). Curious what your screen name means. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:32, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
Thank you all for welcoming and advices on how to leave the signature. Just added it to all of my comments. The limitation was not so much of the smart-phone problem but wrong use of signature. I would place to button and replace [[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 13:45, 6 June 2015 (UTC) with Antidyatel. Can't explain why I had to do it like this, but this is how I though it is logical at that moment.<br />
Dyatel is transliteration of russian word Woodpecker. Started long time ago. In a country side, after a drunkard night at 5 am a woodpecker set on the metallic lamp post. And for 30 minutes he was insisting on pecking it. Trust me not the best feeling. Also pecking in Russian has a meaning of annoying, usually based on rubbish talk. Multiple historical and current affairs issues are presented in a manner that qualifies under such talk. So Antidyatel becomes meaningful, for me at least.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 13:45, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Probably need to let all of you know that I was banned from commenting on Bellingcat and the Guardian. Don't think that there wasn't conspiracy topside truth. I did loose control several times. But to my defence the number of woodpeckers on the metallic lampposts was intolerable on those two platforms. Plus if case of Bellingcat I suggested to submit the case of Eliot Higgins to international court for crimes against humanity, siting chemical attack in Damascus episode as a primary evidence. Promise to behave ;))<br />
--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 14:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)</div>Antidyatelhttps://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Antidyatel&diff=22587User talk:Antidyatel2015-06-06T14:03:47Z<p>Antidyatel: </p>
<hr />
<div>Hi and welcome to ACLOS, Antidyatel! Please make yourself familiar with the basic formatting as described [http://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/wiki/A_Closer_Look_On_Syria:Community_portal#Editing here]. Thanks! (*clicks the button third from right above the edit window and gets*:) --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 09:45, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
:Thanks, CE, was about to. Antid, I hear it's a device limitation? Row of buttons visible above text box? If so, use! If not, type. If you can't get all symbols can you copy and paste? This <nowiki>--~~~~</nowiki> can be pasted for proper signature. Ext. links you get, etc. Glad to have you. Cheers --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:32, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
:Also at first I didn't know where the tilde ~ was - it's left of the 1 here, + shift --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:39, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Also I've just noticed some comments from you around (have been behind on MH-17, out of loop). Curious what your screen name means. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:32, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
Thank you all for welcoming and advices on how to leave the signature. Just added it to all of my comments. The limitation was not so much of the smart-phone problem but wrong use of signature. I would place to button and replace [[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 13:45, 6 June 2015 (UTC) with Antidyatel. Can't explain why I had to do it like this, but this is how I though it is logical at that moment.<br />
Dyatel is transliteration of russian word Woodpecker. Started long time ago. In a country side, after a drunkard night at 5 am a woodpecker set on the metallic lamp post. And for 30 minutes he was insisting on pecking it. Trust me not the best feeling. Also pecking in Russian has a meaning of annoying, usually based on rubbish talk. Multiple historical and current affairs issues are presented in a manner that qualifies under such talk. So Antidyatel becomes meaningful, for me at least.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 13:45, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Probably need to let all of you know that I was banned from commenting on Bellingcat and the Guardian. Don't think that there wasn't conspiracy topside truth. I did loose control several times. But to my defence the number of woodpeckers on the metallic lampposts was intolerable on those two platforms. Plus if case of Bellingcat I suggested to submit the case of Eliot Higgins to international court for crimes against humanity, siting chemical attack in Damascus episode as a primary evidence. Promise to behave ;))<br />
--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 14:03, 6 June 2015 (UTC)</div>Antidyatelhttps://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17/BUK_Tracking&diff=22586Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/BUK Tracking2015-06-06T13:56:57Z<p>Antidyatel: /* Kiev's Buks Shuffled? */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:MH17]]<br />
==Who Has the BUK Launchers in Ukraine?==<br />
=== Kiev's Holdings ===<br />
<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3MomxNHnUA#t=288 Ukrainian Buk in ATO area], 16 July 2014. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 23:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CBQbFC9loc#t=350 Captured map] of 1 battalion of UAF 95 air-mobile brigade, dated beginning of July 2014, show location of 2 positions of Ukrainian Buks. Basurin points them on the map; but video resolution is insufficient to see those. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 05:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Maps can be faked, but still I'm curious what it shows. I imagine there might be a flat image of the map somewhere. Resup, could you maybe have a look? It's too slow for me to try an image search with translated words. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
::I have not seen the map in news reports mentioning the finding; and now I see it says explicitly that they are not going to make it public, [http://real-info.info/novorossiya/13429-vlasti-dnr-ne-budut-obnarodovat-karty-vsu-do-okonchaniya-rassledovaniya-krusheniya-mh17 until MH 17 investigation is completed]--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 23:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::Here is a press conference report--with video but not the map --[https://vk.com/strelkov_info?w=wall-57424472_57351 (Basurin press conference)]--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 23:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
It is possible to understand what it means when they say Ukr army controlled territory. But what is rebel controlled territory. Even if we take the maximum estimate for rebel numbers in July 2014 of 10,000 fighters, it gives a fraction of a rebel per square km, if we assume uniform distribution. In reality rebels very concentrated in Lughansk, Donetzk, Saur Mogila, 2 cauldrons. So everything else is free for all territory. When MSM declares rebel controlled territory, they just rely on Kiev's maps. Very reliable source. --[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 13:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)-- Antidyatel June 6<br />
:That's a good point that really came into play with the [[Mariupol Market Shelling]] incident - turns out all this eastern fire form rebel-held areas is from areas listed by Kiev as places they don't have full control over, that any crazy thing could happen from and it's prob'ly not them. Might even be a section on that here, if not, could be. There is an apparent pass right through a checkpoint, basically where the Pari Match "photo" was taken. That at least is a problem for a simple slip-in op, but it can be done and otherwise the theory could explain a lot (like, everything maybe) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC) <br />
<br />
<br />
==== BUK 312 and comrades ====<br />
[[File:Buk 312 sbu.jpg|thumb|left|BUK 312 on a trailer. Photo shown on SBU website and later removed. – ''[[:File:Buk 312 sbu.jpg|more...]]'']]<br />
Part of the material the Ukrainian SBU released to suggest that "rebels" shot down MH17 with a BUK, was photo material showing a BUK TELAR numbered 312 on a trailer, alleging it has been photographed on its way back to Russia. This was quickly shown to be extremely questionable as evidence surfaced showing number 312 in Ukrainian hands. The SBU then removed the photos from their website while other material like a suggestive photo showing a "plume" remained there. <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Buk 321.png|thumb|TELAR 321 as posted by @MOR2537 to illustrate what he alleges to have witnessed]]<br />
This was outlined (and a screenshot saved) in more detail [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/07/21/the-mh17-investigation-and-buk-312/ over at Human Rights Investigations]. A [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bj-VZB0ZdEA video embedded there] shows BUK 312 in Ukrainian hands back in March. The other two TELAR's seen in the video are numbers 323 and 321. BUK 321 [http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Ukrainian+government+forces+maneuver+antiaircraft+missile+launchers+they+transported+north+west+from+Slavyansk+eastern+Ukraine+Friday+July+2014+Photo+Dmitry+Lovetsky/10004193/story.html has been seen] in Ukrainian hands just two weeks before MH17 crashed, transported close to "liberated" Slavyansk. <br />
<br />
Interestingly enough, one of the tweets [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com/2014/07/reconstruction-of-whereabouts-of-buk.html spoon-fed by Ukrainian loyalists to imaginative Dutch blogger Ukraine@War] to suggest that there have been eyewitnesses for a "rebel" BUK, is then [https://twitter.com/MOR2537/status/489709431467171841 followed-up by the alleged eyewitness] with a picture of BUK 321 to illustrate what he has seen. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::yep, he is a conduit for Kiev but seems to have outside info, too. Like originals of photos he can get geolocations off (he says). But also has good collection of very early photos etc which have since become hard to find.Not sure I trust him though. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 15:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::I hadn't seen that before, thanks. I'll be considering... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 22:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: More photos: [http://www.armyrecognition.com/images/stories/east_europe/russia/missile_vehicle/sa-11_gadfly/pictures/sa-11_gadfly_anti-aircraft_missile_to_armoured_tracked_vehicle_Russian_army_russia_011.jpg 321] - [http://rt.com/files/news/2a/b1/40/00/640x480.jpg 312] - [http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1870560.1405614701!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_970/correction-ukraine.jpg 321] --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:Buk 312 in Lugansk.png|thumb|left|According to alleged former operator "A", this is BUK 312 after relocation sometime in Spring 2014 in Metallist settlement of Lugansk, with Yubileynaya mines in the background]]<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmI2KCOt_sA Anatolii Sharii] version of events, shows that Buk blamed on Russia has number 312 and was earlier photographed as part of Ukrainian convoy. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 20:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Sharii interviewed a Ukrainian soldier who served on Buk 312; this can be found on [http://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/1947657.html Cassad]. The guy does not know about MH17; but recalls SBU claiming it was this Buk 312 responsible. From this interview, meaning of 312: 3 is division number, 1 battery number, 2 unit number in a battery (there are loading and command vehicles, not just launchers). This UAF Buk is initially from Luhansk; than relocated to Kramatorsk; than places in a field. A serviceman took it on a ride with hand break on, leading to a small fire affecting electrics and requiring repairs. So it was traveling on a trailer at some point. It was than moved to Dnepropetrovsk, village of Novogrigorievka (apparently for repairs, and after trailer photo was taken, but exact date was not given). Buks from Luhansk which were not broken were moved by UAF elsewhere (and according to the soldier, were photographed in variaous places including Gorlovka; while 3 broken Buks remained in Luhansk) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: Interesting. I see that the "[http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Ukrainian+government+forces+maneuver+antiaircraft+missile+launchers+they+transported+north+west+from+Slavyansk+eastern+Ukraine+Friday+July+2014+Photo+Dmitry+Lovetsky/10004193/story.html has been seen]" link to the Montreal Gazette is dead by now. If anything I'm surprised that it lasted that long. Minitrue at work. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 04:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: [http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2014/12/17/shooting-down-mh-17-buk-312-story-false- Here] (and mirrored [http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2014/12/17/buk-312-crew-member-says-rebel-shoot-down-of-flight-mh17-story-is-false-transcript/ here]) is an English translation of the interview. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: And [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2rRCSNp33I here] is the video itself with English subtitles. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 20:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:What you said about the accident and the photo showing the damaged BUK on a trailer is about the very photo the SBU showed on their website as "evidence" and later removed. Also adding that he says friends in Lugansk saw "rebels" trying to repair the units they had left behind, but he knows that "whole equipment units" were lacking so the remaining stuff was "unusable". And that he says that he asked his ex-comrades still operating the BUK if they dunnit, and they said they didn't. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Good to see this section expand. Interesting additions from the alleged operator, and reasonable-sounding (the photo might show smoke stains to the back left side). But in the end, this issue might be not so relevant. I doubt it was Kiev's unit 312 that was used, and seeing how Kiev always was eyeing a supposedly Russian unit 3x2, maybe 312 ... In fact, if the middle number connotes unit number, and it's done the same, the launcher is always 1 and it would be 312 (or is that mixed-up?) So maybe all this really shows is how Kiev knew but didn't want to say all along, implausibly picking their own 312 to illustrate that knowledge with an embarrassing but harmless "error", while awaiting ... as it turns out, the independent Bellingcat investigation that finds 3x2 somehow in Russia... That tracked this ludicrous Buk field trip, as presented and followed on this page, which almost seems tailor-made for them, but Kiev wants us to know they they were secretly on the ball too from the start. (all thoughts in progress, a bit distracted too) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::::If SBU wanted to point out they knew the TELAR had number 312, why would they publish the photo in [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmI2KCOt_sA such a low resolution] that the number could not be read? -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 21:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: As Resup summarized, 1 is the battery number. The leading 3 means it's from the Lugansk division. If this is true, the fact that 312, 321 and 323 have been seen together on video in March perfectly fits with what the alleged operator said: That they were removing units in usable state from (all batteries of the division) Lugansk early on, leaving the crap behind. And the view that the SBU just published everything they could find to fit their tale that the "rebels" used a BUK to down the plane, including this photo, cut-together and taken out of context audio tapes and that ridiculous "plume" pic, and the 3x2 bellingcat nonsense from lately is meant to distract from these facts, is much simpler and straight forward than what you tried to come up with here on the fly. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::Ah, I see it now, not when I was typing, sorrys. Middle number could be anything, bust mostly we always see low numbers, so odds are good it was a "1". 3 means from Lugansk if that's true (presuming so) and it's Ukrainian. Diff. number paintjob though, as noted below. But I'm sure the Ukies just faked this exact 312 to a different style of 312 and then painted it out partly, and just let it slip with the one photo of how it looked before...? We'll have a hard time agreeing here, as the stuff you just dismiss as "nonsense" looks kind of like possible evidence with details I'm sort of trying to consider. I don't see how you can just ignore it as if it must be wrong somehow, and all made up to distract from ... this 312 disguised as 3x2 theory? Where it wasn't even at the end of that fake plume anyway and might be totally irrelevant or entirely fake? Or, what am I missing? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::Didn't you say that you haven't even watched the videos and checked the geolocation/origin yourself, if they really are from Russia etc.? Well, I certainly won't. Because I have no reason to believe that the sources are more truthful with the "evidence" than they have been before, and that track record is well established. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::::Yeah, which is why I'm neither in a good position to say they aren't wrong/fake, nor to go against my usual presumption it will be sound (has been so far, on this subject anyway) And by the supposed stills compare to supposed satellite imagery, it looked like a good match (I did skim the site once I could). I don't like the implication either, and I want it to be wrong. And it may well be, but I'll want to see how. And hey, there's a whole other section or two about this below... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
:::: I watched the video [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bj-VZB0ZdEA with the Ukie BUKs in March] again. There are actually more than the three I mentioned earlier. It starts with 323, which is not a TELAR. Followed by the two TELARs 321 and 312. Then comes what is also not a TELAR but what looks differently than 323: Number 301. Followed by two more TELARs, 331 and 332. So they could all be from the Lugansk division, parts of batteries 0 to 3. But one would suspect that the batteries are internal always numbered the same way. "A" says:<br />
::::: ''BUK is a complex of 4 specialized military vehicles: command post, mobile target detection and assignment station, loading and starting station, self-propelled fire installation.''<br />
::::So if 1 and 2 are TELARs, why are there two of them and why is 301 what could be the detection station with a radar? Is 323 a loading station? --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::::Too rusty, but good questions. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::: Ah, I think we can sort this out [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SA-11 thanks to wikipedia]:<br />
:::::''A standard Buk battalion consists of a command vehicle, target acquisition radar (TAR) vehicle, six transporter erector launcher and radar (TELAR) vehicles and three transporter erector launcher (TEL) vehicles. A Buk missile battery consists of two TELAR and one TEL vehicle.''<br />
:::: So our "A" didn't mean that a battery consists of 4 vehicles, but that the whole BUK consists of 4 different kinds of vehicles, some more than once. From this I deduce that "0" is for command and detection units (here our main radar 301) of the Lugansk division 3, and the batteries 1,2 and 3 each consist of two TELARs (numbered 1 and 2, here 312,321,331 and 332) and one TEL (numbered 3, the first vehicle in the video, 323). Makes sense? --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 13:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::Russia said Ukraine had 27 BUK launchers in the crash area, i.e. one brigade, or what ever comes in the hierarchy above battalion. If all units are numbered the same way, from 101 to 333, then one TELAR in 18 should be numbered 312. Maybe [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:9K37_Buk_of_the_Ukrainian_military,_Independence_Day_parade_in_Kiev.JPG not.] Russian numbers seem to reach higher. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 01:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::::Good find. The existence of 114 and 115 makes it more complicated. The [http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buk_M1 German Wikipedia article] says, contradicting the English one, that one battery consists of one command vehicle, one main radar, four TELARs and four TELs. But if that's true, there's no logical place for Radar 301, and why would one TEL be number 3 and the other three TELs numbers 6 to 8? --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 10:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
How to read BUK numbers<br />
This is how you decipher 312:<br />
<br />
3 stands for the third (Lugansk) division,<br />
1 stands for the battery number, ours was no. 1,<br />
2 stands for one of the 2. service units in each battery, ours was no.2<br />
<br />
according to a Ukrainian who explains it was "his" bUK (but not in his hands at the time)that shot down MH17. One of th many reports [http://www.opednews.com/articles/Shooting-Down-MH-17--BUK-by-Michael-Collins-Buk-312_False-Accusations-Of-Terrorism_False-Flag-Attacks_Mh17-Airline-Crash-141217-104.html about this interview] This claim is now superceded by the Capt Voloshin air-to-air claims. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 15:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
That solder knew nothing about who shot the Boeing. He was talking to Sharii, who previously made a video showing that Buk shown on SBU website is actually Ukrainian Buk 312. Later, the soldier emerged, saying that Buk 312 was his. (Claim of this one shooting Boeing is not his, it is SBU early claim) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 16:48, 26 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
While Voloshin story may be a play on destroyed by SBU evidence. There is supposed to be a log of flights, missiles fired, likely those logs no longer exist. Also before they claimed SU 25 were lost on 16 of July, but SBU denial of Voloshin story had SU 25 shot on 17 of July. And that Dnepropetrovsk airport traffic control lady vanished without a trace. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 16:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Supposed 321 belonging to KIEV<br />
::video shows three BUk sets [http://eurazya.today/2015/04/11/about-the-buk-312-who-allegedly-shot-down-mh17/ from 0.31 mark] but I can't really pick the number, they say it is 321. at Gorlovka in March. One on a white lowloader. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 12:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== Russian claims ====<br />
As part of their July 21 presentation of evidence, the Russian Ministry of Defense published satellite images allegedly showing Ukrainian BUK positions around Donetzk ([http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ RT report]). It's no secret the Ukrainian military maintains a base with anti-aircraft units. The facility shown in the Russian presentation (best seen [http://rt.com/files/news/2a/9a/00/00/4.jpg here]) I located - it's south of Avdeyevka, 3 km north of the airport, about 5 km north of Donetsk like they say. Visual match first, then noticed the label could have found it for me ... [http://wikimapia.org/#lat=48.0999781&lon=37.7578908&z=16&l=0&m=b&show=/16956839/ru/Зенитно-ракетный-дивизион-в-ч-А-1428&search=Donetsk on Wikimapia]. Labels, translated: Anti-aircraft missile battalion (in / h A-1428) One of the three anti-aircraft missile battalions ("Buk-M1"), located in Avdeyevka, Mariupol and Lugansk." BUK-type launcher photos included. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The counter-arguments to this at least sometimes fail. [http://www.interpretermag.com/mh17-and-moscows-magical-mystery-jets/ Interpreter rag] decided "the presence of Ukrainian government air defense systems is something of a red herring, not least given the clear evidence that the separatists had deployed at least one Buk system in the area." The side with a ''motive'' and clear, moving and likely operating units of the things on that day (see below) is irrelevant and shouldn't be considered because there's apparently also proof the presumed bad guys also had the units they needed to be so presumed. The very fact that separatists aren't ruled out means the other side should be free of any danger of being ruled in, and the separatists should ruled in just as automatically as they were ''before'' this social-media verification came in. This is clearly an irresponsible suggestion. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC) and --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Kiev's Buks Shuffled?===<br />
<br />
* From Russia's military press conference: [http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ RT, 10 Questions] - [http://www.ruaviation.com/docs/1/2014/7/22/83/ in more detail]<br />
:''3. Why was a large group of air defense systems deployed to the militia-held area if the self-defense forces have no planes?''<br />
:“As far as we know, the Ukrainian military had three or four air defense battalions equipped with Buk-M1 SAM systems deployed in the vicinity of Donetsk on the day of the crash. This system is capable of hitting targets within the range of 35 km at the altitude of up to 22 km.”'' <br />
:''4. Why did Kiev deploy BUK missile systems on the edge of militia-controlled zones directly before the tragedy?''<br />
:''“We have satellite photos of the places where Ukraine had its air defense units deployed in the southeastern parts of the country. The first three photos were made on July 14. The first photo shows Buk launchers 8 km northwest of Lugansk. You can clearly see a TELAR and two TELs. The second photo shows radars 5 km north of Donetsk. You can see two TARs along with other equipment and technical structures. The third photo shows air defense systems north of Donetsk. You can clearly see a TELAR launcher and about 60 military and auxiliary vehicles, tents for vehicles and other structures.''<br />
<br />
:''“Here’s a photo of the same area made on July 17. Please note that the launcher has disappeared. The fifth photo shows a battery of Buk missiles at the village of Zaroshchenskoye 50 km east of Donetsk and 8 km south of Shakhtyorsk on the morning of the same day. The sixth photo shows the same area on July 18. As you can see, the battery has left.”''<br />
<br />
Note: the <s>latter</s> fourth photo of July 17 has substantial cloud cover, but unless they happened to hide the launchers in those areas (or Russia's satellites waited until the area was covered) it appears the noted vehicles have left to go do something - on/by the 17th, where they say launchers appear and then disappear in a town closer to the crash on the 17th. Zaroshchenskoye [http://maps.yandex.com/?text=Ukraine%2C%20Donets'ka%20region%2C%20Shakhtars'kyi%20district%2C%20Zaroshchens'ke%20ville&sll=38.446008%2C47.98844&ll=38.517419%2C48.048098&spn=0.810242%2C0.300187&z=11&l=map on Yandex maps] - 13 miles SSW of the crash sitel, 9 miles W-SW of Torez..--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
On July 30, Vitalyi Naida, head of Ukrainian Security Service SBU’s counter-intelligence, came up with a series of slides ([http://euromaidanpress.com/2014/07/30/russia-fakes-mh17-crash-site-satellite-images-says-sbu/ short article], [http://www.sbu.gov.ua/sbu/control/en/publish/article?art_id=129610&cat_id=35317 announcement on SBU website] with link to [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ut1JExQKV-0 youtube-video showing the slides (presumably Ukrainian language)]) allegedly showing that the Russian material was "faked". He points to a patch of trees, claiming they had been cut down shortly before the 17th, while Russia's images show the trees intact. On August 1, the Russian Ministry of Defense published [http://eng.mil.ru/en/analytics.htm a rebuttal] advising that<br />
:''Instead of presenting hastily doctored evidence to the international community, the SBU could do with better control over all the mercenary units in the areas around Donetsk and Lugansk organized by Kolomoisky, Lyashko, Yarosh and others, who shell Ukrainian territory without any control from those in charge of the anti-terrorist operation.''<br />
<br />
The trees probably are cut down by now, but we'll have to wait for the true details of just when they were and when the image showing that was taken, or if the image shown is even of any one day and not a composite - "doctored" as Russia says. Other clues suggest launchers moving out of this area at that time: The [[#Paris Match Photo]] - ostensibly from the morning of the 17th - shows the infamous launcher-loaded truck seen in Lugansk, or one just like it, being carried on a truck belonging to a company just south of the missile base in northern Donetsk. That was seen carrying the launcher east out of town at 11:15 AM, purportedly on July 17 (and with the location completely fudged to say Snizhne, when it was only headed there).--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Zaro redeploy.png|left|600px]]The Russian military press conference said "The fifth photo shows a battery of Buk missiles at the village of Zaroshchenskoye 50 km east of Donetsk and 8 km south of Shakhtyorsk on the morning of the same day. The sixth photo shows the same area on July 18. As you can see, the battery has left." (#5 inset) The Ukraine@War blog's analysis decided this image as well was fake. That's mentioned [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com/2014/08/ukrainian-sbu-comes-with-conspiracy.html here] if not elsewhere. The reason: "the shadows of these BUKs have a different direction for all three of them. It means these were pasted into the image." I have to admit, it looks a bit like that. The trees have consistent shadows to the west, in a morning image. The furthest vehicle to the left has a visible shadow about like that. The other two don't seem to, and the one furthest right seems to have a shadow on the wrong side (looks like early PM). I wracked my brain just a little thinking of other explanations aside from just low resolution. Nothing much came up. Anyone else? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br /><br /><br />
<br />
<br />
: '''New video proves UKIE BUKS ACTIVE'''<br />
: video has surfaced, posted to Youtube on July 16, taken a few days before, showing a Ukie BUK radar [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3MomxNHnUA being rotated]. The reporter is taken somewhere in a helicopter and proudly shown the BUK. Segment starts around 4.17 in the chopper, BUK shown briefly at 4.45. Label does not say where exactly, just reads "Officers of Ukrainian Armed Forces patrolling in the ATO zone". <br />
: This ties in with claims that they were doing anti-aircraft exercises, probably in response to claims/fears the Antonovs were brought down not by the rebs but by aircraft from Russia. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 10:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::Thanks! We had this July 16 video [[Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17/BUK_Tracking#Kiev.27s_Holdings| elsewhere]], but here is a good place... The other video, from March, was not seen. There were few more early sightings of Ukrainian Buks, uncertain locations, with those 3** numbers; maybe should get a good place to keep them all --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::: Location of sighting is unclear. But according to some reports ([http://lifenews.ru/news/136731 LifeNews]), on July 16 UAF SU 25 was shot down from a height of 6 km by opolchenie MANPADs. That was near Russian border, --reports say the plane actually crossed into Russia, not far from Marinovka. It could be suspected by Ukraine that a Russian plane was involved, so it will be plausible to have Ukrainian coverage of the accident area by BUKS. On July 14, it was reported that [http://m.rosbalt.ru/ukraina/2014/07/16/1292690.html AN 26 was shot down in Luhansk] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
There is strange twist of Logic in Bellingcat's report about satellite photos. The photo with Buks in the field is claimed to be manipulated.They found that July 17 image was manipulated but only in the region of clouds. They don't say that BUK was removed by software (there are 4 more vehicles missing). But on all Google earth photos BUK never moved (and those 4 vehicles). So did it move ever or not? Manipulation of Google earth photos or likely their source is not new.[http://www.imediaethics.org/News/130/Exclusive__google_investigating_photoshopped_gogle_map_image_.php]<br />
<br />
Surprising Google earth have more updated photos on the BUK base location and nearly nothing for the location where Russians seen BUKS. There is something strange about RUSSIAN supposed fakery. Doesn't make sense to me.--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 13:33, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Separatist Holdings===<br />
While much certainty has been shown it was a separatist BUK system responsible, everyone seems to acknowledge that ordinarily, they didn't have any, that were known of. Fresh sighting of them in the field, supposed admissions, and existing presumptions remain the strongest evidence. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;June 29 Seizure?<br />
The Open Newsroom team have latched onto a June 29 message from a Twitter account associated with the Donetsk People’s Republic, @DNRpress claiming separatist forces had conquered a base with anti-air BUK missiles. This is apparently the A-1402 base, as an Itar-Tass report specified. That report noted ... It seems to just cite the tweet which, it was found, used a dated photo online since mid-2013. In essence, there's no good evidence they ever did seize this place. But it was referred to by some as "Deleted DNR tweet confirming Russian rebels indeed have a BUK-M1." The crew at large seems a bit vague on the status of this base:<br />
:'' It appears that the A-1402 military unit was moved into the Donetsk region in 2007 from Odessa, and reports note that the unit was based near Donetsk airport. Local reports from June 29 cited ATO spokesman Alexei Dmitrashkivsky as stating that separatists had attacked the military unit.'' <ref name="Story1" /><br />
As we just found with geo-location, it's 3 km north of Donetsk airport, and it's the same place Russia believes is firmly government-held. It's the place they say at least one BUK-type launcher was removed from on July 17 for some reason, by Kiev's forces who run it. If [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Donetsk_Airport this basic Wikipedia article on the battle for the airport] is correct and/or in line with [[Attack on Donetsk Airport|our page on it]], the airport and anything military-related north of it would probably be government-held continuously to the present time. It's possible some launchers could have been lost during a brief seizure of the base, but this too seems doubtful. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
:Social media published many photos of the "liberated" Buk missiles. I searched for them on Google Image Search; all were old photos from more peaceful times. I have no idea what really happened. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 23:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Thanks. I hadn't looked into it myself, but recycled images made sense given the other clues that they never did take that base, or at least get anything out of it. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 00:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Something in English [https://www.facebook.com/TruthfromUkraine/photos/pb.1452285018328179.-2207520000.1409095455./1515506872005993/ on Facebook,] with links to Russian souces. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 23:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Your geolocation is wrong. The former [http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-SAM-Site-Configs-A.html SA-2 launch site] to the north of the runway is called A-1428, at least according to the [[:File:Donetsk Airport battles 5 Oct 2014.jpg|map by Komsomolskaya Pravda]]. The site was rebuilt sometime between 2002 and 2009 with new garages covering part of the SAM ring. Tactical maps say today it is still held by Ukraine, but may have been in NAF hands earlier. Base A-1402 is located south of the new terminal building along Stratonavtiv Street.<br />
<br />
When looking at the latest airport battles I noticed that Military Maps already shows structural damaged to the new terminal building. I did not expect Google to provide any relevant satelite data. In Libya we had almost daily satellite images of Tripoli, but in Syria we have seen no new photos of the battle-effected areas.<br />
<br />
I opened Google Earth to see what has changed during the war. It seems that the war has had no effect on either base. There is still a lot of military hardware parked on both bases. Most of the trucks and whatever are parked just where they were last year, or on many cases in 2007. I did not see anything that I could identify as a BUK launcher. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 02:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;Held by July 14?<br />
The US embassy in Kiev said in [http://ukraine.usembassy.gov/statements/asmt-07192014.html a press statement of July 19]:<br />
:''Intercepts of separatist communications posted on YouTube by the Ukrainian government indicate the separatists were in possession of a SA-11 system as early as Monday July 14th. In the intercepts, the separatists made repeated references to having and repositioning Buk (SA-11) systems.'' (also quoted [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/20/malaysia-airlines-mh17-videos-missile-launcher-torez-snizhne at the Guardian])<br />
As "Corporal Frisk" [http://corporalfrisk.wordpress.com/2014/07/21/comment-on-the-us-assessment-of-the-downing-of-flight-mh17/ aptly responded:]<br />
:''Having perhaps the world’s best intelligence network, and then using easily faked videos of separatist communications posted on YouTube as evidence sure has a degree of ridicule attached to it, but is also an inidcation that US intelligence believes at least some of these transcripts are real.''<br />
That's totally apt if one suspends the usual definition of "believe" (to include "wants to appear to believe," etc.) In the same piece, the author apparently gives more "credibility to the charges that the Buk-M1 is indeed Russian supplied (and possibly crewed), as opposed to stemming from captured Ukrainian stocks." As covered below, this I can agree with if we suspend the usual definition of "Russian" (to include "allegedly Russian villains," "the Ukrainian version of [http://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2011/07/african-mercenaries.html Libya's African Mercenaries] and [http://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/wiki/The_Shabiha:_Ghost_Stories%3F Syria's Shabiha]," etc.) this would be spot-on. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:54, 10 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
(more allegations to cover?)<br />
<br />
;The One That Matters<br />
Whatever the evidence rebels had Buk systems by the 14th, Kiev also has suggested, and many have accepted, that ''the one that mattered'' at least - the launcher unit that shot down MH17 on the 17th - wasn't theirs at all, but brought in and operated by Russians for the day only. If only for that reason, all the above is likely moot. See next section. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Russian Buk Field Trip? ===<br />
The Kiev regime's narrative also suggests separatists had no BUK systems of their own. Rather, someone else brought one in to their area, took it on some kind of tour through several towns thought accessible only to rebels and allies, and got it seen in each place. Then these people '''shot the airliner down themselves on the separatists' behalf.''' That party is the Russians, they say. This is perhaps best encapsulated by "counter-terrorism" chief Vitaly Nayda's early assessment. AP's July 25 report summarized it, saying "the account was based on information from intercepts, spies and resident tips."<br />
:''Nayda laid the blame fully on Russia: He said the missile launcher came from Russia and was operated by Russians. ... According to Nayda, at 1 a.m. on July 17 the launcher rolled into Ukraine across the Russian border aboard a flatbed truck. He cited communications intercepts that he would not share with the AP. By 9 a.m., he said, the launcher had reached Donetsk, the main rebel stronghold 125 miles (200 kilometers) from the border. In Donetsk it is presumed to have been off-loaded from the flatbed and started to move in a convoy on its own.''<br />
:''Nayda said the Buk turned back east toward Snizhne. Townspeople who spoke to the AP said it rolled into Snizhne around lunchtime.''<br />
:''...As for the Buk, Nayda said, intelligence suggests it went back on the move shortly after the attack. That very night, he said, it crossed the border, back into Russia.''<br />
<br />
This is full of details that don't line up with the emerging record, but the gist including a grand-circuit tour including both separatist stronghold/capitols Donestk and Lugansk plus the disaster zone, seems about right. But the evil they allowed came from and returned to Russia.<br />
<br />
This does however jibe with the Kiev allegation (I learned of through [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/07/25/snizhne-mh17-and-rebel-held-territory/ this excellent and relevant HRI article] that '''Russian jets''' violated Ukrainian airspace to '''bomb an apartment building in Snizneh on July 15th, killing 11 civilians.''' This all makes a bit of sense in context; that false flag attack was blamed by locals on Kiev'a noble Air Force - almost understandably! It "created the conditions" by which people ''might'' accept apparent a team of apparent Russians with a Buk launcher in their town two days later. The best guess for any single firing location is a field just southeast of that town (see [[#Possible Launch Sites|below]]). The locals might smile at, and later even cover for, this poisonous gift. But a trojan horse is a trojan horse, of course. They should have looked it in the mouth better, and been more aggressive with their questions. Because Russia has it in for the separatists, Kiev implies, using its skilled and well-documented team to murder 298 people in a horrific way on the separatists' behalf. This is not an accident, Kiev must know, but proof that Russia and its "inhuman" terrorists they must hate (and who do not seem to have any Buk launchers of their own, BTW) are the new global menace du jour. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Markings and the Mystery Launcher ===<br />
[[File:MH17 Buk 321 Parismatch comp.png|right]]A serial number on the launcher's side is apparently standard in Ukraine's arsenal (see [[#BUK 312 and comrades|above]]). Inset, an image comparing the side of the unit seen in [[#Paris Match Photo]], the one blamed for the shoot-down on the 17th, to TELAR unit 321. The side panels are easy enough to correlate and see the unit in the photo lacks a number, but does have a sliver of white paint (or similar) in one corner. Whoever was moving this painted it it out before this, so there is some attempt at concealment. Is this color of paint only available in Russia? The white sliver here could be part of the number, if it were painted higher up/larger than Ukraine usually does. I can't say yet how they do it. I did a Dogpile Photo search, lots of pictures, context unclear, different vehicles from different sides, mainly Vitaly Kuzmin photos so app. Russian military parades and such: --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
* Number shown, diff. vehicle: [http://military-vehicle-photos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/9881.jpg #1(loader?)] - [http://pix.avaxnews.com/avaxnews/8a/6f/00006f8a_medium.jpeg #2 same?] <br />
* Launchers with no visible numbers: [http://77rus.smugmug.com/Military/May-5th-Parade-rehearsal-2014/i-t7RjrzP/0/M/5may14-33-M.jpg #1] - [http://77rus.smugmug.com/Military/12-April-Parade-2013-rehearsal/i-KHVD3Tv/0/M/12aprilrehearsal_33-M.jpg #2] - [http://livedoor.blogimg.jp/gunzichannel/imgs/b/e/be60ae58.jpg #3] - [http://military-vehicle-photos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/9880.jpg #4] - [http://77rus.smugmug.com/Military/13th-April-rehearsal-Alabino/i-fKQdjW4/0/M/13April-Rehersal-Alabino-26-M.jpg #5] <br />
* Same vehicle, Buk TELAR launcher with numbers: not found. <br />
<br />
At the moment, the lack of a number almost makes it look Russian. The next panel over seems to have smaller numbers, or characters anyway. Nothing yet tells me the Russians add a smaller number on the panel behind that, with or without special stencils available only in Russia. Is that even a number, or does it say return to Putin? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== Bellingcat and 3x2 ====<br />
:''moved from [[#Paris Match Photo]]''<br />
<br />
Adam: somebody's favorite Bellingcat is now saying, I understand, that he is capable to read off the number of this Buk from this blurry low resolution Paris Match photo, using unspecified colored magic and some expertly fitted proprietary boxes. Well actually this is so proprietary that he can ONLY read the first number 3, and the last number 2, but is completely unable to read the middle one. Because, he does not want this to be this Ukrainian [http://uainforg.livejournal.com/1811500.html Buk 312] , nah, noway. He rather want it to be the Russian Buk 3 X 2, where X stand for Russian, and for secret, as somebody is said to unearth this dirty monster in Russia, as he says (I guess). This looks too much baloney as far as I am concerned; you can read any number you set in advance from this blurry photo, and fit there any other crap, boxed-shaped or wiggly, all essentially at will. Just recording this latest saga page in case somebody has more enthusiasm to chase it than myself. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 00:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
:No, you didn't quite understand, but thanks for the tip. An interesting twist I wish I'd caught sooner. First, this helps the West at large get in synch finally with Kiev - it was Russia, not the separatists, who owned and perhaps ran that unit. Second, it seems to me the match is at least as good as they say, but there's at least one aspect of it I think is hilarious and I wouldn't be surprised if they managed to miss it. I'll be back - this one deserves a quick blog post. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: I agree with Resup, this stinks of baloney designed to divert attention from the [[#BUK_312_and_comrades]] story. The worst thing about Brown Noses and cohorts is the amount of coordinated promo they get in pre$$titute media. SPIEGEL today [http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/jan-fleischhauer-ueber-wladimir-putin-und-mh17-abschuss-kolumne-a-1004898.html has a op-ed piece by a particularly douchebaggy example] on those independent genius investigators as well. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::I need to brush up on what that 312 story is... because it looks like this used to say 312. Ultimately I suspect its some kind of baloney, but just where it breaks down I don't know. It is amazing how they get such praise for investigating the right things (never did get back to the Houla Massacre) and finding the right truth... Daily Fail says "The authors said that 'our investigation was made possible by the examination of open source material overlooked by other organisations'." Oh goodness, that technique they must have invested ... maybe if we started doing that we'd get praises too! --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/11/08/origin-of-the-separatists-buk-a-bellingcat-investigation/<br />
The report and whole site was not coming up when I tried (might be a problem on my end), so I don't even know what's behind their pay-wall. In the interim I checked around. [http://thetruthserumblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/an-open-and-transparent-investigation.html Here's a critical blog article I like] that mentions another article praising the report. But what was useful was [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2827853/Russian-military-supplied-missiles-ahead-MH17-shooting-says-new-independent-report-evidence-points-Russian-separatists-responsible.html the Daily Mail's Australian promo article] with the cover and a few images from the report as well as a summary. The 3x2 ... This lets me quickly see what 3x2 refers to. And actually, it looks like a good description and even a good match. The number is not from Paris Match photo but from footage I haven't noticed, they say from inside Russia - presumably a Russian unit then - seen conspicuously moving towards Ukraine in late June. (the source of these images and details might be worth checking into) ... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 3x2 Comp.png|right]]Bottom is Paris Match, skewed to match. Top is the new (to me) Bellingcat June 23 image As I just put together [http://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2014/11/how-russians-covered-up-truth-partly.html here,] they seem to be onto something here. It's something silly. But it's something strongly suggested by real paint in recognizable patterns.<br />
<br />
Implied: Russians wanted to hide this thing's identity, maybe because they were about to do something secret with it. So first they painted out the number in the middle - I think it was a one. Except they left one little corner of white visible. Just got tired. It's identifiable (in both images). <br />
<br />
Then before it appeared in Ukraine, it was rendered totally unidentifiable: they boldly blacked out the 3, and perhaps at the same time even, the 2 - except for a larger identifiable sliver. Just got tired. It's next to the other dot. <br />
<br />
Haha, no way to connect these now! Also a light patch next to the small number (and the number, as far as we can see) matches, as does a light patch along the lip below that. My guess: this is the same suspect vehicle seen gettin' hauled all over on the "stolen" truck with the phone number left on. Was it actually in Russian territory as well as near so many rebel checkpoints around dawn? For how long was it there? Bellingcat cannot confirm that Russian unit 3x2 ever returned to its base in Russia ... nor, I guess, that it ever actually left, or was ever Russian, or didn't have its truncated paint job simulated and expanded on another vehicle... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
::He got some photos of an actual [http://www.kavicom.ru/news-view-12861.html convoy], almost certainly in Russia, fairly hi-res photos, no 3*2 there. Than out-of-a-blue-or-elsewhere, he gives photos from convoy made by 'local residents', now with discolored 3*2 photo(s) there; I could not spot details where this photo is now coming from. He claims it "shows on 8 out of 16 videos", but I do not know where is a single one. He also compares tank track and plate above profiles for these 2 photos; details are blurred (and also those profiles change from use), can't say how much they match each other by eye; don't trust his fitted lines, or his conclusion accepting those, but did not try matching myself (no tools to do it quickly; or enough photo resolution to feel strongly motivated). This is doable but doing it tool-free takes time; and not knowing that second photo is definitely in Russia, I am not convinced spending a lot of time is worthwhile. This is clearly a well-supported operation, so the burden of proving their own version is on them; and they did not bother even linking the videos, no clue where are those. His report downloads without problems at this time. <br />
::Also details such as dirty rear skirt and a bend there likely are common; dirt is because exhaust is through the opening above; skirt likely is bent when there is servicing, or example changing tracks or doing something else, like maybe servicing engine. Buk 321 above on this page has dirt and bend, for example. This bend is something which can be easily produced, same goes with the painting job, both things together can be done in well under 1/2 hour. If they had an example of how something in Russia looks like, not difficult to do it for a blurry photo. Clearly, with phone well-displayed, etc, the purpose of all this is a demo job. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Here is a publication [http://censor.net.ua/video_news/274823/ukraina_zaschischaet_donetsk_ot_napadeniya_rossii_zenitnoraketnye_kompleksy_buk_zanimayut_pozitsii_fotovideo Ukraine defends Donesk from Russiam attack, missile complex Buk takes positions], with photo, video of Ukrainian BUks, numbers 323, 321, 312, 301, 331,332. (Some of them have dirty skirts, e.g. 301 looks dirty and bent...). Ukrainian radio is playing on the video. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 21:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Thanks, and I get the lack of motivation, and the ambiguity. That #312 I'll compare later ... looks like a different number style (thinner) with vehicle color less clear ... I guess this could be innocent dirt instead of black paint, but it's some thick dirt, and by the end almost totally covering the numbers on this particular unit ... or two that can seem the same. (?) So it still seems most likely paint, that is deliberate obfuscation - that was also comically slow and incomplete (with clean edges to the white parts and no visible parts of gray half-covered numbers) . It must be a problem with my system (updating soon) but I still can't connect to the site or get the report. I'm not mad motivated myself, but will want to check the alleged video source and geolocation eventually. Before I was seeing this as a Kiev unit simply snuck across the internal line. So the big wrinkle of course is it being in Russia. Options if the geolocation of June 23 is right: <br />
* it wasn't there (faked match-up - As you say, all matching features ''could'' be faked, not just the paint) <br />
* or Ukraine snuck theirs across (with a whole convoy?) just to get it seen there <br />
* or they snuck over and stole this one while it was near the border <br />
* or Russia willingly sent it over, with or without a subsequent theft by people intent on misusing it on the separatists' behalf. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
There is actually a 3*2 Buk in Russia, he put links to videos on his [https://www.mapbox.com/labs/bellingcat/index.html map], I looked at 06/23 Troitskiy (Odnoklassniki) goroskop odnoklassniki ru/video/14723648043?fromTime=25 . But I doubt it can be concluded that Paris Match is a match (number itself can't be read, this is just bogus). For example, that dot in the Russian version appears to be a bit further to the right (60 % of total panel length) , while Paris Match is closer to 50 (I got 52 %). Also, in Russian version, it is almost level with protruding to the right part of number 2; in Donetsk photo, I'd say it's a bit lower (but blurriness creates problems to measure) . Panel to the left of number panel appear to look very different; in Russian case, clear horizontal line above the main bottom line; not so in Donetsk, a messy lower line. As for the skirt, it it dirty but actually does not look broken in the Russian version, just some frames create such impression. In Donetsk, hard to know (to blurry to tell crack from dirt) but there is serious change in angle there somehow; (could be the windshield playing some tricks). (Also, in Donetsk, it is dirty windshield, not actually certain what makes the dot; but it is roughly where expected, so I can go with this being paint assumption). <br />
:No point for the rebels to display it prominently in Donetsk (not far from UAF BUK base), than go towards Snizhne; this just has no point at all. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 00:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
:I'm the one, ironically, claiming to see things in that griny mess. I'd never do it unless I saw t spot well whiter than the others AND seen in another view ... didn't even notice until then. To note, your descriptions are of the first version of the graphic, now updated. Becuase of overall problems, I cut what seemed just the number panel (including shadowed edge) and put it on top of where it should be. Same proportions, within a pixel or two, "find edges" to mark the white patches, and it remains lining up. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 3x2 comp 2.png|right|420px]]At right: it can't be the embarrassingly misrepresented Ukrainian 312 they're hiding, unless that was painted over before this other one .... FWIW, the middle dot would still line up with the serif on that "1." As the updated blog article notes, if "the Russians" were smart, they would have painted this slender 312, or other recognizable number and style, on there. Instead, this nonsense.... <br />
<br />
I suppose that Ukraine ''might'' have known about this 3x2 video and match in advance (and never mentioned it?) and that's why they found a photo of ''a Buk 312''' (not checking what it actually showed, and just claimed they knew was en route to escape into Russia, after parking for yet another photo?) No, that doesn't make much sense. But I sense a link. Maybe that's because I'm seeing 312 when maybe it's 872, for all we really know. Maybe instead of partly painted out it was just left never fully painted in. Too many unknowns and now I'm unenthusiastic about it. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Whatever one thinks of this graphic comparison and interpretation, the strange and suspect thinking it implies is consistent with what else we know about how this "secret" operation was carried out. If true, it would fit this broader pattern (real or reported clues left by whoever, all open to interpretation, and here couched in the terms of allegations by Kiev and supporters):<br />
<br />
* Recalling that this whole weapon itself would have no normal business in the area and would be denied later, it should have been kept secret. Instead, it was driven around in broad daylight on the same day as the crime, just partly covered with a tarp but revealing all clues needed to identify it, its hidden ID number, and its full rack of missiles.<br />
* The truck it was so displayed on was stolen in Donetsk, and kept with the huge sign on its side with the apparent owner's phone number on it. When the media called that number, little surprise, the owner told them pro-Russian "fighters from Slaviansk" who took over his whole trucking company on July 8 (see [[#The Truck Owner's Story|here]]) Put lightly, this is a stupid way to secure a rig one intends to use for a secret operation like this was supposed to be.<br />
* They loaded the truck in Donetsk, likely at the commandeered site in the north of Donetsk, near the Ukrainian base with Buk launchers, in a coincidence. This truck then got seen leaving Donetsk on the 17th, parked pointing east at the east outskirts, then seen driving in convoy (a couple civilian cars with the operational crew moved with the truck) past Zuhres and then through Torez to the east. They were seen arriving in Snizhne around noon, then the Buk unit seen off the truck and driving in stand-alone, and it was then seen again driving south out of Snizneh, towards the apparent launch location.<br />
* The people running the convoy made sure AP journalists saw them in Snizhne just before the shoot-down from a bit south of there. The convoy stopped, and a man in unusual uniform "approached the journalists. The man wanted to make sure they had not recorded any images of the missile launcher. Satisfied that they hadn’t" filmed that secret missile launcher there, but had noticed it, and their intention to remain sooper seekrit "the convoy moved on." All this was made quite clear to the media and apparently published even before the news that MH17 was shot down. ([http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/what-happened-the-day-flight-17-was-downed/2014/07/25/716c36e4-142b-11e4-ac56-773e54a65906_story.html AP Via Washington Post]) <br />
* After the disastrous attempt to secretly provoke a Russian invasion, with utmost discretion the operators put the smoking gun, its rack of one-less missiles left uncovered, back on the same truck and drove it and the phone number back to Russia - by a strange detour on a long route towards the other easily-recognizable smoking gun rebel capitol, Lugansk ... when government ATO forces had just battled their way to the edge of Lugansk ... and got seen there passing at dawn on the main highway south, apparently having come from the center of town, and then presumably drove to Krasnodon (rebel-held) and to Russia....<br />
<br />
The fail delivery here is almost flawless, with no mistake left unmade and hardly any reasonable gaps to call for deduction. Letting multiple camera views on both sides of the porous border capture and track the gradual move to this stealth mode seems pretty consistent to me.--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Note: the implications of this contested finding, and the visual basis for it as well, is continued below under [[#If Buk 3x2 Was in Russia]] --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
I think one point is still not discussed here. Look at this video from 26 June 2014. You might have seen it before. But what is striking, all the Buks shown do not have numbers painted on them. Not only it will allow to paint new numbers or any clumsy painting on the side, using video of a known BUK, it also means that those BUKS were not accounted for when Ukrs presented evidence, if they ever presented, about the location of all the existing and operational BUKS <br />
[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BBEYZHOT0bQ]--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 13:29, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== General Observations === <br />
*It is clear that pro-Kiev side produced early and persistent stream of fakes, misrepresentations, or selective half-truths, all aimed to place the blame on Russia and/or "separatists" as a part of well organised and supported information warfare. This information warfare did not establish an objective to prove the blame of Russia or "separatists", as any of those media creations will not survive a rigorous scrutiny, and there is nothing to bring to court in particular. However it successfully altered Western perceptions in early days past the catastrophe, and helped to impose sanctions and other 'increased costs' on Russia, bringing the world on the brink of another cold war. It brought situation in Ukraine closer to perpetual chaos, and kept closely related people to continue killing each other every day. Although those fakes and misrepresentations were later realized to be such, those costs and calamities were not reversed. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*After moving equipment close to border, why would Russia send just a single TELAR to Ukraine in a highly visible manner as it was alleged? For meaningful operation of Buk, one would send at least 1 TELAR, 1 TEL (to be able to load missiles), and 1 command vehicle (as radar on TELAR gives only poor basic operation)? There are also lots of support vehicles seen, in case of something meaningful all that is needed. So moving single TELAR is all but pointless from military standpoint. Single TELAR is mostly for a show of sort. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Reported SIghtings == <br />
(consider along with the visual sightings below) <br />
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/what-happened-the-day-flight-17-was-downed/2014/07/25/716c36e4-142b-11e4-ac56-773e54a65906_story.html AP via Washington Post] <br />
shows the separatists strategy to not be seen as they rolled the murder weapon around:<br />
:''Even before the plane was downed, the AP had reported on the presence of the missile launcher in the town July 17. Here is what that dispatch said:''<br />
:''“An Associated Press reporter on Thursday saw seven rebel-owned tanks parked at a gas station outside the eastern Ukrainian town of Snizhne. In the town, he also observed a Buk missile system, which can fire missiles up to an altitude of 22,000 meters (72,000 feet).''<br />
:''AP journalists saw the Buk moving through town at 1:05 p.m. The vehicle, which carried four 18-foot (5.5-meter) missiles, was in a convoy with two civilian cars.''<br />
:''The convoy stopped. A man in sand-colored camouflage without identifying insignia — different from the green camouflage the rebels normally wear — approached the journalists. The man wanted to make sure they had not recorded any images of the missile launcher. Satisfied that they hadn’t, the convoy moved on.''<br />
<br />
That kind of pro-Russian sooper-seekrisy aimed at the media in front of the media should stop them being seen, right? No, oddly, it didn't. See below. The clumsy bastards could hardly have implicated themselves any more thoroughly than they did that day. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
One interesting post at the Ukraine@War blog mentions two tweets, both from July 17 and before the crash, mentioning this BUK launcher on a trailer at places consistent with the video record. [https://twitter.com/MOR2537/status/489702736766586880 One of them] (translated) sounds perhaps ''too'' informed, and says "Was driven missile system on the tractor cover + two cars after Thorez (Torez) in snowy (Sniznoyeh) in 12-10 (at 12:10? Too early...)." [https://twitter.com/_StradivariuS_/status/489704260045910016 The other one] says "(someone this) morning wrote that (the truck) stood (parked for some time) on b.Shahtostroiteley not intersection with Ilchicha, aside (heading towards) Makeevki. waiting to see (to be seen?) If that's an intersection named, it's a different parking spot identified as being [https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=48.002515,37.854917&spn=0.010222,0.02444&t=h&z=16 here on Google Maps,] one km west of the spot it was parked for the "Paris Match" photo. Otherwise, it refers only to the same place. The contributor noted "Another interesting detail in that tweet is that “it was standing” and “they were waiting”. My understanding of that phrasing is that the #Buk was actually parked there for some time. Meaning there might be witnesses." <ref name="UWD">[http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com/2014/07/reconstruction-of-whereabouts-of-buk.html CONFIRMED the BUK that shot down MH17 has indeed been in Donetsk] P. Martin, Ukraine@War, July 23, 2014</ref> There was a witness with a camera, and a photo sent to the Western media. That almost seems to have been the idea - to get witnessed like that. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== SBU Wiretap Clues ==<br />
I just had a look at the SBU wiretap transcripts, ones released July 19. In it is a segment tying in with the above stop or stops in Donetsk, the exact spot of the [[#Paris Match Photo]], and the general orders to drive east with the launcher. I'm not up on the wiretap stuff - if this is the same material said to be corroborated by the US as the real people talking. But briefly, know that parking spot in just past a roundabout, by a motel and a bus station, well short of a crossing Hornostaivska street halfway to Makiivka. Important clue to why it was here this thing had to get seen and talked about: one source claims this roundabout at the edge of town is "a big separatist checkpoint established on Jun 3 at the road circle." <ref name="UWD" /> This is supposed to all be pretty damning, and I must say it's at least looking like a pretty slick plan may be going on here, with pre-scripted parts that come into play later, etc. From Kiev mouthpiece UaToday, parts of a transcript they ran with the video and other allegations, on the 19th - How credible is this evidence?<br />
:''Khmuryi: Sergei Nikolaevich Petrovskiy, year of birth 1964, officer of Main Intelligence Directorate of Russian Federation, Deputy Chief of Ihor Girkin on Intelligence, at the time of the interception he was in Donetsk.''<br />
:''“Buryat” – militant of terrorist organization “DNR” (to be indentified).''<br />
:''Buryat: – Where should we load this beauty, Nikolaievich?''<br />
:''Khmuryi: Which one? This one?''<br />
:''B: Yes, the one I’ve brought. I’m already in Donetsk.''<br />
:''K: Is it the one I’m thinking about? “B…,”M” one?''<br />
:''B: Yes, yes, yes. “BUK”,”BUK”.''<br />
:''K: Is it on a tractor?''<br />
:''B: Yes, it’s on it. We need to unload it somewhere, '''in order to hide.'''''<br />
:''K: Is it with a crew?''<br />
:''B: Yes, with the crew.''<br />
:''K: '''Don’t hide it anywhere.''' She’ll go there now.''<br />
:...<br />
:''Khmuryi: – Tell me, have you brought me one or two?<br />
:''Buryat: One, one. Because they had a misunderstanding there. They didn’t give us a tug. We loaded it and went at their own pace.''<br />
:''K: Did it go on her own or on a tug?''<br />
:''B: It crossed the line (border).''<br />
:''H: And now have you brought it on a tug? Don’t put in anywhere… I’ll tell now where it should go, it will go together with “Vostok” tanks.''<br />
:...<br />
:''K: Sanych, the point is that my “BUK–M” (modified Russian SAM system) will go with yours, it is on a tug. Where should I drive it to put in a column?''<br />
:''Sanych: There, behind “Motel”, not reaching Hornostaevka.''<br />
:''K: Just after the Motel, right?''<br />
:''Khmuryi: Listen to me carefully, behind the circle near “Motel” there will be you know what. Call to “Bibliotekar” (Librarian).'' <br />
The next part, to me, suggests that as far back as the 19th or earlier, people talking on tape were seeding, or working by, the SBU-proposed Aeroloft plot with the town mix-up. In that light:<br />
:''...Bring inside only those, who just came back, only as much as you need for the convoy. Leave everyone else here. Not far away '''there is Pervomaiskoe, look at the map.'''''<br />
:''DNR militant: I got it.'' (Or did he not quite get it?) <br />
:''Khmuryi: Settle somewhere in that area, bring there those who are left. Your task is reserve, plus protection of this piece (BUK–M), which you will drive now. “Giyrza” will come there too. If anything, I’m on line.'' <ref name="Trans">[http://www.uatoday.info/?p=2579&lang=en SBU releases more conversations implicating Russia in shooting down Malaysia Airlines flight (VIDEO, TRANSCRIPT)] UAToday, July 19, 2014</ref><br />
--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The veracity of that recording needs challenged well now ... the day too early claim [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17#SBU wiretap video|did not pan out,]] so it won't be that easy. Has anyone really done a good analysis tearing it apart some other way? Could it even be half-legit, with some local rebels tricked by some undercover (wire-wearing, not wire-tapping) supposed defector delivering it "with a team" coming "from Russia" (meaning Parubiy et al.)? Who knows? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Imagery Mapping ==<br />
[[File:MH17 Storyful video mapping.png|right|330px]]There have been quite a number now of photos and videos showing BUK launchers ostensibly in separatist strongholds, on July 17. The geo-location of these in such towns by social media networks has been the subject of some recent media commentary. These purported placements are worth collecting and considering here. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
One somewhat comprehensive and updated/evolving page: [http://blog.storyful.com/2014/07/19/how-social-sleuthing-uncovered-evidence-of-anti-aircraft-missile-system-in-eastern-ukraine/#.U9oY_Ua3498 How Social Sleuthing Uncovered Evidence of Surface-to-Air Missile Systems in Eastern Ukraine] Inset is a small preview of the interactive map they made of all placed images (as it stands at the end of July - [https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=200399683004956931329.0004feca5d1fbab0a1d25&msa=0&ie=UTF8&t=h&source=embed&ll=48.206371,38.968506&spn=1.281328,2.334595&z=8 full-size presentation with links, on Google Maps]) <ref name="Story1" /> <s>Note that one of them is way up in Lugansk - which one is a little unclear at the moment - the site may be wrong</s>) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;List of Scenes, placed or not<br />
* Billboard Video: released by Interior Ministry, filmed in Krasnodon before dawn, the Interior Minister says. Russian military analysis places it in Krasnoarmeysk, and the Open Newsroom crew contradicts both and decided "collaborative geo-location was able to place the footage in southwestern Luhansk.'' <ref name="Story1">[http://blog.storyful.com/2014/07/19/how-social-sleuthing-uncovered-evidence-of-anti-aircraft-missile-system-in-eastern-ukraine/#.U9oY_Ua3498 How Social Sleuthing Uncovered Evidence of Surface-to-Air Missile Systems in Eastern Ukraine] Storyful blog, July 19, 2014 and onward (updated)</ref> <br />
* Surveillance Video: located to Snizhne by Eliot Higgins, date unclear. <ref name="Story1" /><br />
* Zuhres video: Pre-geo-located by the uploader [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=48%C2%B0+1'1.38%22N++38%C2%B018'6.04%22E&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=48.034019,38.391724&spn=0.629958,1.564178&gbv=2&hnear=H21,+Zuhres,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&gl=us&t=h&z=10 here in Zuhres.] Higgins confirms, 100% sure, and others concur. Driving east. <ref name="Story1" /><br />
* Torez square photo - located by an associate of Higgins - filmed app. 11:40 AM in central Torez. See below. <br />
* Another photo placed: Snizneh, nearest the shoot-down area (f/c)<br />
* [http://www.parismatch.com/Actu/International/EXCLU-MATCH-Un-camion-vole-pour-transporter-le-systeme-lance-missiles-577289 Paris Match photo] - allegedly Snizhne, reportedly placed '''in northern Donetsk city.''' See below. <br />
<br />
===Billboard Video===<br />
(to be condensed) <br />
A video released by the Ukrainian Interior Ministry is highly dubious and worth some analysis. It shows what seems to be a BUK launcher loaded on a truck driving some direction in some town at what seems to be early twilight (or pre-dawn, depending). The [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4HJmev5xg0 original posting] (with almost 2 million views already) gives no details: "Militants take out missile system "Buk" to the border with Russiam" the title translates. "No description available," it says below, and no comments allowed.<br />
From what I've seen no one knows where this is filmed. Daily Mail says it's a "separatist stronghold," unnamed, and headed south, back towards Russia. "Ukrainian spies reportedly filmed the launcher used in the attack being smuggled to Russia - with two missiles missing." Eliot Higgins was cited by [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/20/malaysia-airlines-mh17-videos-missile-launcher-torez-snizhne the Guardian] with his new team of fundraistigators as geolocating some video and photo but not, apparently, this one. As explained at [https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1278239551/bellingcat/posts/919158 the kickstarter link] they give, Higgins writes:<br />
:''In the above video, posted by the Ukranian Ministry for Interior claiming to show the Buk missile launcher being driven towards Russia it was possible to match the transporter in the video to the transporter in Torez, details of which... (you have to subsidize their operation to see)'' --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== Avakov's Placement: Krasnodon or Lugansk ====<br />
Interior Minister Arsen Avakov said in [https://www.facebook.com/arsen.avakov.1/posts/670837696339673 a Facebook post of July 18] Google-translated: <br />
:''Covert surveillance units of MIA of Ukraine today July 18 at 4.50 am was recorded caterpillar tractor loaded with missile complex, moving in the direction through Krasnodon, toward the border with the Russian Federation. The video can be seen uncovered missiles. Two missiles in place - the average is not visible. ''<br />
:''There is an analysis of this and other information gathered. Presumably this is the missile system "Buk" that made a last shot at a civilian plane from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur .. ''<br />
:''Criminals try to hide the traces of this heinous crime. Not succeed. Security Service and Interior Ministry of Ukraine has collected and collects more irrefutable facts and evidence, the author points out the tragedy of the terrorist organization DNI / LC and its Russian backers Putin.'' <br />
:''The investigation of events MIA issue a comprehensive report on the information. This fragment consider it necessary to publish immediately.''<br />
<br />
By the 22nd, "online sleuths" had placed it in Lugansk (see below). Avakov then confirmed this - he was wrong the first time. One article makes it sound like he wasn't just echoing the sleuths:<br />
:''On July 22, Ukraine's Minister of Internal Affairs, Arsen Avakov, gave the exact coordinates of the video’s location: separatist-held Luhansk, about a 45-minute drive from Krasnodon. Locals quickly verified this claim by photographing the scene, which perfectly matches the landmarks seen in the video.'' ([http://globalvoicesonline.org/2014/07/29/russia-ukraine-mh17-conspiracy-buk/# article by one of the sleuths])<br />
<br />
====Krasnoarmeysk====<br />
One source venturing a guess is [http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ the Russian government and RT witrh their 10 intriguing questions:]<br />
:''“For example, media circulated a video supposedly showing a Buk system being moved from Ukraine to Russia. This is clearly a fabrication. This video was made in the town of Krasnoarmeisk, as evidenced by the billboard you see in the background, advertising a car dealership at 34 Dnepropetrovsk Street. Krasnoarmeysk has been controlled by the Ukrainian military since May 11.”''<br />
[[File:MH17 Billboard Vid Russian Analysis.png|right|250px]]There is a sign, but I cannot make it out just yet, if ever. Can they really? Even if that's so, surrounding towns might be good places for a dealership in Krasnoarmeysk to advertise. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
At right now is a still from a video claiming to show this, I still don't see it. They seem to think the gray span says that, perhaps from seeing a clearer view of this ubiquitous sign elsewhere. Opps. There's no reason to say a dealership in one town can only have billboards in that town. This alone fails. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 14:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Krasnoarmiis'k,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&hl=en&ll=48.323387,37.919312&spn=1.252829,3.128357&sll=48.226502,37.386475&sspn=0.627601,1.564178&oq=Krasnoarm&t=h&doflg=ptk&hnear=Krasnoarmiis'k,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&z=9 on Google Maps as Krasnoarmiis'k] - ''not'' to be confused with the Krasnoarmeisk not far away in Russia. Distance: about 100 km almost due west of the crash site. Panorama, possiblt location, directions/implications forthcoming. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Dnepropetrovsk Street is the main street of Krasnoarmeisk, leading northwest to Dnepropetrovsk. It tried matching this to the street corner where the car dealership is located. Yandex Maps did not provide a street view. It could be there, but too few details to make a positive match. Whatever this is, it is not evidence for anything. The least the SBU could have done is provide the location and some corroborating photographs.<br />
:The same applies to all so called "evidence" provided by Ukraine and the US State Department. As far as I can tell it is only cut-and-paste of unrelated footage to ''illustrate'' the claims made. A perfect example of this illusion is the "satellite photos" of Russian artillery shelling Ukraine released on Sunday morning. A photo of Russian GRADs on some unidentifiable field was placed next to a satellite image with an arrow pointing "Here Be Monsters!" Purely illustrative and no proof. There is a difference between legerdemain Hocus Pocus and outright forgery. The Russian video presentation displayed screen capture recording from the ATC radar, usually stored for two weeks. For this to be a hoax, Russia would need to create a forged tape of the radar data. Highly unlikely, as the the claim of authenticity had support of the full authority and prestige of the Russian Armed Forces. If the US presentation turns out to be hoax, State Department will claim the photos were never meant to be evidence. Some internee was told to prepare a presentation using stock images for some facts they ''knew'' to be true – trust us! -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 14:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: You must have missed [https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BtZSVQrIMAARzKr.jpg:large this], Petri! ;oP --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 18:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
::: That is an awesomely perfect picture for this sorry episode so far. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 14:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
::It would be neat though if we could show where this is and thus which way its's headed. The Kiev authorities, I think, know what happened. They say it was this exact launcher missing two missiles. It could be. Where is it at filming time and where headed? If it's true this same one was in Torez (dubious but possible) we'd have a direction traveled until that point also, and a rough time, 8:30 or so. [http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jul/27/mh17-storyful-social-media-twitter-youtube The Guardian again] citing Storyful's open-source investigation: <br />
::::''“There are now four pieces of content – three pieces of video and one image – which, in the case of three, conclusively show a Buk [surface-to-air] missile within rebel-held territory and in the case of the fourth, almost definitely in their territory,” says Storyful executive editor David Clinch. “Of those four pieces, individual groups or companies probably verified in or around the same time one or another of them.”''<br />
:''Open Newsroom verified three pieces of content and is investigating the fourth, thanks to its 900-strong network of journalists and experts. ''''<br />
:The fourth is this video. Wouldn't it be a coup if we were the first to place it? Force that intern excuse and then laugh at it. That said, it's not the most likely to place but you, Petri, especially, might be able to. I think I might. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 22:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* [https://plus.google.com/118234537318646233652/posts/LZV1XZD854E James Miller Google + July 21] "Was a Buk sighted in Krasnoarmeysk or Krasnodon (continued analysis)? We've taken a new look at this video which has been debated since it was posted days ago. We're fairly confident, though not 100% confident, in this geoanalysis, but we're making significant progress. Any more information would be extremely helpful. " Cited: [http://www.interpretermag.com/russia-this-week-lurid-anti-ukraine-propaganda-broadcast-on-state-tv/#1753 Russia This Week: Defense Ministry Claim on Buk in Billboard Video Doesn’t Add Up]<br />
:''...As we reported on our Ukraine Liveblog, the Buk was spotted before the shoot-down of the Malaysian airplane and ultimately geolocated to the town of Torez, near the location of the crash in Grabovo. Then the video, taken early the next morning on 18 July, showed a scene in Krasnodon,... <br />
--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Google Earth has one photo [http://www.panoramio.com/photo/55329278 from ул. Днепропетровская.] The street has about the same width. The streetlights are not quite the same. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 14:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
::That image doesn't help a match, especially since by now it looks like Lugansk. For the record, there was a go by pro-rebel social media people at identifying a spot in town to explain the video scene, but it didn't do that either. [http://wikimapia.org/#lat=48.276196&lon=37.176087&z=18&l=0&m=b this spot on Wikimapia] is what they pointed to - filmed from the marked building, they say, looking southwest to the mall. No matching anything. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 02:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== Placed in Lugansk! ====<br />
[[File:MH17 Billboard Vid-Lugansk Match.png|right|800px]]Storyful's rundown states of this video:<br />
:''The footage is not the original, however we believe that the first instance of this footage was removed by the uploader and the version below is the earliest we can find. Ukrainian Interior Minister, Arsen Avakov, made early claims that the video was filmed in the Ukrainian town of Krasnodon near the Russian border, however collaborative geo-location was able to place the footage in southwestern Luhansk.'' <ref name="Story1" /> <br />
It links to "Bellingcat," which you have to pay to see much of. [https://plus.google.com/118234537318646233652/posts/bMdeBzY8yty James Miller] passes on that it's "Mystery SOLVED: Video released by Ukraine's Interior Ministry does in fact show a Buk, possibly missing several missiles, in Lugansk headed east from the MH17 crash site and in the direction of Russia." The spot they think matches the video (better panorama coming) is [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=48%C2%B032'44.7%22N+39%C2%B015'52.6%22E&ie=UTF8&ll=48.545926,39.265147&spn=0.002436,0.00611&t=h&cid=0&z=18 here on Google Maps]. Was that a highway? Where's the cross-street? I see elsewhere they have a high view showing the same basic billboard there, but that's going to be true of several spots in this area. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
My impression of the scene - based on the panoramic view below - is far from matching with this. That does not look like a highway, and it just seems like a small town. However, I finally saw some of the supporting images (see [http://news.bigmir.net/ukraine/827864-V-Lygansk-vehala-kolonna-voennoi-tehniki--SMI here] and [https://twitter.com/djp3tros/status/491651820188860416/photo/1 here] - source of the inset image.) It seems a likely match after all. I won't say I confirm it with any certainty, but I don't think I'll be challenging it like I was preparing to do. Note the different billboard in the right spot, and the matching one over there. There are other images, apparently more current, showing that that they moved the one sign over to the right spot They don't point to the pinkish roofed building beyond the red-roofed one, but that adds to the match (compare to below). Whenever this video was made and whatever it really means, it seems quite likely it was at this spot in Lugansk shortly before dawn. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
There is another video from June 2014 showing the same billboard with the same car ad:<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ez8cZ3nqjCs Луганск 02 07 14]<br />
The video shows a column of BMPs with one 9K35 Strela-10 short-range surface to air missile system passing the intersection in Lugansk. I suspect they came from Russia, as [https://www.facebook.com/groups/IOUCO/permalink/584402078339517/ I specifically asked] for Putin to send in the Russian tanks that morning. They passed exactly when I expected them to, at 6 minutes past 4 am. (I estimated it would take 2 hours 6 minutes from the border.) -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 17:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== ACLOS Review ====<br />
As noted above, my review agrees with the placement agreed by the others. For what it's worth, the huge panorama I made (the middle is full-resolution) and starting notes from before I realized no work was needed. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 03:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
[[File:MH17 Billboard Video Pan.png|center|880px]]<br />
It seems to be filmed near the edge of town, or edge of a hill anyway, with a clear view ahead, two vague homes/buildings seen down the slope. Otherwise, very non-descript. The angle of intersection will be one of the better clues - it looks to me not 90 degrees ( |- ), but with the road the truck is on either slanting or curving somewhat towards the camera ( /- ). One important observation: '''there's no logical reason he should have been just happening to film this area''' unless he knew something interesting would drive by at just this odd time. That's clarified by how he zooms in just before it enters frame - he was waiting for that truck. How did he know about it? Informants on the other side of town phoning ahead makes enough sense, I suppose. <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 launcher truck composite.png|left|480px]]Another issue: If this is dusk (sunset 8:20 PM local), isn't this facing roughly northwest? If so, this vehicle is driving roughly north, not south. And we might start looking on the west edge of town. There's a highway out to the northwest, back towards Kiev. This street is too narrow and unmarked to be the highway, obviously, but it might be driving that way, for example. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
:Or, alternately, he's facing towards the sun about to rise, early on the 18th, as alleged by the Interior Ministry) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
::That he happened to be filming just before dawn is even less likely than dusk. He clearly knew this was coming, whatever that means. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 03:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Above is the composite scene without truck. At left is the truck without background. Besides lightening the scene, it seemed worth getting the clearest details from different frames into a composite view of the truck and its load. This helps compare to the launchers seen in other areas and different times. So far, they all seem to look the same and perhaps be the same. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 03:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br /><br />
<br />
==== HRI ====<br />
Pretty good points [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/08/05/mh17-the-lugansk-buk-video/ from Human Rights Investigations]:<br />
:''To sum up, the statement of Avakov, the film and its location suggest the Ukrainian authorities had advance knowledge of this BUK and trailer’s movements or control over it. It is also extremely strange that this BUK, allegedly after shooting down MH17, is supposedly filmed by a Ukrainian surveillance team in ostensibly rebel territory, with its covering missing, as if to show the world a missile is missing.''<br />
--[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Paris Match Photo ===<br />
[[File:MH17 Paris Match.png|770px]]<br /><br />
* [http://www.parismatch.com/Actu/International/EXCLU-MATCH-Un-camion-vole-pour-transporter-le-systeme-lance-missiles-577289 Originally published by Paris Match] on July 25, with the claim the picture was taken by their own reporting team near Snizhne at mid-day on the 17th. Note the prominent, apparent, telephone number prominently centered in the picture - (050) 471-41-80. The truck and launcher, as far as can be seen, are quite similar to or the same as the one seen in the billboard video anyways. How many of its missiles the unit has at this moment is unclear. <br />
<br />
* [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/07/28/why-is-paris-match-on-the-location-of-a-buk/ Human Rights Investigations:] "it turns out to have been taken in Donetsk, 75km away" (citing someone else's geo-location - [https://www.google.com/maps/@48.004592,37.87265,3a,75y,63.38h,82.21t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sRGnHwZ5YZnuGO-n_VvruWg!2e0 site link given.] <br />
:''We know this because the phone number on the truck panel (050 471 4180) leads straight to this hire place (photo):<br />
:''According to Paris-Match, the proprietor of this establishment claimed “rebels” had stolen a number of his vehicles earlier in the month. If we go from here to towards Snizhne we find the location of the Paris-Match photo, near a car dealership on Makiivske Highway on the outskirts of Donetsk:''<br />
:''After informing Paris-Match of the mistake regarding the video location, the author of the article Alfred De Montesquiou has now got back and explained:''<br />
:''Hello, indeed, it appears there was a mixup in caption : the picture was taken leaving Donetsk on road to Snijne, not in actual Snijne'' <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Donestk Buk Map.png|thumb|right|480px|Map: this truck location, the company's apparent headquarters ([https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Molodykh+Shakhtariv+St,+19,+Donetsk,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&ll=48.044923,37.783184&spn=0.079187,0.195522&hnear=Molodykh+Shakhtariv+St,+19,+Donetsk,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&t=h&z=13 GM link]), and the A-1402 missile base relative to each other.]]<br />
<br />
'''Questions:''' Was it a caption mix-up, or did their team really not know where it was taken, and just believed the real source when he said Snizneh? Who is the true photographer who knew to catch this picture near the company's base, apparently at the outset of a rather epic journey? Why did the rebel thieves leave the prominent phone number on the stolen truck used for such an important task? It wound up leading to man who pointed right to the rebel thieves, and prove yet again separatists, not Kiev allies, were the ones driving BUKs around. Was that so hard to foresee? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''To Do:''' Verify the geo-location - set a time, presuming July 17, by sunlight and that location - establish which way it's traveling relative to the government-run anti-aircraft base just a few km north of here and relative to the other places and times this truck and others were spotted rolling around prominently and getting filmed a lot by the right kind of people, in areas presumed to be impenetrable to any such frame-up operation - look into this company, etc. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''Location:''' I can't confirm it with certainty, but it's extremely consistent. Two standard but distinct pole types that close together on the right with a pull-over lane ending at the blue one, and consistent-scale foliage behind. Proceding on the location as likely enough to warrant the work. The stretch of highway identified runs northeast, heading 33 degrees. The truck is most likely not driving at the moment, as it's in the pull-over lane. But it's pointed as if ready to leave Donetsk as soon as they finish doing something in theis spot. All we can see they're doing is getting filmed, and maybe that's just what they're waiting for. Ahead would be the an industrial area, the eastern suburb of Makiivka, then Khartsyzk, etc. and further east Torez and Snizhne (driving times unsure, date also unsure. Russia claims the one launcher left the northern base sometime between in August 14 and 17 images. <ref name="RT10">[http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ 10 more questions Russian military pose to Ukraine, US over MH17 crash] RT. July 21, 2014</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
There is more to consider about this truck, its company, its owner, and his story. But other than this photo's extra-clear view of the phone number and apparent proximity to headquarters, those are better covered in the section below [[#The Truck Owner's Story]].<br />
<br />
==== Time? ====<br />
[[File:MH17 Paris Match elev.png|right|220px]]'''Time:''' I'm not sure how exactly to set this up, but the shadows appear to stretch almost right across the highway, with only a slight northern shift. The azimuth thus appears to be fairly close to to 140˚ (reached at 11:09 AM). As for solar altitude, trying to line up the launcher's corner with its shadow gives a reading of app. 56˚ (= 10:50 AM, with azimuth 133˚) or perhaps 59˚ (= 11:18, az 143.5). The graphic shows both readings. Which is better? I used [http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/solcalc/ NOAA solar calculator], with coordinates: lat 48.017102 long:37.9037626 time=GMT+2, DST +1 --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Bellingcat was originally claiming that photo was taken at 9 am. [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/09/08/images-show-the-buk-that-downed-flight-mh17-inside-russia-controlled-by-russian-troops/] <br />
<br />
Then they were claiming 11 am as an obvious time without retracting previous 9am claim. [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/11/08/origin-of-the-separatists-buk-a-bellingcat-investigation/] <br />
<br />
Seems like 9am was more comfortable for them to match to photos from Zuhres and Torez. <br />
<br />
Sorry, using smartphone. Not very easy to comment --[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 01:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:<small>Looks like you put the same link twice, -it says 11 a.m.--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)</small><br />
::Antidyatel, welcome! Resup, thanks! I'd like to see any 9 am citation. But otherwise they agree on it being around 11? Good. The significance below is if the Zuhres square photo was taken at 11:40 AM as they say, it's basically impossible these images are from the same day as alleged - 69 km, 1 hour 14 mins drive between the spots, when there's only 20-40 minutes between the images. However, fudging it - let's say this is 10:50 and the other is 12:00 as I read it - that's 1:10 between, almost a perfect match. So maybe this isn't a great lead (I was never convinced it was). But 9:00 is way off and suggests they were fudging it to fit at that point. Would be good to document. BTW, on talk pages you can sign with <nowiki>--~~~~</nowiki> or the sign/scribble button. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: [https://web.archive.org/web/20141109132514/https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/11/08/origin-of-the-separatists-buk-a-bellingcat-investigation/ First archive.org snapshot] from the day after publishing (edit: a good three months after you called it :o)) says 11 am already. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 10:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: Okay, the links were fixed once or twice and [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/11/08/origin-of-the-separatists-buk-a-bellingcat-investigation/ the November report] says 11 am, not citing an azimuth or anything, just Paris Match saying it was "about 11 am," which doesn't count much for verification. The [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/09/08/images-show-the-buk-that-downed-flight-mh17-inside-russia-controlled-by-russian-troops/ earlier report from Sptember] might be based on something else when it mentions "a well known image from Paris Match, which shows a Buk in Donetsk at 9am on July the 17th." Neither one sounds like a firm final version. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== Screenshot from dashcam video? ====<br />
It it possible to identify if the photo was made by dashboard camera, smartphone, or other type of camera. Paris Match claimed that they made the photo. There are no date markings on the photo, which is strange. Position of the camera is such that it was either dashboard camera or the driver was making a photo (front and left side of the car). Paris Match was also implying in their report that it was a group of people in the car. "A sytem BUK missile launcher is photopgraphie by the team of Paris-Match in the suburbs of Donetsk, on the road to Snizhne the morning of July 17, hours before the flight Malaysia Airlines MH17 crash."[http://m.parismatch.com/Actu/International/EXCLU-MATCH-Un-camion-vole-pour-transporter-le-systeme-lance-missiles-577289]<br />
<br />
Why would they ask driver to make a photo? Dangerous or uncomfortable - illogical. If it was a dashboard camera, why not to release a video? And most importantly it would have a time stamp. <br />
<br />
Also in this report [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/01/17/new-images-of-the-mh17-buk-missile-launcher-in-ukraine-and-russia/] gives a new, a bit extended photo. Surprisingly the back of the BUK is nicely in focus, same as the truck cabin. While middle of the BUK is defocused. No wonder Paris Match cropped it. Bellingcat, that likes being so strict about photos, totally ignores this part. <br />
-- [[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 23:55,, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Yes, I agree. The two photos are crops from screenshots from a dashcam video. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 00:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
::Those must be two different shots at close-by time --look at position of street lamppost with respect to the truck cabin, one has it over black pipe, and the other more to the right from there. Can't think of a natural way for camera to focus on two different distances (maybe dirty and curvy windshield can be blamed but on tricky side here)-- FWIW. Usually dashboards have short focal length so that anything appear to be in focus; don't know why not the case here --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
RESUP, you are right. Those are two different shots. There is cable reflection from the windshield. Probably the cable is another indication of the dashboard camera.--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 13:35, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::I heard somewhere that it was a dashcam still, and I thought probably so. We all agree on that. As for the two images, I didn't know, will compare. Might compare. Why no video is a good question with at least one true answer. Keep an eye out for possible ones. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:53, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Torez Square Photo ===<br />
[[File:MH17 Torez Buk Analysis.png|left]]This is another image geo-located by the Brown Moses network (ally Aric Toller) to central Torez, [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Donetsk&hl=en&ll=48.023472,38.614014&spn=0.004923,0.01222&hnear=Donetsk,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&t=h&z=17 here on Google Maps.] Like others, it was initially stated as in another locale - Snizhne - and that had to be corrected. I can agree the location pointed to is either the photo's site or one strangely like it. [http://mashable.com/2014/07/23/citizen-journalists-mh17-spies/ Mashable noted] "Toler and Higgins were able to establish that the photograph was shot around 11:40 a.m. local time." I tried a quick azimuth measure, eyeballed relative only to the blue car, and got 165 degrees (yellow line, read backwards). This equates to a time of almost exactly 12:00 noon (about 30 minutes before solar noon, and 20 minutes later than their estimate). Seeing they're close to right, I'll presume they're closer than me and defer to 11:40. <br />
<br />
If this photo is taken at 11:40 AM, and it's the same truck seen leaving Donetsk around 11-11:20 AM, it's impossible these images are from the same day as alleged (Gmaps says it's 68.8 km, 1 hour 14 mins drive, when there's only 20-40 minutes between the images). That would mean multiple mobile launchers with multiple "Titan" trucks, or just one but with some date fudging. The company says a number of its trucks were stolen, so matching multiples are entirely likely. But so is date fudging, multiples or not. If that's so, I suspect the Donetsk photo was from July 15 or 16, and this one more likely from the day of the crime. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 04:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br /><br /><br /><br />
=== Zuhres Video ===<br />
[[File:Buk Zuhres Vid.png|right|480px]]Again, a truck of that same type loaded with the same apparent weapon is briefly seen driving east (detail at right). This one was never reported wrong and was in fact pre-geo-located by the uploader [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=48%C2%B0+1'1.38%22N++38%C2%B018'6.04%22E&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=48.034019,38.391724&spn=0.629958,1.564178&gbv=2&hnear=H21,+Zuhres,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&gl=us&t=h&z=10 here in Zuhres.] Higgins confirms, 100% sure, and others concur. <ref name="Story1" /> Zuhres location: on highway H21 halfway between Donetsk and the general disaster zone - 36 km east by road from the position of the truck in the Paris Match photo. I agree with the location, refined below as I lined up in the still used here - the blue line runs between the blue thing and the building corner (footprint, not roofline) to the front of the truck as it passes. <br />
<br />
The sky is fairly overcast, so solar angles can't be measured precisely; the differences in facet lighting are clear but not massive. A broad and inclusive azimuth range of 167˚ to 214˚ (rounded) is shown by the yellow arrows below. This yields a range (to the nearest minute) of 12:09 PM and 1:45 PM. The best middle is a bit early - 185 degrees. That would be 12:44 PM. Altitude, at solar noon, helps little. 12:09, 12:44, and all times between round off to 63˚. if that simply looks too high, we're forced to the later end of the time frame. - 57˚ at 1:45. My super broad-estimate: 12:45 +/- 50 minutes. Weather at this time on whatever day - as noted, it partly overcast, and it's windy. The clouds are moving fast, with slight lighting changes visible in just these few seconds. Winds by the swaying trees are from the southeast, perhaps, blowing northwest - at least at the building with a face running that way.<br />
[[File:Buk Zuhres analysis.png|center|680px]]<br />
<br />
==The Truck Owner's Story==<br />
The apparent owner of the white truck so important to the MH17 operation was of course tracked down via the giant phone number for his compant on its side. Interviewed at least twice now, first by Paris Match, then by Lithuanian agency Alfa, this businessman has been anonymized as Vassili (then Vasilijus). Thorough summary of the related, alleged facts, from each (translated) report:<br />
* [http://www.parismatch.com/Actu/International/EXCLU-MATCH-Un-camion-vole-pour-transporter-le-systeme-lance-missiles-577289 Paris Match, July 25:]<br />
:''Photographs of Paris Match showed that the rebels had failed to remove the billboard on the truck they had stolen. Thus we joined the owner of the vehicle. Vassili said the rebels occupied warehouses on the outskirts of Donetsk since July 8. "They are fighters Slaviansk. They landed and told me they loved my premises and we had to escape. They shipped me a dozen large vehicles, including the white truck. I do not know what happened to them, "admitted Vassili, distraught.'' (that was actually just what they published, aside from context material) <br />
<br />
* [http://www.alfa.lt/straipsnis/472203/alfa-lt-isskirtinis-interviu-su-raketas-buk-kuriomis-buvo-numustas-malaizijos-avialiniju-lektuvas-gabenusio-vilkiko-savininku?p=1#.U-GIxeOSyuZ Alfa.lt, July 29:]<br />
:''This person's testimony is crucial. After it becomes indisputably known that anti-missile system, which shot down a passenger plane was precisely the Kremlin-sponsored terrorist hands. ''<br />
Here, separatists are throughout called "terrorists" (Bezler is "the "People's Republic of Donetsk" terrorist gangs ringleader"). Vassili says these took over and occupied his company premises on July 8, taking the white truck - they said because it was needed He says they stayed in control of his facility for 8 days, apparently departing on the 9th day - July 17. Becuase of this, he and his staff - especially his drivers - were unable to do anything that whole time. He's entirely certain it's his truck in the videos (the phone number says so) as it's the only one of its type in that part of Donetsk (Žinoma, ji – vienintelė tokia Donecko srityje, tokios kitos nėra. Tokios „Volvo“ su tokia kabina). He says he still hasn't seen it since.<br />
:''...more and more irrefutable evidence that Russia supported the terrorists shot down over the temporary control of the territory in the east of Ukraine aboard passenger "Malaysia Airlines plane, and later sought to hide evidence.''<br />
But as Paris Match noted, they couldn't be bothered to detach the phone number to the guy with the whole dang story. <br />
:''Alfa.lt knowledge of the personal data, company name, knows his responsibilities and phone numbers (one is (050) 471-41-80), but because of '''the danger to his life''' that can not be published. "Stop saying my name, and I already have enough problems," said new horrific crime witness Vasilijus.'' <br />
This is valid; of course his best defense would have been to simply ''not'' implicate the separatists mostly running Donetsk, but it's too late now. DPR authorities might want him for questioning. And especially now that he's been publicized as a "crucial witness," others will want him to '''appear to have been brutally murdered by them''' (he will have served his main purpose by now, perhaps). I hope someone's able to arrange protective custody quickly enough, or that he can arrange his own vacation, or convince his friends (he'll know the ones) of his continuing usefulness to them alive. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Titan Gate blurry.png|left|380px]]Further bits on the business: Wikimapia has labels. One for the front building is generic. In English writing: [http://wikimapia.org/#lat=48.0399571&lon=37.794637&z=16&l=0&m=b&show=/24479492/Ochakivska-vulytsia-19 Ochakivska vulytsia, 19]. Beneath: Category: safety, '''private security company.''' Around this, a bigger labeled area including the back building and surrounding lot. Label: Территория службы охраны "Титан" Translated, it says "Territory protection service "Titan" (Donetsk)." Beneath it: "Category: '''Do not display name''', fenced area." (не отображать название, огороженная территория) Below, their gate area as it appears in Human Rights Investigation's still, and three versions I've seen randomly changing over the last day or so with different parts that could be the name blurred out (most recently back to not blurred). Is that unusual? I predict further twists in this, with the truck found somewhere bolstering the Kiev story, and with the company's "outing" being manipulated somehow. Feels a little spooky. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
;Assessing "Vassili's" Story<br />
<br />
There are a number of problems with and interesting questions about this witness' story and how it meshes with other allegation (details forthcoming).<br />
<br />
In Vassili's defense, I'll say the world needs to hear more. What happened in these eight days? Were Russian officers coming and going? Poring over air charts in the side room, before closing the door with an annoyed look? A lot could have happened - this could be a gold mine of direct evidence for war crimes trials of these terrorist gang's leaders (as understood). --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
[[File:MH17 Vassili's Truck August 1c.png|right|400px]]<br />
An apparent support: as HRI found, [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/08/07/new-sighting-of-volvo-linked-to-buk/ New sighting of Volvo linked to BUK?] August 7 - One of those provocatively deleted tweets, quite recent with a supposedly same-day (dawn or sunset) photo from somewhere in Donetsk - outskirtsy, like where <s>rebel</s> I mean Kiev junta forces proudly claim to almost be. this photo (saved by HRI) shows "a truck" carrying a tank, driving behind another tank. The posted thought it was for a new roadblack/barricade (concrete slabs were also being hauled). It appears to be the same truck Vassili says he lost, or one just like it. And this does look like the type of thing seaparatists would do if they had seized it, and still didn't realize how famous it had become. This thing likes to drive at dawn, doesn't it? How are checkpoints then, a little sleepy maybe? Hmmm... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::(added later: inset image - from the photo, color-corrected and cropped on just the truck - for full view see the article or below) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: FTR I took up HRI's challenge to identify the truck on that picture and did so with almost 100% certainty. It's a Volvo FH second generation (2001-2013) with low cabin. Like [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Volvo_LKW_Fahrerhaus.JPG this one] which has a higher cabin but other than that is quite a match. Also FTR, I noticed that the twitter account has "Donbass Bandera" as location, which can but must not mean anything. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: Bandera might mean something, in context, but no time to puzzle too much. Good ID work there. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Vassili's Truck August 1 Loc.png|left|380px]]The article passes on a geo-location I can confirm: [https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Makiivka,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine/@48.04073,37.967479,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m5!1e2!3m3!1s78165143!2e1!3e10!4m2!3m1!1s0x40e08e984a0db9a9:0xe4e52efde2e0641c Here on Google Maps,] photo taken, as described, from "opposite the Vostochno-evroppeyskiy restaurant & lounge “Atrium” in Makiivka on the H-21." A site photo of the "Atrium" is included. The graphic I made at left shows the approximate view, including the stairwell (to a subway station?), though the billboard is less clear. The view is roughly towards the rising sun northeast - a rough azimuth measure suggests the sun is shining from about <s>66</s> 71 degrees from north, for a time of around <s>5:24</s> 5:52 AM (elevation: <s>1.8</s> 6 degrees). --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC) and corrections --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
FWIW, I went over to militaryphotos.net and scanned [http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?236005-Situation-in-the-Ukraine-Crimea-*Photos-Videos*-ONLY/page200 the thread about Ukraine starting on page 200] in very early July, up until page 225 when all the known truck/BUK info and disinfo was posted. Watched countless military convoys, including a whole bunch from Donetsk in the time between. Not a sign of the truck in question. If it was in "rebel" hands since July 8 like the alleged owner claims, they used it only for "special ops", alone in the early morning or so, not in their larger relocation operations. Two things remotely interesting: in an operation [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0JdcC324Ek reactivating a WWII tank from a war museum in Donetsk], a similar trailer is used, but the truck is a different one. And in [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2eGNPJlkMo this video from July 5] but without given location, the Ukie army does some operations and two BUK TELARs are seen. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Possible Launch Sites ==<br />
*Launch site discussion here is based on a photo of disputed provenance, said to be made '''near [[Category_talk:Ukraine#Torez|Torez]]''', showing a plume of smoke (see on the right and below). Exact date is disputed, but it was posted shortly after the accident. A late update or second version of the photo emerged in December 2014; this is further discussed in the [[File_talk:MH17_Launch_Plume.png|talk page for the photo]]. A different launch location in '''Artemovsk''', based on Bezler account, is discussed elsewhere [[Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17#Bezler_Account|(link).]] . <br />
<br />
===What do we know? ===<br />
Questions about the photo, --if it is genuine-- include:<br />
<br />
*What is shown on the photo? (Likely a missile launch, but can be MANPAD, or some other launch; raising fire smoke not excluded though less likely) <br />
*When was the photo made? (Claimed to be couple of minutes after the MH 17 shootdown launch; but could be made on earlier days)<br />
*Where was the photographer, and where is than the 'launch site" Photograph claimed to be made in Torez (4 microdistrict?) . Claimed launch sites locations are [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/launch-location-detected-of-missile.html SE] or [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2107 NE] from the photographer. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
A site, or maybe a couple of locations, have now been forwarded, based on compelling evidence, as likely SAM launch sites of July 17 or thereabouts. This is worth careful consideration here. To start:<br />
<br />
* [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10984530/MH17-the-clues-which-may-lead-to-missile-launch-site.html UK Telegraph, July 22] This report with some detail and a photo visits a few areas where signs of possible BUK launcher movement and firing occurred recently. Caterpillar tracks, mostly light, signs of burning, various debris left behind, all or mostly "in the area of the town of Snizhnoye." These details might suggest whoever did this had multiple launchers set up in different areas that left as soon as the operation/accident was done. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
::So far, signs are saying it was just the one. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Below: The site shown on video, stitched panoramic view (with confusing curve). This helps get the fullest set of geo-location clues. I may even check if this is the same spot identified by Ukraine@War, below. It should be, or we might have two firing locations pretty near each other, which would be odd. The firing direction from here would be northwest, almost directly along MH17's flight path. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
[[File:MH17 Telegraph site.png|center|940px]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Launch Plume.png|right|340px]]Ukraine@War: [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/launch-location-detected-of-missile.html Launch location detected of missile that brought down MH17] The photo at right, cited by Kiev as proof of a BUK launch in the right area, July 17. The anlysis here looks good on first blush and lines the filming to northern Torez, plume on a line including a supposed patch of cat tracks just revelaed by fresh Google/GeoEye images of some fields [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Donetsk&hl=en&ll=47.989347,38.773155&spn=0.078813,0.195522&t=h&hnear=Donetsk,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&z=13 here] by Snizhne. As traced, the tracks look realistic to me. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: There is (a disappeared) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUvK5m2vxro BBC video ] suggesting that smoke is from a direction of Saur-Mogila (= constant fighting) and a coal mine. <br />
::Thus smoke may be unrelated to the launch. Also timing of photo is unclear. <br />
:: Buk trail from unrelated launch videos appears considerably [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDXScnEKaP0 more impressive than on the photo] , and traces well visible trajectory, likely attracting attention of many people . But there appears to be no witness reports. <br />
::Buk appears to use [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_navigation proportional navigation method], and if so, its navigation control will try to guide it on a straight path to impact.<br />
::Unless it was doing something else (but can it??? the answer requires expert knowledge), it was most likely on a straight line trajectory which can be deduced from the impact direction.<br />
--[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 00:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Yes, an odd video. I'm not certain they even picked the right view, but it looks about right - I think she and Oliphant (Telegraph) point to the same monument as a landmark - a place of fighting. Seems like they got close, but didn't have a specific spot like U@W picked, and didn't find anything. As for angle, I think it can maneuver around, but would prefer to fly straight (not an expert, don't know what "prefer" means here). And if it was hit head-on like the impact marks suggest, then it probably did fly just about straight into the jet. Obviously if it came over the wing, and was fired from here, it would have to curl around, but I don't think that's the case. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
<br />
The satellite images cited at Ukraine@War are available if you have Google Earth. As explained [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/satellite-images-reveal-how-buk-has.html here,] there's a .kmz package you can download [https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxEeOqcjSE5uQXlkWkxKeVhDaEk/edit here] that loads on Google Earth new, murky images from July 20 (but the display still says August, 2013). The tracks he highlights are visible, faintly. There are a couple sets perhaps connecting - some could be local paths - there's no recent enough images to say there weren't there July 16. One important missing thing is a patch of burnt grass it seems should show up up differently - it's not identified there, and not evident right around these tracks. From this, it's not a great fit, except that line of sight pointing here. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Plastic Debris 1.png|left|280px]]So is the Telegraph site and the Ukraine@War site the same thing? Well, the Telegraph article says they went to the spot identified on a blog, but found, as the image suggests: Two possible launch sites – a rundown collective farm and a nearby wheat field – showed some track marks but no sign of any rocket launch whatsoever." It was a farmer plowing his fields there who pointed them to ''a field nearby'' that burned the other day, and that 's the unclear site they show. "The location of the fire lies on the supposed flight path of the rocket, and track marks – though indistinct – are present. Some unidentifiable bits of green plastic littered the site of the fire." There were also discarded bottles (type unclear) and apparently this oddity, shown in a photo but not mentioned - soft bakelite-type plastic ... thing, with years in the 1980s and 1990s stamped in it. It's all near enough to the rebel town, the Russian border, and concealed rebel positions that they think only rebels could operate there. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
First, let's note that author "P. Martin" connects these possibly relevant tracks with the surveillance video showing the Buk launcher driving south The Telegraph spot, from the burnt grass, must the spot the exhaust pushed off from, and the burn line should probably be to the northwest. There's no sign of that alongside these track marks found on that visual line. That's a problem, as the exhaust never said a luncher was driving around thataway, but rather launching from thataway. <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Telegraph Spot Mapped.png|right|380px]][[File:MH17 Telegraph Spot Cleared.png|right|320px]]Rather, it's the nearby "Telegraph spot" - not quite on his line but close - that [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com/2014/07/exact-location-pinpointed-of-mh17.html Martin thinks is the EXACT location] That, he thinks, is in the next field south. It should be visible in the updated imagery, but it turns out this is just off the edge of the area they provided, so it can't be verified or ruled out based on that. The inset graphic shows this cut-off line, his previous possible firing locations (track-based, seemingly un-burnt, in yellow) The spot yields a best placement with coordinates already noted by Petri in a section [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Map#Buk locations and flight paths|here.]] (I picked out the spot myself, best guess, and got the same but 3 seconds east) It can't be checked like that for the telltale stripe to the northwest, but it looks pretty likely to me. The main view down the tracks (left half of the panorama above) would be looking south, and the near line of trees on the right running west. The pretty obvious tracks he identifies as likely launcher tracks, and they do seem to curve in where it stopped. Otherwise, to me, this has more the look of a pre-travelles semi-road on the line between fields. Either way, it probably drove that way, and fired from here, and not from the un-burnt spots north. All the tracks he notes, none certain in themselves, are supported in their possible relevance by this being what's at the end of the trail. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC) and [[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Added in November, the image below that. I noticed Google Maps had new post-crash imagery up, and re-checked the spot for burn marks, since it was just off the grid before. This replacement - overlayed with translucence - seems too late. The strip most likely to show the signs has apparently been harvested/cleared before this image Some will say that constitutes a coverup. And it might, but probably just out of stupid reflexive nervousness. I just wanted to measure its angle and stuff. There is a nice track right up to the spot, likely pre-existing and just unclear before, and what they used to get there. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Location Challenged ===<br />
<br />
The above stuff, as of now and as I've been running it mainly, seems to bear out the vaunted "social media sleuths" placing the launcher and probably the launch in "separatist-held territory." I agree with all locations provided, and times too. Everyone acknowledges date is less sure. There are compelling clues pointing to concrete firing spot, that seems to be lined up the hit the jet head-on, as it's starting to seem the airliner was hit. In this narrative, the questions people should be asking is who was really running that. But readings differ, and some differing views can be considered here. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* [https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByibNV3SiUoobnpCVDduaHVORHM/edit?usp=sharing MH17 Analysis] – CDN <br />
<br />
Petri posted this to the front page, a 25-page report with many graphics and explained reasoning. One of its conclusions, based on range to impact, mainly, meant that "the missile that downed MH17 was not fired from Snizhne." At the moment, I disagree. Petri, who is CDN, and are they soliciting feedback? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::The anonymous PDF was published via Saker's blog: [http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/08/detailed-expert-analysis-of-mh17-downing.html Detailed expert analysis of the MH17 downing] "CDN" has [http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/08/detailed-expert-analysis-of-mh17-downing.html?showComment=1407347983141#c8862773971299986141 responded] [http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/08/detailed-expert-analysis-of-mh17-downing.html?showComment=1407350196815#c7564049628743605813 twice] in the comments. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 00:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
I think these might be part of what threw the author(s) off:<br />
# the heading seems to be off, too southerly to trace back like that. At the end, maybe close enough<br />
# possibly too-wide debris field starting too early - final breakup likely E-NE of their spot (ie closer to in range)<br />
# Wrong presumed angle of impact <br />
# Lack of knowledge, specified on page 23, of this contrail image or, obviously, the supporting clues pointing to what might be "the Telegraph site" excluded here. "Why are there no images of the rebel missile and its impressive launch contrail?" Oops, there is and it point there. <br />
--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: I just skimmed it before coming here. It was posted [http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.de/2014/08/detailed-expert-analysis-of-mh17-downing.html over here] where you can join the discussion (which I haven't read yet just saw that Petri is there chiming in in comment 2 of currently 93). I think it's first valuable in presenting the known capabilities of the Buk etc. If your stuff above is true and it is one single truck with one single TELAR that was seen in the different locations, then it shows quite conclusively that the Telegraph position can not be the launching point, because even if the Ukie claim of disappearance from Radar 50km from the Russian border is not true, due to the position of the debris it could only be further away, not closer, which adds to the argument. My 2 cents for the moment. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
: Oh, not directly related to the critique, but driving around with a huge phone number that leads to a Titan security of all places is more than a bit suspicious, I'd say. ;o) --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: "the Telegraph position can not be the launching point" if my "stuff above is true and it is one single truck with one single TELAR that was seen in the different locations" - how? "because even if the Ukie claim of disappearance from Radar 50km from the Russian border is not true, due to the position of the debris it could only be further away, not closer, which adds to the argument." Huh? I think the field is placed really vaguely in that report, and that's what sets the impact point - it looks maybe kilometers off, to the west. Placed right, the implied impact point is further east, ie closer to the launcher. It is a valuable report, but that point should be re-checked more carefully before I could be convinced to write off all the other evidence pointing there. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::: Take a careful look at pages 9 and 10 of the PDF. Place the spot to where you think it's "right". Think how that would change the picture. The argument is based on the empirical location of the debris and unless I've missed some serious flaw in the numbers and basic calculations made on the pages leading to that, I think it's by rule of thumb a very sound argument. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 13:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::: I'll do my own soon - I can say it would end further east, relative to the border there, and probably start further east too, but maybe I'm unaware of some outlying debris - but first a though on the debris field I just had, even more relevant than size and placement - what does it actually say re: the plane? He presumes it would follow the trajectory east. Not much, really. With only so much momentum and breaking up, with five miles to fall, the main factor will be wind. Even a breeze has five miles to act on it. That was so with PA 103 - the wind was about perpendicular to the path, and that determined just where stuff scattered on a line across the borders area right to the north sea - only the cockpit and a few things were off much from that line. Here, if it blewa along the flight path, the reasoning would work fine. If it blew back, to the west, the plane was probably shot further east than the field suggests. Ie, closer yet to in range. The Zuhres video above shows wind apparently to the northwest, and pretty strong. Worth a review and re-think in that light. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 14:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::: With an initial speed of 907 km/h I see no reason to take wind into serious account. I see no reason at all for going into more detail in this rule of thumb argument, not on the debris, not on the alleged launching point. But I'm as always looking forward to what you can come up with. ;o) --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::: btw there's no exact calculation of the traveled distance of the falling pieces, it's just found plausible resulting from other data. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::::: There's good reason. [http://martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/PA103_debris.gif past precedent.] I did read it wrong - the blue oval is about right, I thought the scale by it, which is way off. That's the 20 km drift - if the wind was blowing due east at the right speed... to the near edge of the oval and 30 km to the far edge... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 15:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 four last points.png|center]]<br />
<br />
Debris fields as shown in MH17 WSJ data combined.jpg. The two tracks, 118 per Flightradar24 and other sources, and 111 from a Russian graphic (see label C), just in case. They cross at point E just to look cool - superimpose wherever to visualize a track-back on these or any line between. <br />
<br />
The four red "last points", eyeballed onto the map as shown in the various graphics used here (all pretty approximate): <br />
<br />
A: last return, flightradar 24 (erred, I think, way too far along - I suspect some inherent offset...)<br />
<br />
B: Russian ATC last return, '50 km' from the border (vague description, likely close to accurate)<br />
<br />
C: end of 111 track shown in MH17 radar 1.png (maybe arbitrary, lower resolution)<br />
<br />
D: report, deduced point of impact (presuming 20-30 km flight due east after impact, wind app. not considered at all)<br />
<br />
E: My guess for breakup point, where the damaged front came apart (should maybe be further east, right over the south part of the first orange blob). Actual impact point, an unclear distance back. probably not very far - downward flight could start anytime after that, decreasing the lateral distance traveled) . <br />
<br />
The cockpit, aerodynamic, shows the most like forward trajectory of this, relatively minimal wind complication. The heavy forward parts had more drag, wound up NW of there. A bit further NW, the light, high-drag, punctured upper fuselage. That these parts aren't spread further out suggests the jet managed to descend some ways before the front totally fell apart, and/or that the wind was fairly light. From there, most of the plane remained together, kept more momentum and little wind effect, and crashed kilometers east. The last part of this plummet, about one minute seen on video, it was nose-free and essentially nose-diving. A slight north trend, perhaps curtailed eastward progress, largely just down, leaves it all hitting together by Hrabove, scattering woth the fireball trajectory and wind deciding where these bits landed. That it only got so far from the forward parts again suggests this breakup was fairly low in the fall - maybe just before the start of the one video. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I'd say forget point D, it is way too far west, this plane was not going to fly 25km once hit. On debris, I'd put breakup where the "f" is in your word "forward" and impact not very far NW of that, lifting the whole 118 line a little northwards. You can't bring breakup below impact and count on wind pushing wreckage "uphill" because that first group of wreckage included 37 bodies, which would not "sail". The impact would be enough to knock the course slightly south, to drop the cockpit at Rozspyne, where it turned NE to end up at Grabovo. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 03:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Thanks. D is the presumed point used to rule out this launch location, the original point of this sub-section. That dot fails by a good margin. My E and your guess are both north of the flight path, along which all the red dots are (this graphic is confusing, needs updating, if I didn't flatten it). I was thinking a NNW wind did the north and west spreading, but the records say the wind was flat "east" (to the west). I'm left suspecting now the plane banked hard left just before it started breaking up. Actual impact, just before that. The "C" label is pretty arbitrary, but it keeps seeming about right. On the imagined red line 1t 117-118, I dunno, maybe 20-30 pixels back. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::Winds are described as 'from' not 'to. So a wind blowing to the NNW is reported as a SSE wind.<br />
::::A slip - I'm trying to say it that way now. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::Getting on to the wind. The actual breeze direction is usually a function of altitude - veering or backing from ground level observation. It can easily be 90 degrees out from ground level. You need to look at the vertical profile used in aeronautical soundings to see where debris will in the main blow to. --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 11:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::Sounds like a real headache to map. There's also changes over time, where east at 5:00 may change briefly ten minutes later, or 10,000 feet up. All that seems can be counted on is easterly winds in general - no exception to that. And generally, even if they measure it at the airport, it must extend up to the clouds, which can be seen swirling east over the area. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::No it doesn't extend to the clouds except by accident. Major direction change can happen in hundreds of metres altitude especially at night. Examples of wind shift between ground level and 700 millibars (9800 ft) in day time can show a direction change of 90 degrees - e.g. North to West. This is significant with MH17 where the breakups occurred between 33,000 feet and probably a few thousand feet for the final disintegrations. --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 11:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::FYI Here is all about [http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/48/ Veering and Backing] --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 11:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::As for the spread issue, I'm re-thinking it. As for the bodies, it depends on a few things but I take your point - bodies are dense. And I didn't know that detail - worth considering. Also a sad side-note: most bodies would be alive and aware, from what I learned looking at Lockerbie. Lack of O2 would black them all out at first, but gravity makes it so there's enough in that final stretch those not dead already (the lucky few) would probably "wake up" in time to both feel their injuries and their fall, and to see the "separatist-held" fields rushing up to kill them. :( ---[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::: My indications are they were all dead when they hit the ground. That's not to say some didn't suffer from the first blast up there. Using my (very long ago) rescue triage training, I examined all the body photos for type of injury. The main findings were (a) almost no blood (as the separatist intercepted call rightly claimed) (b)a lot of legs at angles suggesting hip/pelvic fracture (a very common injury in air crashes to people wearing seat belts) and (c) all the bodies appear swollen (in first-day photos). We are thinking of what happened as a decompression, a low-pressure event. But that was preceded by the blast detonation of the missile just outside... a high-pressure event. The very high pressure shock wave compresses the blood vessels and severely damages the lungs. Blood pressure and heart rate go sky high trying to compensate. In 1/2 a second the blast wave is gone and they are in decompression.The heart can't adjust fast enough. The lack of blood flow makes the brain and liver swell up, too, so normal blood circulation cannot be re-established even if the heart recovers. The Lockerbie bomb, and various exploding fuel tank cases, were lower pressure explosions; sadly many would have survived those until ground/water impact.[[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 20:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::So there is evidence of blast wave, not _just_ decompression alone? But no shrapnel wounds? --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 21:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::(cut my comment - I had misread - taken to [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Debunked topics#Bloodless bodies – fake Facebook profiles?|bloodless bodies spot]] FWIW - but I disagree with both the lack of blood and the validity of many "separatist" communications, but if we're not arguing a planeload of corpses being shot down, I won't argue it much.) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
More to the point, leaving the above graphic aside, would be this newer one I should finally add. Basic straight path, 118 and placed as agreed by most sources. Alleged launch location, measures app. My best guess is a 2 km range from 22.75 to 24.75, weighted to the center. Or most likely about 23.75 km out (irrespective of actual projectile flight path, that's where it made contact, but this helps visualize how the alleged launch site might line up with [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Forensics#Direction of projectiles?|the directional forensics]]). --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
[[File:MH17 missile intercept distances.png]]<br />
::Straight line from launch is okay. But impact has to be further north, ie before the most westerly debris. You've used the map which assumes that debris to be blown back by wind. That can't be right, as it included bodies (too dense to blow back) and witnesses saw them and plane sections falling straight down. This only makes about 1 mile difference to the missile range, so does nothing to exclude that launch location. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 01:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::The map of spread is only app., some orange area I made. The pink dot and lines are from a map, Russian analysis, as you say apparently presuming a SSE wind. Debris including people ''would'' be blown back to some degree, all of it, varyingly; trajectory can only do so much when you have five miles of falling, with the breezes acting the whole time, and the lightest parts will be back a bit, whatever direction and as mentioned above, a SSE winds at some time or altitude still isn't ruled out at all). Do we know just where in that area those passengers landed, and what types of things are its far end? ? <br />
(<br />
:::I mean, you could be right and it's a bit further back, maybe with a continuation due east from there and no real wind effect except slightly back. It was only 9-12 mph, and maybe it fell halfway before starting to fall apart, which means less spread. I'm thinking about a possible left turn to explain the north aspect, or it could be wind, or being further back (more north, as well as west), or a combination. The turn has to be a certain size, the wind direction is not certain aside from east prevailin, ... whatever point best explains whatever happened ... we're down to a shrinking agreed range, and as you say, it's all within range of the one spot, so it's not ruled out after all. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 04:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
At this stay of play, I feel it will be helpful to have displayed prominently an overall map reflecting best guess on impact location as well as already flagged suspected launch sites, that is the two launch sites we have been discussing (near Snezhny ; near Chernukhino) , PLUS launch locations flagged and TIMED by released satellite data (currently only Russian data is available). I would be generous with the range here, we can find range suggested by public sources but presumably actual range depends on a number of things (height, radar range, trajectory, wind), and may exceed the "official" range. Another useful graphics piece info would be indicating the front lines, if there is a way to have those known. '''I would be extremely cautious with displaying graphics reflecting just one way of thinking (whether "worst", "best", or "middle of the way"), for the reason that any graphics is easy for human brain to absorb, more than words spread out on all our numerous pages, and ''no graphics at all'' is better than displayed ''skewed'' graphics.''' One-sided graphics may be '''inviting''' even more noise releases "supporting" some already skewed scenarios, and I feel that was already happening way too often. I feel that most helpful stance at this point would be as neutral as it gets. (Regarding trajectories, a default guess is a straight line, anything else requires an explanation. Straight line is implied so no strong need to actually display it, especially if it ends up curling in suggestive funny ways on graphics). --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 09:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::I've been doing a lot of graphics, so not all fired up for more. But if you are, I wouldn't mind making another if it helps. Maybe this is best taken to [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Map#Interception Location]] (a lot of this is redundant, and I might move it, but at least I can say let's stop piling intercept stuff here as well as there). Up to picking a certain spot around Chernukino? Some outskirts area, on a major road, it'll be a guess. A couple guesses could be mapped. Also, if it seems worth it, I can do updates and upload the new version as needed. Any timed satellite launches, let me know. Front lines, not known and IMO misleading in this case. Those who would know would try - and maybe manage - to sneak this thing behind them... the caution about leading labels, I can leave to you - you could just tell me what to put. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
:::::Would take me forever, may try later on, but not immediately; some cleanup/re-arrangement seems the easiest option. (If there are tools for collaborative mapping, may be good to start using those; but not aware of any) --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 11:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The preliminary [[Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Dutch preliminary report|Dutch report]] says the flight recorders were suddenly lost at 13:20:04 UTC at a point that almost exactly matches the 22.6 km mark. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 22:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Plume Location Re-challenged ===<br />
There is another video, essentially giving a bellingcat in voice-altered Russian. We discussed all that essentially; but he seems at least to end up with a claim for geolocation for the plume photo. Seems to be a new one (or I forgot the old one already by now). The claim is based on [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2055 unrelated panoramic photo] somebody took nearby, and [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2025 claimed to be geolocated by presenter]. Here it is on <br />
[http://maps.yandex.ru/-/CVG0nLo~ yandex map] ; it is taken from a terricon located at Lutuginskii bugor(=hill). There is a cableway from there to TsOF (remember, Khuevyi Torez tells about cableway from Lutugino to TsOF, so here they are); [http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=48.012722&lon=38.665695&z=14&m=b&show=/10590043/ru/ЦОФ-им-Киселёва TsOF is central enrichment plant]; photos from TSOF do show a similar [http://photos.wikimapia.org/p/00/00/62/81/85_big.jpg cableway] . So based on that and an audio of locals of unknown provenance and authenticity, discussing a missile-looking trail in the direction of [http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=48.041767&lon=38.741055&z=14&m=b&show=/18687650/ru/Химмаш Khimmash], our presenter [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2107 ends up] with this [http://maps.yandex.ru/-/CVG0rMnO claimed plume location] , somewhere near this Mochalino village. And apart from this, his contribution to the topic is the claim of a white spot on the other side of 3'2 Buk which he claims to match on the way out. I do not believe all those Buk sightings were taken on the same day, and so do not believe in the overall glue-up of the story, but geolocating the plume, no matter what the plume is, remains legitimate. This author gives his answer to that question. Is this geolocation correct? I do not know, it is not tight, there are lots of cableways out there I presume, and some posts nearby are not too unusual. I do not see a tight fit between Lutuginski bugor photo and the plume photo--some elements do match, but those are obviously not identical places. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 02:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Excellent. Let's keep the title. But I guess you just forgot the previous location. This is the same view. The plume could be added, but I doubt it, and it's to that view at a consistent time on a consistent day. I'm not convinced ''all'' Buk sightings are same day, but most of them being so is a good fit with this plume that way, and a plane down with damage that seems consistent to me. (I hate this case) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::Are you sure it's the same? This new one is NNE from Torez, I thought it was placed SE from Torez by [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/launch-location-detected-of-missile.html U@W ]--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::Going back to check, this is a different filming location proposed. Line of sight isn't included, but it seems to be the same line over the same area to the same place. Even before he could see the distinctive mound, Petros (U@W) had [http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-cfSqhRb2dKo/U80x2OxK1XI/AAAAAAAATNk/r42WpH-Bf-Q/s1600/missile+trail+9.jpg this lineup], which includes this spot. Right where Petros pic says "trees" is what this guy decided were the foreground trees where it was filmed. I wondered when checking but decided on the further version. And seems to be the same result either way. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::I don't think this is accurate, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2107 video at this timestamp] gives 'место пуска ракеты' (launch location) near [http://maps.yandex.ru/-/CVGgVPJN Molchalino]. I have not seen this elsewhere, I only seen the one claimed to be SE of Torez. He does not discuss filming location, but shows it on video and assumes it is in Torez near the terricon, which is close to what other sources assume. He does show the line of site on the video; it is nearly perpendicular to U@W. Lots of terricons, coalmines (so likely cableways), and power lines leading there in this area, so location now seems uncertain. As I understand, no solid evidence for either of these two being the correct geolocation (those cableways seems to be quite common) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::::I am/was confused then. I thought it showed a SW view, just from closer to the mound. Now I see at 33:45 a view from right by it, looking NE? Can't explain the other one you see in the distance in the fuller view (right ?) That's kind of towards Molchalino, but that won't explain anything I suspect. (and what a bad fake or odd coincidence to have a plume up there and a the Buk tracking imagery lead to south of Snizhne, oops!) We'll see south and west faces of buildings if looking NE, so sun will be shining from well east of south, but also quite high, like mid-day in the early AM - or maybe just earlier mid-day, like 11 am. That would be another sloppy mistake. I doubt the details will line up. BUT a couple minor things didn't quite seem to the other way, so maybe worth a try (later). --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I will send this comment also to<br />
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/01/27/is-this-the-launch-site-of-the-missile-that-shot-down-flight-mh17<br />
The US map launch location can best best and almost exactly located from the last magnified picture:<br />
https://wp4553-flywheel.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/32.jpg<br />
That location is here:<br />
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.9571993,38.7466343,488m/data=!3m1!1e3<br />
The triangulation result in the last 3 pictures of the article introduces unnecessary error and clearly does not match the magnified picture.<br />
There is a structure that looks similar to an airfield and it is just south of Chervony Zhovten (=Oktyabr), matching with a witness observation in that place ("it was flying as if from Saurivka", though not matching 2 other witnesses in the zello audio, indicating it came from government held positions further south, [2:00] "Well, it appears everybody saw where the missile has flown from." [2:04] "Well, where you are, everybody saw it, but the Ukrainian media, as usual, will say, will say that that were us.")<br />
It would be outside the range of the plume picture geolocation bounds, which may be either an error given the long distance, or, the plume picture was taken the day before from the reported grad missile launch (as well as the burned field). (The photographer gave his camera to the SBU after twittering the first picture, so later pictures and dates can not be taken for sure).<br />
http://7mei.nl/not-buk-m1-new-video-proof/--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 19:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:(1) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkCcCmYlMZc That audio], as it turns out, was posted by Torezinfo on 24 July, and updated on 1 February. Torezinfo is a favorite posting place of Khuevyi Torez(=KT), who posted a very [https://twitter.com/WowihaY/status/489914266439671808 similar location map on 17 July already]. KT mentions zello recordings on 25 July in the follow-up, so shortly after it gets on torezinfo. With all that stuff linked to this KT poster, I would not put much trust that any of that is genuine. (Or that this KT poster is not acting as a medium for SBU). (2)[http://fr1.sidcdn.net/maps/nsdc/2014/07/large/map-nsdc-2014-07-17-uk-w3000.jpg Ukrainian map] does give us some Ukrainian held area somewhere to the South, but from that map it is hard to tell where exactly opolchenie ends and UAF begins--(I would not know) (3) Actually, going from there, not likely to hit on the left side--so having it from Artemovsk (as Bezler told, indeed) seems most probable --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 21:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:: Here is another map http://liveuamap.com/e/2014/16-of-july-saurivka-is-bombarded-over-and-over-by-rus-grad?ll=47.907137219641115;38.75392913818363&zoom=8<br />
::And here is an article which says that both Marinovka and Tarany were held by National guard. http://www.interpretermag.com/ukraine-liveblog-day-149-russian-tanks-and-artillery-reach-donetsk/#3353<br />
::I just opened bellingcat https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/01/27/is-this-the-launch-site-of-the-missile-that-shot-down-flight-mh17 and see that large parts of the article disappeared, I think they are working on it. That location given by the US photo does not really match well with the plume direction anymore, lets see what they come up with--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 21:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::I believe Marinovka was [http://lifenews.ru/news/136715 taken by opolchenie on 16 July] (lifenews report). Tarany--do not know, perhaps still Ukraine, but not totally sure. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 21:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::: other sources say attack was repelled and forced them to retreat to Stepanivka http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_in_Shakhtarsk_Raion http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/213817.html--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 22:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::: That US photo launch location differs by an angle of about 11 (?) degrees from the brown line in the bellingcat plot (measured from the photographer's location). https://wp4553-flywheel.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/101.jpg (launch location is just visible below the letter 'p' of 'the word 'suspected'). I think this a lot and puts the 'plume' into question. But then there is only the US photo, which itself could be a production based on social media (or worse).--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 22:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Well some believed this is for real, then they got a case to answer [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/22/mh17-us-intelligence-russia-separatists-report Guardian: Photograph: US intelligence community] [https://twitter.com/barbarastarrcnn/status/491559153559932928/photo/1 @barbarastarrcnn] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
In the following, I assume that most of the social media pieces and leaked audio tapes are correct and connect the dots in a different way:<br />
<br />
1. On July 14, an Ukrainian Antonow 26 airplane was shot down by a missile near the Russian border town of Donetsk.<br />
http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/what-weapon-was-used-to-shot-down-ukraine-air-force-antonov-26-at-july-14/<br />
The video in above link showed the missile flying for 39 seconds until it hit. Only a BUK can fly that long, a manpad or Pantsir, also claimed to have been used, not (see first comment in link).<br />
<br />
2. According to a recorded audio tape published by the Ukrainian Secret Service SBU, rebels possessed a BUK ('BUK3x2') in the Donetsk area at least since July 14 ('we already have BUK'). At that date it may have been either on Russian or already rebel held territory.<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVAOTWPmMM4<br />
<br />
3. A social media search discovered only one other system in the area, capable of shooting down AN26 - a Pantsir. However, a Pantsir can't fly for 39 seconds. Based on a max.speed of 780m/s and max range of 20km, it can only fly for about 25s.<br />
http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.co.nz/2014/11/unnoticed-video-of-26-downing-confirms.html<br />
Therefore and because of the crew's intent to engage in the civil war, it is likely that AN26 was shot down by BUK3x2. Afterwards BUK3x2 had only 3 missiles left.<br />
<br />
4. On July 16, Ukrainian and rebel statements both confirmed the shoot down of a SU-25 plane near the "Marinivka border crossing", which is only a few kilometers south-south east of Pervomaiske, the destination of BUK3x2. Ukraine's defence ministry said: "It is likely that [the hit] was carried out by air-to-air rockets from the Russian air force which were patrolling the border in a pair." <br />
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-28345039<br />
This may have been another reason to install a BUK system in this area on the next day, leaving room for an accidental Ukrainian shoot down, apart from an accidental rebel shoot down and a willful Ukrainian false flag shoot down.<br />
<br />
5. On July 16, rebels fired grad missiles from a location near Pervomaiske. The plume may have been photographed as well by an SBU informant in Torez and twittered on the next day, claiming to show the launch of the missile hitting MH17.<br />
http://7mei.nl/not-buk-m1-new-video-proof/<br />
<br />
6. On July 17, BUK3x2 was seen in rebel territory on its way to Pervomaiske, south of Torez. Ukrainian SBU knew about the arrival latest since July 14 and about its destination latest July 17 morning, allowing a false flag operation from positions held nearby.<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVAOTWPmMM4<br />
<br />
7. There was an ongoing battle in the region with "fluent" contact lines. Marinivka and Tarany, about 8 kilometers south-east and south of Pervomaiske, were controlled by Ukrainian National Guard as well as all of the border region. Marinivka would match well with the direction of the Torez plume photo.<br />
http://liveuamap.com/e/2014/16-of-july-saurivka-is-bombarded-over-and-over-by-rus-grad?ll=47.907137219641115;38.75392913818363&zoom=8<br />
http://www.interpretermag.com/ukraine-liveblog-day-149-russian-tanks-and-artillery-reach-donetsk/#3353<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_in_Shakhtarsk_Raion<br />
<br />
8. The Russian Defense ministry claimed in a news conference, that on July 17, Ukraine installed several BUK system near rebel held areas.<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bNPInuSqfs#t=1567<br />
<br />
9. In a popular 'zello' audio recording, witnesses in the area were talking about the launch of the missile hitting MH17. A witness from "Oktyabr" (Chervony Zhovten) claimed "it was flying as if from Saurivka". <br />
Two other witnesses said:<br />
[2:00] "Well, it appears everybody saw where the missile has flown from."<br />
[2:04] "Well, where you are, everybody saw it, but the Ukrainian media, as usual, will say, will say that that were us."<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkCcCmYlMZc<br />
<br />
10. A Reuter's witness also claimed that the missile was fired from Kiev held territory. Reuters, however, said, "off camera, he said that it was launched from a nearby rebel site. Asked why originally he said the opposite he said it was because he was afraid of the rebels."<br />
In a new interview this witness claims that "off camera comments were just made up by the [Reuters] journalist".<br />
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=497_1427729491<br />
<br />
11. BUK3x2 was again photographed in Lugansk with its 3 missiles, no missile fired since July 14.<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4HJmev5xg0<br />
<br />
12. The US presented a very low resolution satellite photo with the track of a missile added. The launch location does not match well with the direction geolocated with the Torez plume photo, it deviates by about 11 degrees in angle, hence either or both appear to be incorrect.<br />
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/01/27/is-this-the-launch-site-of-the-missile-that-shot-down-flight-mh17/#comment-12493<br />
<br />
13. Award winning investigative journalist Robert Parry reported about leaked US intelligence "that U.S. intelligence agencies do have detailed satellite images of the likely missile battery that launched the fateful missile, but the battery appears to have been under the control of Ukrainian government troops dressed in what look like Ukrainian uniforms."<br />
https://consortiumnews.com/2014/07/20/what-did-us-spy-satellites-see-in-ukraine/<br />
And later Parry wrote: "But I’m now told that U.S. intelligence analysts ... are concentrating on the scenario of a willful Ukrainian shoot-down of the plane, albeit possibly not knowing its actual identity."<br />
https://consortiumnews.com/2014/08/03/flight-17-shoot-down-scenario-shifts/<br />
<br />
14. During the coming months BUK shrapnel may have been collected from the AN26 wreckage and planted in the MH17 wreckage.--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 00:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Photographer Statement===<br />
[http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com.au/2014/12/interview-with-eyewitness-who-made.html Reported to say] : "That day did not foretell anything special would happen. In the morning I woke up and went to my work. At four ó clock in the afternoon I arrived home. And at 16:20 we heard an explosion. The first explosion was not very heavy. 15 seconds later, something like that, there was a second explosion, which was louder and it made the windows shake."<br />
: Did not foretell --an ass, --is this lawyer-written? 'We heard". --Took till December to polish up ? --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 16:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:: Agreed. 'I did not know in advance this would happen.' Uh, who said you might? And 15 seconds must be rocket travel. Did he hear the firing from there? Could be, not that far. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Time delay consideration ===<br />
Photographer reported two sound booms td=15 seconds apart; an interpretation may be launch and impact sounds arriving to him in Torez. If P=(0,0,0) is photographer cordinates, I=(d,0, h) is impact, with d ground distance between Torez and Rozypnoe, h is the height of flight at 10 km , and L =(x,y,0) is launch location, dist(A,B) is Euclidean distance between A and B, c is peed of sound, and n (about 2.5) is missile speed in Machs, then<br />
<br />
(1). dist (P,L) = dist(L,I)/n + dist (I,P) - td*c <br />
<br />
(2). dist (P,L) >= h/n + dist (I,P) - td*c <br />
<br />
(1) is a biquadratic equation for y given x (square enough times for square root to disappear); plotting that gives a closed 'ellipse-like' curve on (x,y) plane; once on that curve, time delay is exactly td seconds (doing this involves solving quadratic equations and removing spurious solutions not satisfying (1) ) . That curve is at distance about 13 km in NW direction from photographer in Torez, and about 22 km in SE direction from him on the Southern ( Saur Mogila side). <br />
<br />
(2) gives a simple estimate that distance between photographer and launcher is greater than the known right hand side; that distance is more than something like 13 km<br />
<br />
(3) Requiring launch withing the range, --launch is not more than 20 km horizontally from the impact-- selects a NW arc of the curve described in (1) ; that arc is to the NW from Torez, and goes slightly NW from the impact point (meaning its ground projection). <br />
<br />
Conclusion, based on the above, is that launch is too far from the photographer, to match the photo. <br />
<br />
(Knowing exact time delay can tighten the argument. With what's actually known, and objection can be raised that whatever actual time delay was, it appeared to be 15 seconds to the photographer. Graphics of the curve may be supplied if needed). --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Ooh. That kind of math could really come in handy with recorded audio cues, for example. But based on '15 seconds, something like that,' from memory months later, I wouldn't put any weight on it. If that turns out correct and pretty exact, there's a good point. Otherwise, the photo and other stuff is more solid, and says it's just about where it should be, as far as I've seen anyway. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Contrail ==<br />
This is what an "impressive launch contrail" of a big missile might look like.<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3lLwP1y0w8 АТО. Запуск двух ТРК Точка-У. Артемовск.] (ATO. The launch of two TRK Tochka-U. Artemivs'k.) – August 28, 2014<br />
-- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 22:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Something happens in the sky. This is the people's reaction:<br />
* ''20/09/2014 Over many parts of the DPR and LPR were seen circles in the sky.'' [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7310 1,] [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7311 2,] [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7312 3,] [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7313 4,] [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7314 5]<br />
-- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 03:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
Tochka U missile is single stage solid fuel, which is a mixture of ammonium perchlorate with rubber and aluminum powder (Russian [http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/tochka/9ch151.shtml "ДАП–15В" fuel] ).<br />
I could not find information on Buk with a comparable level of detail. Buk missile is single stage, solid fuel of some type, "dual-mode solid propellant (total work time - about 15 seconds)" [http://www.webcitation.org/67kZeZxeh] , [http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-9K37-Buk.html]<br />
Earlier "Куб" ("Cube") missile used [http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/kub/kub.shtml 'ballist' fuel,] [https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%85#.D0.91.D0.B0.D0.BB.D0.BB.D0.B8.D1.81.D1.82.D0.B8.D1.82.D0.BD.D1.8B.D0.B5 gunpowder] + plasticiser type (Russian "ВИК-2") at the start, followed by some sort of ramjet ("direct flow rocket engine") at final stage. It is not clear, but possible, that fuels and contrails of Tochka U and Buk are different. Here are some videos with Buk launch: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDXScnEKaP0] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EAtNpsXrgWs], and [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSXMhaFntrU a longer with stupid music version]. Those videos appear to be shot from a closer distance than Tochka U video; and a contrail on them does look quite impressive. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 10:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:The amount of smoke is highly dependant om Alumin(i)um loading. In general more aluminum is more 'oomph' and also more smoke.<br />
:On the other hand, it's common to alter the loading for other reasons. I refer to the Syrian Volcano (122mm variety) that started out as high Al-load and quite smokey but recent versions have low Al load but perhaps similar characteristics? --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 10:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Here is something that might be a BUK: Ukrainian AN-26 shot down from Russian border area on July 14th. Ukraine@war claims it as a BUK. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 10:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
* [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.fi/2014/11/unnoticed-video-of-26-downing-confirms.html Unnoticed video of AN-26 downing confirms shot down from Russian territory] – Ukraine@war, November 27, 2014<br />
** Video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoS4kgHxPnE Ukrainian Military Aircraft Su-25 Downed After Russian Attack Near Izvarino, July 16]<br />
:::Does not look like Buk, short contrail, --not all the way to the ground like on Buk video launches. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::It was a BUK. It flew 39 seconds in the video, a Pantsyr can't do this, see also first comment in this link http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/what-weapon-was-used-to-shot-down-ukraine-air-force-antonov-26-at-july-14/. Easy maths - at Mach 3 (1020m/s) it can fly for about 42 seconds (range 42 km, bit more because initially it is slower). According to the audio tape, BUK 3x2 was in the area on that day! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVAOTWPmMM4 Ukraine@war needed 5 months to find something else in the area, but the Pantsyr can't fly that long. This is how BUK 3x2 likely lost a missile.--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 21:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::::Well, yes, it does takes 42 seconds to fly 42 km at 1000 m/s , but that does not mean what we see '''must be''' a Buk. They start discussing that plane caught fire at 0:03 on the video already. We do not see what on hell is going on until some 30 s later. This plane likely was brought down by Igla or similar modern MANPAD. Possibly two hits, at 0:03 and another at around 0:30. Or it got on fire at the start of the video and than eventually went down (It is unlikely to have SU 25 pilot bailing out after Buk strike; or particularly likely catching fire as it's not aiming at the engine; contrail is weak for a Buk, too). Pantsir claims are much later from what I have seen,--- and no need for Pantsir to shoot SU 25. ---If something is there on SBU audio and some murky photo, does not mean it's all for real, and that what we do actually see all have to be linked to all that murky SBU stuff. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 22:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::::There may be some confusion here, just a recapture<br />
::::::First video https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xTT6BDRA8_k<br />
::::::0:03-0:11 buring object <br />
::::::0:17-0:33 contrail making a half looping<br />
::::::Second video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoS4kgHxPnE<br />
::::::0:29-0:39 contrail making a half looping + detonation.<br />
::::::ukraine@war http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/11/unnoticed-video-of-26-downing-confirms.html<br />
::::::says both videos show AN26 shoot down on July 14 (second video with wrong label SU-25)<br />
::::::says 2nd video impact at 0:39, claims missile has been burning for at least 39 seconds--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 06:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::::::After reconsideration, I would say ukraine@war is right, both videos show AN26 shoot down, but wrong, people were initially watching AN26 with engine burning and a second missile was fired. That missile was seen burning about 16 seconds in first video, and time has to be added to reach that altitude/location, so likely over 20 seconds. That would exclude man-pad, Pantsir (?), likely BUK, R73 air-to-air, ...--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 06:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Actually, it is interesting to know how contrail of Buk on a long haul launch looks like. It is said that it fires engine for some 15 seconds only (and unknown will it do less, if it can do away with less). That 15 seconds need to put it at a spot where it can reach the target with little, if any, engine work and doing turns only. It is not very clear how much targeting happens in the first 15 seconds, likely it does some; and it is self-guided and doing proportional navigation later on. Knowing details here allows to find exact trajectory, short of that thinking it goes straight to the collision point is a sensible idea. In any case, heavy contrail '''raising from the ground''', perhaps higher than the target is. Contrail is white, and stays put for a while. Seriously heavier than the stuff we see on social media. There are youtube videos of Buk launches giving an idea --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:These 15 seconds are wrong. Here is a video (start at 2:00) showing a SA-11 burn fuel for 35 seconds until its too far to distinguish. It is detonating at 42 seconds. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBlU2hHYJMg (I just copied the comment from here http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/what-weapon-was-used-to-shot-down-ukraine-air-force-antonov-26-at-july-14/ )--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 23:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::That video probably shows a modern version ('over horizon' capability was mentioned somewhere regarding modern developments; this one seems to be showing us something like that). 15 sec is coming from Russian sources [http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/buk/buk.shtml Зенитная ракета 9М38 выполнена с применением двухрежимного твердотопливного двигателя (общее время работы - около 15 секунд)]. Older versions also had shorter listed range. 22-25-35-42 km range, going through modifications. (Would be happier without 15 sec engine limit actually-easier to know trajectory) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::Actually what goes off is [https://digitalempire.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/9m38m1.jpg 9M38M1], the one supposed to have [http://pvo.guns.ru/buk/buk_02.htm 15 sec engine run], but the video lasts for 40 sec. This appears to be edited video, around 2:30 we got two tracks, than one slides right unreasonably for a natural recording. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 02:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::Since this is a point we haven't already covered around that I know of, I'll pop in for it. 42 seconds I gather is the time for the fuel to burn out and the thing to fall, like a grad rocket or the like can only do. But this is a missile with guidance, set to intercept a moving airliner. Therefore, app. 40-45 seconds is the longest, not the shortest, it can fly (or am I just confused?) But 15 seconds is plausible, depending. Still might be untrue, not trusting people saying stuff. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::::After the engine is off it is high up and and at high speed, still can fly until gravity acceleration brings it down, and is on guided flight -unlike Grad-because fins can move causing it to turn. Issues here are visuals (contrail all the way or only about 15 km in flight), and trajectory. With engine on for 40 +secs it will go straight to collision point doing proportional navigation all the way (exploding earlier if it needs to be). If it is only 15 sec, trajectory is less clear, it may for example use engine to climb high up, than do guided fall and proportional navigation to the target from a spot where engine delivered it (for low and close-by target, that may potentially end up with a hit from another side--some drawings from unclear sources were showing opposite side hits at under 1 km and direct hits at 10-15 km). Or it may use engine to end up on a ballistic trajectory hitting target (no side changing than). This is solid fuel engine so there is not much control on how quickly it burns off, that time is a set design feature. What we see on launch video is 40+ seconds of engine work-- will go direct to collision point in that case. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 12:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::::That's another clue that plume of smoke photo is not a Buk launch, that would give at least some 10-15 km worth of contrail, not a plume; with 40+seconds engine, contrail all the way to impact...(or else, launched from far away, over 40 km distance) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 12:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==About accents==<br />
<br />
[http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29109398 This report,] released one day before the preliminary official report, recycles visual imagery already discussed on this page, and attempts a new claim that a BUK crew spoke with Russian-'Muscovite' accent. The claim is made by (British-accent) actors representing 'eyewitness(es)', with a visual imagery of a car at unknown night-lighted location in the embedded video, and some text, provided in English. Regarding 'Muscovite' accent, first it is not easy to tell, for example [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBCfmlMkYMg this video] is Mr. Poroshenko speaking in Russian to a resident of Crimea, replying in Russian, and commented by a presenter, who is speaking 'Muscovite'. Although Mr. Poroshenko has a slight southern accent, there is little difference between the three speakers in practice. Moreover, actors and presenters can easily switch from Southern to Muscovite as required. <br />
<br />
Secondly, if somebody speaks 'Muscovite', this does not mean this person works for Russia or the rebels,--- he can work for any side (PS. No change of condition to the blue dumpster on Zuhres video was reported in this latest update). --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Thanks for bringing this. What a stupid report. "Three eyewitnesses, all civilians, separately told Panorama that they saw a missile-launcher in rebel-held territory a few hours before the Boeing jet was hit." Yeah, video shows the same. It was there. It probably shot down the plane. Accents, as you note, aren't the best indicator of anything, and even the reason sounds vague: the G thing, which even I know about (back to Olga/Olha). The "Russians" might even be Russian dissident mercenaries right from Moscow, for all we know. Who paid them? Their going up to the media and saying "you didn't see us" was not a good plan to stay secret. The witnesses: chosen at random? Directed to them? <br />
::''If correct, the Kremlin has to explain to the relatives of the 298 passengers and crew who died - including ten Britons - why Russian military personnel were allegedly seen in the area escorting a BUK shortly before MH17 was shot down.''<br />
:I think Russia could come up with a reason or two such allegations are made. Those ten Britons' tax dollars fund it. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: Hmm, this foreigner is confused by dat BBC talk: "If correct" ... doesn't that mean it ''wouldn't be'' merely "allegedly" but, well, correct? ;oP --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 23:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::It means "If {made up vague allegation) is correct....then "SHOCK HORROR CONCLUSION IS TRUE". this lets them be as wild or wide off the mark as they like and the magic "if correct" turns it true. Without any effort to check if it IS true in our understanding of that word.[[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 03:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::Another BBC weapon in its arsenal of innuendo and dissimulation is the quotation mark. Whenever they are dealing with something of dodgy provenance, or something of good provenance they want to weaken they put it in quotation marks. e.g. - ISIS beheaded 20 Syrians. becomes ISIS 'beheaded 20 Syrians' or 'ISIS' beheaded 20 Syrians or ISIS 'beheaded' 20 'Syrians' or ISIS beheaded '20' Syrians. No need for corrections later. Any version can be retrospectively justified or otherwise. --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 03:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== If Buk 3x2 Was in Russia ==<br />
Previously, it seemed quite likely the Buk launcher associated with the shoot-down was one of those owned and operated by the Kiev regime, simply snuck into separatist territory, maybe with some cover to make them even invite it in like a Trojan Horse. Then, I saw the November Bellingcat research on "Buk 3x2." As covered [[#Bellingcat and 3x2|above,]] this claims to match that unit with a distinct one seen three weeks earlier, driving in a military convoy well inside Russian territory. This is widely taken as clear proof the Russian military supplied the weapons, and it is strongly indicative of that. However, the general possibilities are worth laying out at this point.--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
All options below share these presumptions: <br />
* MH17 was brought down by the missing SA-11 missile AND/OR (in some cases) at least the launcher's appearance was coordinated to give that impression and is a clue to the plot <br />
* The videos and photos in question are genuine and not manipulated (my usual presumption, same here)<br />
* The Russia geolocations (many of them, making sense in context) are correct - Buk 3x2 as seen was seen in Russia, between Kurk, Stary Oskol, and a bit south of there (not verified but most likely correct) <br />
<br />
Presuming all that:<br />
* Buk 3x2 (seen in Russia) and the mystery one are not the same - this require paint job match and matching damage to the lip above the track to make a Kiev-owned unit look like that one. It's possible, but not the most compelling.<br />
* The two units are the same - it was in the convoy in Russia and also towed around Donetsk oblast July 17. <br />
<br />
If the unit is the same, there are a few possibilities for the nature of that connection, some of them silly or just there for logical fullness:<br />
* It was Kiev's unit and they snuck it over and into this convoy, and...<br />
** ... got it back later<br />
** ... the Russians kept it and used it for their own operation<br />
* It was Kiev's but some other way lost to the Russians <br />
* It was Russia's but Kiev managed to sneak over and steal it out of the convoy and then use it for the false-flag event<br />
* Same, but Donbass rebels then stole it from Kiev <br />
* It was Russian, and someone on the Russian side drove it over and then it was stolen by Kiev forces <br />
* Someone on the Russian side drove it over and it stayed in their control or handed over to their chosen parties, or transferred at the border - that is, no Kiev interference.<br />
<br />
So far, I'm inclined to call Bellingcat's reading (the last option, the widely accepted one) the single most reasonable one, though maybe outweighed by the ''combined'' alternatives. It's not fun to feel almost swayed to a view so close to Kiev's problematic narrative, but this is what I see, pretty basic. Some combined maybes go against the straightforward reading. As for other thoughts I might be missing, well, that's partly why it's here. Let me know, I'm all ears. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Starting from that reasonable if unproven last option, not one but three final types of possibility remain. If it was freely moving in convoy inside Russia, it probably belongs to Russia at the time. Presumed. However, it could be that...<br />
* '''A rogue officer''' at Kursk - maybe a closet Nazi who sympathizes with Kiev, hates Putin, or just took a bribe - provided this unit to Kiev. He would set up this convoy to anchor the thing in Russia, then send the shady unit on, with his own guys or to hand off to Kiev's, who took it from there as I've speculated. The strangely obvious manner it was displayed - on both sides of the border, with its number slowly fading away - is consistent with this motive + intelligence. <br />
* '''It happened as reported''' (one way or another) Putin's military signed off on the loan, apparently with a sent crew or maybe given to local handlers, who for their own purposes did fire that shot. The strangely obvious manner it was displayed is consistent with this + stupidity/sloppiness, providing proof that probably wasn't even needed, just helpful, to start the punishment. At that point, it would be a real problem about as trumpeted, and still I would suggest we consider what the real crime is under the circumstances, if the solutions pursued are fair, or if this is all just geo-politics and warfare by other means cloaked in a cynical disguise of concern for justice. ^ <br />
* '''Koo-koo (?):''' "as reported plus" - a mega conspiracy theory: it goes all the way to the top, and Putin is that rogue general selling the nation out, to demonize himself and Russia and be sure to get caught, in an elaborate staged play - Putin (or whoever's running things presumed to be run by HIM) is somehow controlled, his opposition scripted and ultimately geared towards provoking and achieving an expansion of "The West" into "The North." (I've always considered this possible, and one that's occurred to me more lately, and seems worth listing ... but I don't buy it. I'm going with "rogue officer" with a second bet on one of the other divergence points listed before that - unspecified. Third choice is "as reported.")--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::^ Not to apologize for egregious behavior if it really is that, but let's please compare this to the shoot-down of Iran Air 655 by the USS Vincennes in 1988. A US Naval ship illegally in Iranian waters shot down an Iranian passenger plane with 290 people aboard, despite all the safeguards and sensors working correctly (the consistent clues the ship's computers gave them saying "do not shoot" can only be overridden so totally by choice). But it was deemed by the US to be no crime, just accident and Iran's fault for being provocative, and useful in the effort to compel them to quit the war with Iraq they were just starting to win. In Ukraine, repeated Air Force attacks on rebel-held cities, often hiding their jets behind civilian airliners, might both justify arming the rebels with such defensive weaponry, and invite an honest mistake from a team running this machine in stand-alone mode. The SBU version however overrides this all: it was an accident, but the Russians' intent was never defensive, always planning to kill an airliner, just meaning it to be a different one. That would clearly be criminal in all regards, and it's a sub-set of "as reported" - not a very good one. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Sorry, I can't help you here as I don't share your presumptions. I consider it a waste of time and energy to connect dots that are laid out by "sources" like the SBU and Brown Noses - proven liars and at least in case of the former producers of fraud "evidence" - and therefore I didn't even read your logical chains based on them. Just saying to not make it appear that I agree. ;o) --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 10:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:Poking at specific presumptions could be helpful, but it all could go on and on and remain inconclusive anyway. And I take back what I say about leaning this way or that - I keep leaning different ways and on balance I'm feeling sort of weightless here. I think that comes through in the text... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I don't see the numbers matching, getting close is not good enough, and I quit it there. Yes, it is weird that they are close, and that this murky business is covered by Spiegel, but can't really help with any of that. There is lots of murky weird stuff going on all the time, can't change the whole world to stop it. (Also: the Russian Government would be fully capable of doing a painting job properly if deciding to starting painting at all, their food trucks are all nicely painted, etc; just too sloppy for them to be behind) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:The paint being what it is, between that and the bend and light patch below all lining up, I think we're down to the same unit, or faked to match, and the possibilities branching off those two. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::As discussed earlier, the dot is shifted off the middle, more on Russian video than in PM photo; in Russian video, number 2 has well-curved semi-circle; in PM, it is almost straight segment. Bad photos for comparison but it's off, as far as it's possible to tell. As for the skirt bend, too blurry and distorted on PM to tell; Russian video, I think it is actually dirt, not a bend. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Also, looks like two squares , a bit darker than background, over first digit in PM photo. Unclear is it paint or digital camera effect. Any sane person hiding something will paint over everything, not paint just specifically over the first digit. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::I think I got everything linesd up - it has to be de-skewed the same, and all ines up. You might be scraping bottom on this one. The curve is there, at its elongated part, at an angle. The dent/dirt looks the same, same place, relative to the light patch and all else. It's too much for coincidence by a couple of degrees. BUT I just shifted back to option ... should have numbered them. ... the middle starting option - image authenticity. I hardly ever call digital image fakery, and not calling it here, but... I still haven't checked the new (to us) June videos, so I'll stay presuming it might be okay - video's harder to fake than a photo. But on the other end, it all comes down to the one photo. That I noticed, no other views are close enough to say if these matching clues are present. (the bend, maybe). The squares you noticed, maybe a paint clue or just artifacting. It may too pixelly. I cannot really analyze the technicals properly to say. It looks okay, but possibly fishy too. Maybe the dirty windshield helps hid the painted in pixels to make this thing - just once - or maybe again in other images - look like that Russian 3x2 unit, exaggerated and going into rebel hands... Some kind of coincidences setting that up to work, but it's possible, and an expert should look closer at this picture. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC) <br />
::::I, --at the very start of discussion,-- zoomed picture on screen (by a lot), and measured length ratios (to the dot/ total panel length), parallel to the 2 sides of the panel, using ruler (millimeters one) over screen. I ended up with ratios in horizontal side of panel directions were off, by more than blurring; in vertical, could not tell-within blurring. This is not sensitive to skewing or zooming. So I don't think it's the same. May double-check measurement when have time; or somebody else can. Did not have time to try doing digital version of the same/similar method. Did not look carefully at comparison the 2 after de-skewing , but have an impression this is different; not that much skewing there; it looks essentially straight line on PM, skewing will not make circle into a line. May look at 2's some other time. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::::Finally took a closer look and PM was still off a bit on rotation and vertical-to-horizontal - in line with your observations. Still working out the adjusted graphic. The white is shifted a bit left of lining up perfectly... I think it's still close enough it's the same or is supposed to be, and not far enough off I'd call a bad fake - probably just pixel shift. Will see tonight. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 00:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Okay, I don't have a comprehensible graphic handy yet, but Maybe Resup is seeing what I am now. I was having a hard time aligning it all, so focused just one the one rectangle panel with the number. Still, on the PM photo I trace apparent edges, best line of dark pixels ... it lines up, proportion-wise, with the white spots on or a hair to apparent left. But when the whole image is placed by lining up that center, the rest of it doesn't line up - both sides seem shifted right, or the middle shifted left. (also the track areas appear far to the left, but they stick out a bit, and from the back angle flattened like this, that's why. Each difference in relief from "true flat" plane of the side will cause this... maybe I'm just not correlating it right, and maybe it's a clue the photo is messed with. possible offsets in both white patches as well, but maybe too in the natural fuzz zone. ?? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
If the launcher was driven over the Russian border, fired once then driven back again after it had carried out its mission, the part of the story that doesn't make sense is the sighting on a stolen flatbed truck outside Donetsk. If the Russians were prepared to supply a launcher but not a truck, the stolen truck would have had to be driven to the border to be loaded and there'd be no reason to risk a journey back to Donetsk. The west to east journey is more consistent with CL's original suggestion of a launcher from the Ukrainian base north of Donetsk. If this was a false flag, there would have had to be a paint job to give it Russian markings (maybe to match one in a recent video). Otherwise the videos would point to separatists with a captured Ukrainian BUK, leaving the Ukrainian government liable for failing to close its airspace when it knew that a BUK had gone missing. [[User:Pmr9|Pmr9]] ([[User talk:Pmr9|talk]]) 16:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:Now this sounds engaged, thanks P. Yes, why drive it to Donetsk? (Other than to be seen in the smoking-gun rebel capitol, before getting seen in Lugansk too) And I never thought of that why it had to be Russian. Indeed, for liability reasons, it had to be a snuck-in surprise, not captured (unless they could come up with a reason why they didn't learn about it, and I suppose they could). The suggestion has problems and was slow to gain adherents, but maybe this kind of thought has swayed people to realize Kiev "must be right" about that... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Sunday Times story: original is behind paywall but reprint [http://malaysiandigest.com/news/531506-ukraine-ignored-warning-to-close-malaysia-airlines-flight-mh17-airspace-before-tragedy.html here]. Eurocontrol's experts "spoke privately to their Ukrainian counterparts" about their concerns but Ukraine refused to close its airspace. "Ukraine intelligence sources said they had been made aware that several anti-aircraft systems had crossed from Russia into Ukraine at least a week before the MH17 incident. But they claimed the intelligence was not “100 per cent reliable” and could not have been used as grounds for 'drastic moves' such as shutting airspace". [[User:Pmr9|Pmr9]] ([[User talk:Pmr9|talk]])<br />
:::Okay, well there's a train headed this way then. Several units? The whole June convoy? We do have this alleged maybe-Buk launch just before on July 14, an associated loader seen later, etc. And Ukie intel somehow did point to this number "312" you can't see on the unit they tracked so quickly. Did they already have that obscure Russian video everyone missed until now? And more yet showing the "1" still there? That early on? (that's all very speculative, but interesting). It has to be snuck in, maybe, but then it helps that you can vouch for it - so they fudge and average this aspect. Main point then seems to be, whatever failures they mumble out on their own end, it has to implicate both Russia (provided weapon) and the rebels (held the space needing demonized).--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references /></div>Antidyatelhttps://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Antidyatel&diff=22584User talk:Antidyatel2015-06-06T13:45:34Z<p>Antidyatel: </p>
<hr />
<div>Hi and welcome to ACLOS, Antidyatel! Please make yourself familiar with the basic formatting as described [http://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/wiki/A_Closer_Look_On_Syria:Community_portal#Editing here]. Thanks! (*clicks the button third from right above the edit window and gets*:) --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 09:45, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
:Thanks, CE, was about to. Antid, I hear it's a device limitation? Row of buttons visible above text box? If so, use! If not, type. If you can't get all symbols can you copy and paste? This <nowiki>--~~~~</nowiki> can be pasted for proper signature. Ext. links you get, etc. Glad to have you. Cheers --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:32, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
:Also at first I didn't know where the tilde ~ was - it's left of the 1 here, + shift --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:39, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Also I've just noticed some comments from you around (have been behind on MH-17, out of loop). Curious what your screen name means. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:32, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
Thank you all for welcoming and advices on how to leave the signature. Just added it to all of my comments. The limitation was not so much of the smart-phone problem but wrong use of signature. I would place to button and replace [[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 13:45, 6 June 2015 (UTC) with Antidyatel. Can't explain why I had to do it like this, but this is how I though it is logical at that moment.<br />
Dyatel is transliteration of russian word Woodpecker. Started long time ago. In a country side, after a drunkard night at 5 am a woodpecker set on the metallic lamp post. And for 30 minutes he was insisting on pecking it. Trust me not the best feeling. Also pecking in Russian has a meaning of annoying, usually based on rubbish talk. Multiple historical and current affairs issues are presented in a manner that qualifies under such talk. So Antidyatel becomes meaningful, for me at least.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 13:45, 6 June 2015 (UTC)</div>Antidyatelhttps://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17/BUK_Tracking&diff=22582Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/BUK Tracking2015-06-06T13:35:40Z<p>Antidyatel: /* Screenshot from dashcam video? */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:MH17]]<br />
==Who Has the BUK Launchers in Ukraine?==<br />
=== Kiev's Holdings ===<br />
<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3MomxNHnUA#t=288 Ukrainian Buk in ATO area], 16 July 2014. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 23:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CBQbFC9loc#t=350 Captured map] of 1 battalion of UAF 95 air-mobile brigade, dated beginning of July 2014, show location of 2 positions of Ukrainian Buks. Basurin points them on the map; but video resolution is insufficient to see those. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 05:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Maps can be faked, but still I'm curious what it shows. I imagine there might be a flat image of the map somewhere. Resup, could you maybe have a look? It's too slow for me to try an image search with translated words. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
::I have not seen the map in news reports mentioning the finding; and now I see it says explicitly that they are not going to make it public, [http://real-info.info/novorossiya/13429-vlasti-dnr-ne-budut-obnarodovat-karty-vsu-do-okonchaniya-rassledovaniya-krusheniya-mh17 until MH 17 investigation is completed]--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 23:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::Here is a press conference report--with video but not the map --[https://vk.com/strelkov_info?w=wall-57424472_57351 (Basurin press conference)]--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 23:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
It is possible to understand what it means when they say Ukr army controlled territory. But what is rebel controlled territory. Even if we take the maximum estimate for rebel numbers in July 2014 of 10,000 fighters, it gives a fraction of a rebel per square km, if we assume uniform distribution. In reality rebels very concentrated in Lughansk, Donetzk, Saur Mogila, 2 cauldrons. So everything else is free for all territory. When MSM declares rebel controlled territory, they just rely on Kiev's maps. Very reliable source. --[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 13:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)-- Antidyatel June 6<br />
:That's a good point that really came into play with the [[Mariupol Market Shelling]] incident - turns out all this eastern fire form rebel-held areas is from areas listed by Kiev as places they don't have full control over, that any crazy thing could happen from and it's prob'ly not them. Might even be a section on that here, if not, could be. There is an apparent pass right through a checkpoint, basically where the Pari Match "photo" was taken. That at least is a problem for a simple slip-in op, but it can be done and otherwise the theory could explain a lot (like, everything maybe) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC) <br />
<br />
<br />
==== BUK 312 and comrades ====<br />
[[File:Buk 312 sbu.jpg|thumb|left|BUK 312 on a trailer. Photo shown on SBU website and later removed. – ''[[:File:Buk 312 sbu.jpg|more...]]'']]<br />
Part of the material the Ukrainian SBU released to suggest that "rebels" shot down MH17 with a BUK, was photo material showing a BUK TELAR numbered 312 on a trailer, alleging it has been photographed on its way back to Russia. This was quickly shown to be extremely questionable as evidence surfaced showing number 312 in Ukrainian hands. The SBU then removed the photos from their website while other material like a suggestive photo showing a "plume" remained there. <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Buk 321.png|thumb|TELAR 321 as posted by @MOR2537 to illustrate what he alleges to have witnessed]]<br />
This was outlined (and a screenshot saved) in more detail [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/07/21/the-mh17-investigation-and-buk-312/ over at Human Rights Investigations]. A [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bj-VZB0ZdEA video embedded there] shows BUK 312 in Ukrainian hands back in March. The other two TELAR's seen in the video are numbers 323 and 321. BUK 321 [http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Ukrainian+government+forces+maneuver+antiaircraft+missile+launchers+they+transported+north+west+from+Slavyansk+eastern+Ukraine+Friday+July+2014+Photo+Dmitry+Lovetsky/10004193/story.html has been seen] in Ukrainian hands just two weeks before MH17 crashed, transported close to "liberated" Slavyansk. <br />
<br />
Interestingly enough, one of the tweets [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com/2014/07/reconstruction-of-whereabouts-of-buk.html spoon-fed by Ukrainian loyalists to imaginative Dutch blogger Ukraine@War] to suggest that there have been eyewitnesses for a "rebel" BUK, is then [https://twitter.com/MOR2537/status/489709431467171841 followed-up by the alleged eyewitness] with a picture of BUK 321 to illustrate what he has seen. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::yep, he is a conduit for Kiev but seems to have outside info, too. Like originals of photos he can get geolocations off (he says). But also has good collection of very early photos etc which have since become hard to find.Not sure I trust him though. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 15:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::I hadn't seen that before, thanks. I'll be considering... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 22:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: More photos: [http://www.armyrecognition.com/images/stories/east_europe/russia/missile_vehicle/sa-11_gadfly/pictures/sa-11_gadfly_anti-aircraft_missile_to_armoured_tracked_vehicle_Russian_army_russia_011.jpg 321] - [http://rt.com/files/news/2a/b1/40/00/640x480.jpg 312] - [http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1870560.1405614701!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_970/correction-ukraine.jpg 321] --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:Buk 312 in Lugansk.png|thumb|left|According to alleged former operator "A", this is BUK 312 after relocation sometime in Spring 2014 in Metallist settlement of Lugansk, with Yubileynaya mines in the background]]<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmI2KCOt_sA Anatolii Sharii] version of events, shows that Buk blamed on Russia has number 312 and was earlier photographed as part of Ukrainian convoy. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 20:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Sharii interviewed a Ukrainian soldier who served on Buk 312; this can be found on [http://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/1947657.html Cassad]. The guy does not know about MH17; but recalls SBU claiming it was this Buk 312 responsible. From this interview, meaning of 312: 3 is division number, 1 battery number, 2 unit number in a battery (there are loading and command vehicles, not just launchers). This UAF Buk is initially from Luhansk; than relocated to Kramatorsk; than places in a field. A serviceman took it on a ride with hand break on, leading to a small fire affecting electrics and requiring repairs. So it was traveling on a trailer at some point. It was than moved to Dnepropetrovsk, village of Novogrigorievka (apparently for repairs, and after trailer photo was taken, but exact date was not given). Buks from Luhansk which were not broken were moved by UAF elsewhere (and according to the soldier, were photographed in variaous places including Gorlovka; while 3 broken Buks remained in Luhansk) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: Interesting. I see that the "[http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Ukrainian+government+forces+maneuver+antiaircraft+missile+launchers+they+transported+north+west+from+Slavyansk+eastern+Ukraine+Friday+July+2014+Photo+Dmitry+Lovetsky/10004193/story.html has been seen]" link to the Montreal Gazette is dead by now. If anything I'm surprised that it lasted that long. Minitrue at work. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 04:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: [http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2014/12/17/shooting-down-mh-17-buk-312-story-false- Here] (and mirrored [http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2014/12/17/buk-312-crew-member-says-rebel-shoot-down-of-flight-mh17-story-is-false-transcript/ here]) is an English translation of the interview. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: And [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2rRCSNp33I here] is the video itself with English subtitles. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 20:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:What you said about the accident and the photo showing the damaged BUK on a trailer is about the very photo the SBU showed on their website as "evidence" and later removed. Also adding that he says friends in Lugansk saw "rebels" trying to repair the units they had left behind, but he knows that "whole equipment units" were lacking so the remaining stuff was "unusable". And that he says that he asked his ex-comrades still operating the BUK if they dunnit, and they said they didn't. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Good to see this section expand. Interesting additions from the alleged operator, and reasonable-sounding (the photo might show smoke stains to the back left side). But in the end, this issue might be not so relevant. I doubt it was Kiev's unit 312 that was used, and seeing how Kiev always was eyeing a supposedly Russian unit 3x2, maybe 312 ... In fact, if the middle number connotes unit number, and it's done the same, the launcher is always 1 and it would be 312 (or is that mixed-up?) So maybe all this really shows is how Kiev knew but didn't want to say all along, implausibly picking their own 312 to illustrate that knowledge with an embarrassing but harmless "error", while awaiting ... as it turns out, the independent Bellingcat investigation that finds 3x2 somehow in Russia... That tracked this ludicrous Buk field trip, as presented and followed on this page, which almost seems tailor-made for them, but Kiev wants us to know they they were secretly on the ball too from the start. (all thoughts in progress, a bit distracted too) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::::If SBU wanted to point out they knew the TELAR had number 312, why would they publish the photo in [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmI2KCOt_sA such a low resolution] that the number could not be read? -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 21:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: As Resup summarized, 1 is the battery number. The leading 3 means it's from the Lugansk division. If this is true, the fact that 312, 321 and 323 have been seen together on video in March perfectly fits with what the alleged operator said: That they were removing units in usable state from (all batteries of the division) Lugansk early on, leaving the crap behind. And the view that the SBU just published everything they could find to fit their tale that the "rebels" used a BUK to down the plane, including this photo, cut-together and taken out of context audio tapes and that ridiculous "plume" pic, and the 3x2 bellingcat nonsense from lately is meant to distract from these facts, is much simpler and straight forward than what you tried to come up with here on the fly. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::Ah, I see it now, not when I was typing, sorrys. Middle number could be anything, bust mostly we always see low numbers, so odds are good it was a "1". 3 means from Lugansk if that's true (presuming so) and it's Ukrainian. Diff. number paintjob though, as noted below. But I'm sure the Ukies just faked this exact 312 to a different style of 312 and then painted it out partly, and just let it slip with the one photo of how it looked before...? We'll have a hard time agreeing here, as the stuff you just dismiss as "nonsense" looks kind of like possible evidence with details I'm sort of trying to consider. I don't see how you can just ignore it as if it must be wrong somehow, and all made up to distract from ... this 312 disguised as 3x2 theory? Where it wasn't even at the end of that fake plume anyway and might be totally irrelevant or entirely fake? Or, what am I missing? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::Didn't you say that you haven't even watched the videos and checked the geolocation/origin yourself, if they really are from Russia etc.? Well, I certainly won't. Because I have no reason to believe that the sources are more truthful with the "evidence" than they have been before, and that track record is well established. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::::Yeah, which is why I'm neither in a good position to say they aren't wrong/fake, nor to go against my usual presumption it will be sound (has been so far, on this subject anyway) And by the supposed stills compare to supposed satellite imagery, it looked like a good match (I did skim the site once I could). I don't like the implication either, and I want it to be wrong. And it may well be, but I'll want to see how. And hey, there's a whole other section or two about this below... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
:::: I watched the video [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bj-VZB0ZdEA with the Ukie BUKs in March] again. There are actually more than the three I mentioned earlier. It starts with 323, which is not a TELAR. Followed by the two TELARs 321 and 312. Then comes what is also not a TELAR but what looks differently than 323: Number 301. Followed by two more TELARs, 331 and 332. So they could all be from the Lugansk division, parts of batteries 0 to 3. But one would suspect that the batteries are internal always numbered the same way. "A" says:<br />
::::: ''BUK is a complex of 4 specialized military vehicles: command post, mobile target detection and assignment station, loading and starting station, self-propelled fire installation.''<br />
::::So if 1 and 2 are TELARs, why are there two of them and why is 301 what could be the detection station with a radar? Is 323 a loading station? --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::::Too rusty, but good questions. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::: Ah, I think we can sort this out [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SA-11 thanks to wikipedia]:<br />
:::::''A standard Buk battalion consists of a command vehicle, target acquisition radar (TAR) vehicle, six transporter erector launcher and radar (TELAR) vehicles and three transporter erector launcher (TEL) vehicles. A Buk missile battery consists of two TELAR and one TEL vehicle.''<br />
:::: So our "A" didn't mean that a battery consists of 4 vehicles, but that the whole BUK consists of 4 different kinds of vehicles, some more than once. From this I deduce that "0" is for command and detection units (here our main radar 301) of the Lugansk division 3, and the batteries 1,2 and 3 each consist of two TELARs (numbered 1 and 2, here 312,321,331 and 332) and one TEL (numbered 3, the first vehicle in the video, 323). Makes sense? --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 13:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::Russia said Ukraine had 27 BUK launchers in the crash area, i.e. one brigade, or what ever comes in the hierarchy above battalion. If all units are numbered the same way, from 101 to 333, then one TELAR in 18 should be numbered 312. Maybe [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:9K37_Buk_of_the_Ukrainian_military,_Independence_Day_parade_in_Kiev.JPG not.] Russian numbers seem to reach higher. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 01:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::::Good find. The existence of 114 and 115 makes it more complicated. The [http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buk_M1 German Wikipedia article] says, contradicting the English one, that one battery consists of one command vehicle, one main radar, four TELARs and four TELs. But if that's true, there's no logical place for Radar 301, and why would one TEL be number 3 and the other three TELs numbers 6 to 8? --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 10:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
How to read BUK numbers<br />
This is how you decipher 312:<br />
<br />
3 stands for the third (Lugansk) division,<br />
1 stands for the battery number, ours was no. 1,<br />
2 stands for one of the 2. service units in each battery, ours was no.2<br />
<br />
according to a Ukrainian who explains it was "his" bUK (but not in his hands at the time)that shot down MH17. One of th many reports [http://www.opednews.com/articles/Shooting-Down-MH-17--BUK-by-Michael-Collins-Buk-312_False-Accusations-Of-Terrorism_False-Flag-Attacks_Mh17-Airline-Crash-141217-104.html about this interview] This claim is now superceded by the Capt Voloshin air-to-air claims. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 15:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
That solder knew nothing about who shot the Boeing. He was talking to Sharii, who previously made a video showing that Buk shown on SBU website is actually Ukrainian Buk 312. Later, the soldier emerged, saying that Buk 312 was his. (Claim of this one shooting Boeing is not his, it is SBU early claim) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 16:48, 26 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
While Voloshin story may be a play on destroyed by SBU evidence. There is supposed to be a log of flights, missiles fired, likely those logs no longer exist. Also before they claimed SU 25 were lost on 16 of July, but SBU denial of Voloshin story had SU 25 shot on 17 of July. And that Dnepropetrovsk airport traffic control lady vanished without a trace. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 16:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Supposed 321 belonging to KIEV<br />
::video shows three BUk sets [http://eurazya.today/2015/04/11/about-the-buk-312-who-allegedly-shot-down-mh17/ from 0.31 mark] but I can't really pick the number, they say it is 321. at Gorlovka in March. One on a white lowloader. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 12:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== Russian claims ====<br />
As part of their July 21 presentation of evidence, the Russian Ministry of Defense published satellite images allegedly showing Ukrainian BUK positions around Donetzk ([http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ RT report]). It's no secret the Ukrainian military maintains a base with anti-aircraft units. The facility shown in the Russian presentation (best seen [http://rt.com/files/news/2a/9a/00/00/4.jpg here]) I located - it's south of Avdeyevka, 3 km north of the airport, about 5 km north of Donetsk like they say. Visual match first, then noticed the label could have found it for me ... [http://wikimapia.org/#lat=48.0999781&lon=37.7578908&z=16&l=0&m=b&show=/16956839/ru/Зенитно-ракетный-дивизион-в-ч-А-1428&search=Donetsk on Wikimapia]. Labels, translated: Anti-aircraft missile battalion (in / h A-1428) One of the three anti-aircraft missile battalions ("Buk-M1"), located in Avdeyevka, Mariupol and Lugansk." BUK-type launcher photos included. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The counter-arguments to this at least sometimes fail. [http://www.interpretermag.com/mh17-and-moscows-magical-mystery-jets/ Interpreter rag] decided "the presence of Ukrainian government air defense systems is something of a red herring, not least given the clear evidence that the separatists had deployed at least one Buk system in the area." The side with a ''motive'' and clear, moving and likely operating units of the things on that day (see below) is irrelevant and shouldn't be considered because there's apparently also proof the presumed bad guys also had the units they needed to be so presumed. The very fact that separatists aren't ruled out means the other side should be free of any danger of being ruled in, and the separatists should ruled in just as automatically as they were ''before'' this social-media verification came in. This is clearly an irresponsible suggestion. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC) and --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Kiev's Buks Shuffled?===<br />
<br />
* From Russia's military press conference: [http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ RT, 10 Questions] - [http://www.ruaviation.com/docs/1/2014/7/22/83/ in more detail]<br />
:''3. Why was a large group of air defense systems deployed to the militia-held area if the self-defense forces have no planes?''<br />
:“As far as we know, the Ukrainian military had three or four air defense battalions equipped with Buk-M1 SAM systems deployed in the vicinity of Donetsk on the day of the crash. This system is capable of hitting targets within the range of 35 km at the altitude of up to 22 km.”'' <br />
:''4. Why did Kiev deploy BUK missile systems on the edge of militia-controlled zones directly before the tragedy?''<br />
:''“We have satellite photos of the places where Ukraine had its air defense units deployed in the southeastern parts of the country. The first three photos were made on July 14. The first photo shows Buk launchers 8 km northwest of Lugansk. You can clearly see a TELAR and two TELs. The second photo shows radars 5 km north of Donetsk. You can see two TARs along with other equipment and technical structures. The third photo shows air defense systems north of Donetsk. You can clearly see a TELAR launcher and about 60 military and auxiliary vehicles, tents for vehicles and other structures.''<br />
<br />
:''“Here’s a photo of the same area made on July 17. Please note that the launcher has disappeared. The fifth photo shows a battery of Buk missiles at the village of Zaroshchenskoye 50 km east of Donetsk and 8 km south of Shakhtyorsk on the morning of the same day. The sixth photo shows the same area on July 18. As you can see, the battery has left.”''<br />
<br />
Note: the <s>latter</s> fourth photo of July 17 has substantial cloud cover, but unless they happened to hide the launchers in those areas (or Russia's satellites waited until the area was covered) it appears the noted vehicles have left to go do something - on/by the 17th, where they say launchers appear and then disappear in a town closer to the crash on the 17th. Zaroshchenskoye [http://maps.yandex.com/?text=Ukraine%2C%20Donets'ka%20region%2C%20Shakhtars'kyi%20district%2C%20Zaroshchens'ke%20ville&sll=38.446008%2C47.98844&ll=38.517419%2C48.048098&spn=0.810242%2C0.300187&z=11&l=map on Yandex maps] - 13 miles SSW of the crash sitel, 9 miles W-SW of Torez..--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
On July 30, Vitalyi Naida, head of Ukrainian Security Service SBU’s counter-intelligence, came up with a series of slides ([http://euromaidanpress.com/2014/07/30/russia-fakes-mh17-crash-site-satellite-images-says-sbu/ short article], [http://www.sbu.gov.ua/sbu/control/en/publish/article?art_id=129610&cat_id=35317 announcement on SBU website] with link to [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ut1JExQKV-0 youtube-video showing the slides (presumably Ukrainian language)]) allegedly showing that the Russian material was "faked". He points to a patch of trees, claiming they had been cut down shortly before the 17th, while Russia's images show the trees intact. On August 1, the Russian Ministry of Defense published [http://eng.mil.ru/en/analytics.htm a rebuttal] advising that<br />
:''Instead of presenting hastily doctored evidence to the international community, the SBU could do with better control over all the mercenary units in the areas around Donetsk and Lugansk organized by Kolomoisky, Lyashko, Yarosh and others, who shell Ukrainian territory without any control from those in charge of the anti-terrorist operation.''<br />
<br />
The trees probably are cut down by now, but we'll have to wait for the true details of just when they were and when the image showing that was taken, or if the image shown is even of any one day and not a composite - "doctored" as Russia says. Other clues suggest launchers moving out of this area at that time: The [[#Paris Match Photo]] - ostensibly from the morning of the 17th - shows the infamous launcher-loaded truck seen in Lugansk, or one just like it, being carried on a truck belonging to a company just south of the missile base in northern Donetsk. That was seen carrying the launcher east out of town at 11:15 AM, purportedly on July 17 (and with the location completely fudged to say Snizhne, when it was only headed there).--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Zaro redeploy.png|left|600px]]The Russian military press conference said "The fifth photo shows a battery of Buk missiles at the village of Zaroshchenskoye 50 km east of Donetsk and 8 km south of Shakhtyorsk on the morning of the same day. The sixth photo shows the same area on July 18. As you can see, the battery has left." (#5 inset) The Ukraine@War blog's analysis decided this image as well was fake. That's mentioned [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com/2014/08/ukrainian-sbu-comes-with-conspiracy.html here] if not elsewhere. The reason: "the shadows of these BUKs have a different direction for all three of them. It means these were pasted into the image." I have to admit, it looks a bit like that. The trees have consistent shadows to the west, in a morning image. The furthest vehicle to the left has a visible shadow about like that. The other two don't seem to, and the one furthest right seems to have a shadow on the wrong side (looks like early PM). I wracked my brain just a little thinking of other explanations aside from just low resolution. Nothing much came up. Anyone else? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br /><br /><br />
<br />
<br />
: '''New video proves UKIE BUKS ACTIVE'''<br />
: video has surfaced, posted to Youtube on July 16, taken a few days before, showing a Ukie BUK radar [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3MomxNHnUA being rotated]. The reporter is taken somewhere in a helicopter and proudly shown the BUK. Segment starts around 4.17 in the chopper, BUK shown briefly at 4.45. Label does not say where exactly, just reads "Officers of Ukrainian Armed Forces patrolling in the ATO zone". <br />
: This ties in with claims that they were doing anti-aircraft exercises, probably in response to claims/fears the Antonovs were brought down not by the rebs but by aircraft from Russia. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 10:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::Thanks! We had this July 16 video [[Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17/BUK_Tracking#Kiev.27s_Holdings| elsewhere]], but here is a good place... The other video, from March, was not seen. There were few more early sightings of Ukrainian Buks, uncertain locations, with those 3** numbers; maybe should get a good place to keep them all --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::: Location of sighting is unclear. But according to some reports ([http://lifenews.ru/news/136731 LifeNews]), on July 16 UAF SU 25 was shot down from a height of 6 km by opolchenie MANPADs. That was near Russian border, --reports say the plane actually crossed into Russia, not far from Marinovka. It could be suspected by Ukraine that a Russian plane was involved, so it will be plausible to have Ukrainian coverage of the accident area by BUKS. On July 14, it was reported that [http://m.rosbalt.ru/ukraina/2014/07/16/1292690.html AN 26 was shot down in Luhansk] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
--Antidyatel <br />
There is strange twist of Logic in Bellingcat report about satellite photos. The photo with Buks in the field is claimed to be manipulated.They found that July 17 image was manipulated but only invite region of clouds. They don't say that BUK was removed by software (there are 4 more vehicles missing). But on all Google earth photos BUK never moved. So did it move ever or not? Manipulation of Google earth photos or likely their source is not new.[http://www.imediaethics.org/News/130/Exclusive__google_investigating_photoshopped_gogle_map_image_.php]<br />
<br />
Surprising Google earth have more updated photos on the BUK base location and nearly nothing for the location where Russians seen BUKS. There is something strange about RUSSIAN supposed fakery. Doesn't make sense.--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 13:33, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Separatist Holdings===<br />
While much certainty has been shown it was a separatist BUK system responsible, everyone seems to acknowledge that ordinarily, they didn't have any, that were known of. Fresh sighting of them in the field, supposed admissions, and existing presumptions remain the strongest evidence. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;June 29 Seizure?<br />
The Open Newsroom team have latched onto a June 29 message from a Twitter account associated with the Donetsk People’s Republic, @DNRpress claiming separatist forces had conquered a base with anti-air BUK missiles. This is apparently the A-1402 base, as an Itar-Tass report specified. That report noted ... It seems to just cite the tweet which, it was found, used a dated photo online since mid-2013. In essence, there's no good evidence they ever did seize this place. But it was referred to by some as "Deleted DNR tweet confirming Russian rebels indeed have a BUK-M1." The crew at large seems a bit vague on the status of this base:<br />
:'' It appears that the A-1402 military unit was moved into the Donetsk region in 2007 from Odessa, and reports note that the unit was based near Donetsk airport. Local reports from June 29 cited ATO spokesman Alexei Dmitrashkivsky as stating that separatists had attacked the military unit.'' <ref name="Story1" /><br />
As we just found with geo-location, it's 3 km north of Donetsk airport, and it's the same place Russia believes is firmly government-held. It's the place they say at least one BUK-type launcher was removed from on July 17 for some reason, by Kiev's forces who run it. If [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Donetsk_Airport this basic Wikipedia article on the battle for the airport] is correct and/or in line with [[Attack on Donetsk Airport|our page on it]], the airport and anything military-related north of it would probably be government-held continuously to the present time. It's possible some launchers could have been lost during a brief seizure of the base, but this too seems doubtful. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
:Social media published many photos of the "liberated" Buk missiles. I searched for them on Google Image Search; all were old photos from more peaceful times. I have no idea what really happened. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 23:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Thanks. I hadn't looked into it myself, but recycled images made sense given the other clues that they never did take that base, or at least get anything out of it. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 00:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Something in English [https://www.facebook.com/TruthfromUkraine/photos/pb.1452285018328179.-2207520000.1409095455./1515506872005993/ on Facebook,] with links to Russian souces. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 23:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Your geolocation is wrong. The former [http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-SAM-Site-Configs-A.html SA-2 launch site] to the north of the runway is called A-1428, at least according to the [[:File:Donetsk Airport battles 5 Oct 2014.jpg|map by Komsomolskaya Pravda]]. The site was rebuilt sometime between 2002 and 2009 with new garages covering part of the SAM ring. Tactical maps say today it is still held by Ukraine, but may have been in NAF hands earlier. Base A-1402 is located south of the new terminal building along Stratonavtiv Street.<br />
<br />
When looking at the latest airport battles I noticed that Military Maps already shows structural damaged to the new terminal building. I did not expect Google to provide any relevant satelite data. In Libya we had almost daily satellite images of Tripoli, but in Syria we have seen no new photos of the battle-effected areas.<br />
<br />
I opened Google Earth to see what has changed during the war. It seems that the war has had no effect on either base. There is still a lot of military hardware parked on both bases. Most of the trucks and whatever are parked just where they were last year, or on many cases in 2007. I did not see anything that I could identify as a BUK launcher. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 02:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;Held by July 14?<br />
The US embassy in Kiev said in [http://ukraine.usembassy.gov/statements/asmt-07192014.html a press statement of July 19]:<br />
:''Intercepts of separatist communications posted on YouTube by the Ukrainian government indicate the separatists were in possession of a SA-11 system as early as Monday July 14th. In the intercepts, the separatists made repeated references to having and repositioning Buk (SA-11) systems.'' (also quoted [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/20/malaysia-airlines-mh17-videos-missile-launcher-torez-snizhne at the Guardian])<br />
As "Corporal Frisk" [http://corporalfrisk.wordpress.com/2014/07/21/comment-on-the-us-assessment-of-the-downing-of-flight-mh17/ aptly responded:]<br />
:''Having perhaps the world’s best intelligence network, and then using easily faked videos of separatist communications posted on YouTube as evidence sure has a degree of ridicule attached to it, but is also an inidcation that US intelligence believes at least some of these transcripts are real.''<br />
That's totally apt if one suspends the usual definition of "believe" (to include "wants to appear to believe," etc.) In the same piece, the author apparently gives more "credibility to the charges that the Buk-M1 is indeed Russian supplied (and possibly crewed), as opposed to stemming from captured Ukrainian stocks." As covered below, this I can agree with if we suspend the usual definition of "Russian" (to include "allegedly Russian villains," "the Ukrainian version of [http://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2011/07/african-mercenaries.html Libya's African Mercenaries] and [http://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/wiki/The_Shabiha:_Ghost_Stories%3F Syria's Shabiha]," etc.) this would be spot-on. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:54, 10 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
(more allegations to cover?)<br />
<br />
;The One That Matters<br />
Whatever the evidence rebels had Buk systems by the 14th, Kiev also has suggested, and many have accepted, that ''the one that mattered'' at least - the launcher unit that shot down MH17 on the 17th - wasn't theirs at all, but brought in and operated by Russians for the day only. If only for that reason, all the above is likely moot. See next section. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Russian Buk Field Trip? ===<br />
The Kiev regime's narrative also suggests separatists had no BUK systems of their own. Rather, someone else brought one in to their area, took it on some kind of tour through several towns thought accessible only to rebels and allies, and got it seen in each place. Then these people '''shot the airliner down themselves on the separatists' behalf.''' That party is the Russians, they say. This is perhaps best encapsulated by "counter-terrorism" chief Vitaly Nayda's early assessment. AP's July 25 report summarized it, saying "the account was based on information from intercepts, spies and resident tips."<br />
:''Nayda laid the blame fully on Russia: He said the missile launcher came from Russia and was operated by Russians. ... According to Nayda, at 1 a.m. on July 17 the launcher rolled into Ukraine across the Russian border aboard a flatbed truck. He cited communications intercepts that he would not share with the AP. By 9 a.m., he said, the launcher had reached Donetsk, the main rebel stronghold 125 miles (200 kilometers) from the border. In Donetsk it is presumed to have been off-loaded from the flatbed and started to move in a convoy on its own.''<br />
:''Nayda said the Buk turned back east toward Snizhne. Townspeople who spoke to the AP said it rolled into Snizhne around lunchtime.''<br />
:''...As for the Buk, Nayda said, intelligence suggests it went back on the move shortly after the attack. That very night, he said, it crossed the border, back into Russia.''<br />
<br />
This is full of details that don't line up with the emerging record, but the gist including a grand-circuit tour including both separatist stronghold/capitols Donestk and Lugansk plus the disaster zone, seems about right. But the evil they allowed came from and returned to Russia.<br />
<br />
This does however jibe with the Kiev allegation (I learned of through [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/07/25/snizhne-mh17-and-rebel-held-territory/ this excellent and relevant HRI article] that '''Russian jets''' violated Ukrainian airspace to '''bomb an apartment building in Snizneh on July 15th, killing 11 civilians.''' This all makes a bit of sense in context; that false flag attack was blamed by locals on Kiev'a noble Air Force - almost understandably! It "created the conditions" by which people ''might'' accept apparent a team of apparent Russians with a Buk launcher in their town two days later. The best guess for any single firing location is a field just southeast of that town (see [[#Possible Launch Sites|below]]). The locals might smile at, and later even cover for, this poisonous gift. But a trojan horse is a trojan horse, of course. They should have looked it in the mouth better, and been more aggressive with their questions. Because Russia has it in for the separatists, Kiev implies, using its skilled and well-documented team to murder 298 people in a horrific way on the separatists' behalf. This is not an accident, Kiev must know, but proof that Russia and its "inhuman" terrorists they must hate (and who do not seem to have any Buk launchers of their own, BTW) are the new global menace du jour. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Markings and the Mystery Launcher ===<br />
[[File:MH17 Buk 321 Parismatch comp.png|right]]A serial number on the launcher's side is apparently standard in Ukraine's arsenal (see [[#BUK 312 and comrades|above]]). Inset, an image comparing the side of the unit seen in [[#Paris Match Photo]], the one blamed for the shoot-down on the 17th, to TELAR unit 321. The side panels are easy enough to correlate and see the unit in the photo lacks a number, but does have a sliver of white paint (or similar) in one corner. Whoever was moving this painted it it out before this, so there is some attempt at concealment. Is this color of paint only available in Russia? The white sliver here could be part of the number, if it were painted higher up/larger than Ukraine usually does. I can't say yet how they do it. I did a Dogpile Photo search, lots of pictures, context unclear, different vehicles from different sides, mainly Vitaly Kuzmin photos so app. Russian military parades and such: --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
* Number shown, diff. vehicle: [http://military-vehicle-photos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/9881.jpg #1(loader?)] - [http://pix.avaxnews.com/avaxnews/8a/6f/00006f8a_medium.jpeg #2 same?] <br />
* Launchers with no visible numbers: [http://77rus.smugmug.com/Military/May-5th-Parade-rehearsal-2014/i-t7RjrzP/0/M/5may14-33-M.jpg #1] - [http://77rus.smugmug.com/Military/12-April-Parade-2013-rehearsal/i-KHVD3Tv/0/M/12aprilrehearsal_33-M.jpg #2] - [http://livedoor.blogimg.jp/gunzichannel/imgs/b/e/be60ae58.jpg #3] - [http://military-vehicle-photos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/9880.jpg #4] - [http://77rus.smugmug.com/Military/13th-April-rehearsal-Alabino/i-fKQdjW4/0/M/13April-Rehersal-Alabino-26-M.jpg #5] <br />
* Same vehicle, Buk TELAR launcher with numbers: not found. <br />
<br />
At the moment, the lack of a number almost makes it look Russian. The next panel over seems to have smaller numbers, or characters anyway. Nothing yet tells me the Russians add a smaller number on the panel behind that, with or without special stencils available only in Russia. Is that even a number, or does it say return to Putin? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== Bellingcat and 3x2 ====<br />
:''moved from [[#Paris Match Photo]]''<br />
<br />
Adam: somebody's favorite Bellingcat is now saying, I understand, that he is capable to read off the number of this Buk from this blurry low resolution Paris Match photo, using unspecified colored magic and some expertly fitted proprietary boxes. Well actually this is so proprietary that he can ONLY read the first number 3, and the last number 2, but is completely unable to read the middle one. Because, he does not want this to be this Ukrainian [http://uainforg.livejournal.com/1811500.html Buk 312] , nah, noway. He rather want it to be the Russian Buk 3 X 2, where X stand for Russian, and for secret, as somebody is said to unearth this dirty monster in Russia, as he says (I guess). This looks too much baloney as far as I am concerned; you can read any number you set in advance from this blurry photo, and fit there any other crap, boxed-shaped or wiggly, all essentially at will. Just recording this latest saga page in case somebody has more enthusiasm to chase it than myself. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 00:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
:No, you didn't quite understand, but thanks for the tip. An interesting twist I wish I'd caught sooner. First, this helps the West at large get in synch finally with Kiev - it was Russia, not the separatists, who owned and perhaps ran that unit. Second, it seems to me the match is at least as good as they say, but there's at least one aspect of it I think is hilarious and I wouldn't be surprised if they managed to miss it. I'll be back - this one deserves a quick blog post. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: I agree with Resup, this stinks of baloney designed to divert attention from the [[#BUK_312_and_comrades]] story. The worst thing about Brown Noses and cohorts is the amount of coordinated promo they get in pre$$titute media. SPIEGEL today [http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/jan-fleischhauer-ueber-wladimir-putin-und-mh17-abschuss-kolumne-a-1004898.html has a op-ed piece by a particularly douchebaggy example] on those independent genius investigators as well. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::I need to brush up on what that 312 story is... because it looks like this used to say 312. Ultimately I suspect its some kind of baloney, but just where it breaks down I don't know. It is amazing how they get such praise for investigating the right things (never did get back to the Houla Massacre) and finding the right truth... Daily Fail says "The authors said that 'our investigation was made possible by the examination of open source material overlooked by other organisations'." Oh goodness, that technique they must have invested ... maybe if we started doing that we'd get praises too! --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/11/08/origin-of-the-separatists-buk-a-bellingcat-investigation/<br />
The report and whole site was not coming up when I tried (might be a problem on my end), so I don't even know what's behind their pay-wall. In the interim I checked around. [http://thetruthserumblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/an-open-and-transparent-investigation.html Here's a critical blog article I like] that mentions another article praising the report. But what was useful was [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2827853/Russian-military-supplied-missiles-ahead-MH17-shooting-says-new-independent-report-evidence-points-Russian-separatists-responsible.html the Daily Mail's Australian promo article] with the cover and a few images from the report as well as a summary. The 3x2 ... This lets me quickly see what 3x2 refers to. And actually, it looks like a good description and even a good match. The number is not from Paris Match photo but from footage I haven't noticed, they say from inside Russia - presumably a Russian unit then - seen conspicuously moving towards Ukraine in late June. (the source of these images and details might be worth checking into) ... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 3x2 Comp.png|right]]Bottom is Paris Match, skewed to match. Top is the new (to me) Bellingcat June 23 image As I just put together [http://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2014/11/how-russians-covered-up-truth-partly.html here,] they seem to be onto something here. It's something silly. But it's something strongly suggested by real paint in recognizable patterns.<br />
<br />
Implied: Russians wanted to hide this thing's identity, maybe because they were about to do something secret with it. So first they painted out the number in the middle - I think it was a one. Except they left one little corner of white visible. Just got tired. It's identifiable (in both images). <br />
<br />
Then before it appeared in Ukraine, it was rendered totally unidentifiable: they boldly blacked out the 3, and perhaps at the same time even, the 2 - except for a larger identifiable sliver. Just got tired. It's next to the other dot. <br />
<br />
Haha, no way to connect these now! Also a light patch next to the small number (and the number, as far as we can see) matches, as does a light patch along the lip below that. My guess: this is the same suspect vehicle seen gettin' hauled all over on the "stolen" truck with the phone number left on. Was it actually in Russian territory as well as near so many rebel checkpoints around dawn? For how long was it there? Bellingcat cannot confirm that Russian unit 3x2 ever returned to its base in Russia ... nor, I guess, that it ever actually left, or was ever Russian, or didn't have its truncated paint job simulated and expanded on another vehicle... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
::He got some photos of an actual [http://www.kavicom.ru/news-view-12861.html convoy], almost certainly in Russia, fairly hi-res photos, no 3*2 there. Than out-of-a-blue-or-elsewhere, he gives photos from convoy made by 'local residents', now with discolored 3*2 photo(s) there; I could not spot details where this photo is now coming from. He claims it "shows on 8 out of 16 videos", but I do not know where is a single one. He also compares tank track and plate above profiles for these 2 photos; details are blurred (and also those profiles change from use), can't say how much they match each other by eye; don't trust his fitted lines, or his conclusion accepting those, but did not try matching myself (no tools to do it quickly; or enough photo resolution to feel strongly motivated). This is doable but doing it tool-free takes time; and not knowing that second photo is definitely in Russia, I am not convinced spending a lot of time is worthwhile. This is clearly a well-supported operation, so the burden of proving their own version is on them; and they did not bother even linking the videos, no clue where are those. His report downloads without problems at this time. <br />
::Also details such as dirty rear skirt and a bend there likely are common; dirt is because exhaust is through the opening above; skirt likely is bent when there is servicing, or example changing tracks or doing something else, like maybe servicing engine. Buk 321 above on this page has dirt and bend, for example. This bend is something which can be easily produced, same goes with the painting job, both things together can be done in well under 1/2 hour. If they had an example of how something in Russia looks like, not difficult to do it for a blurry photo. Clearly, with phone well-displayed, etc, the purpose of all this is a demo job. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Here is a publication [http://censor.net.ua/video_news/274823/ukraina_zaschischaet_donetsk_ot_napadeniya_rossii_zenitnoraketnye_kompleksy_buk_zanimayut_pozitsii_fotovideo Ukraine defends Donesk from Russiam attack, missile complex Buk takes positions], with photo, video of Ukrainian BUks, numbers 323, 321, 312, 301, 331,332. (Some of them have dirty skirts, e.g. 301 looks dirty and bent...). Ukrainian radio is playing on the video. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 21:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Thanks, and I get the lack of motivation, and the ambiguity. That #312 I'll compare later ... looks like a different number style (thinner) with vehicle color less clear ... I guess this could be innocent dirt instead of black paint, but it's some thick dirt, and by the end almost totally covering the numbers on this particular unit ... or two that can seem the same. (?) So it still seems most likely paint, that is deliberate obfuscation - that was also comically slow and incomplete (with clean edges to the white parts and no visible parts of gray half-covered numbers) . It must be a problem with my system (updating soon) but I still can't connect to the site or get the report. I'm not mad motivated myself, but will want to check the alleged video source and geolocation eventually. Before I was seeing this as a Kiev unit simply snuck across the internal line. So the big wrinkle of course is it being in Russia. Options if the geolocation of June 23 is right: <br />
* it wasn't there (faked match-up - As you say, all matching features ''could'' be faked, not just the paint) <br />
* or Ukraine snuck theirs across (with a whole convoy?) just to get it seen there <br />
* or they snuck over and stole this one while it was near the border <br />
* or Russia willingly sent it over, with or without a subsequent theft by people intent on misusing it on the separatists' behalf. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
There is actually a 3*2 Buk in Russia, he put links to videos on his [https://www.mapbox.com/labs/bellingcat/index.html map], I looked at 06/23 Troitskiy (Odnoklassniki) goroskop odnoklassniki ru/video/14723648043?fromTime=25 . But I doubt it can be concluded that Paris Match is a match (number itself can't be read, this is just bogus). For example, that dot in the Russian version appears to be a bit further to the right (60 % of total panel length) , while Paris Match is closer to 50 (I got 52 %). Also, in Russian version, it is almost level with protruding to the right part of number 2; in Donetsk photo, I'd say it's a bit lower (but blurriness creates problems to measure) . Panel to the left of number panel appear to look very different; in Russian case, clear horizontal line above the main bottom line; not so in Donetsk, a messy lower line. As for the skirt, it it dirty but actually does not look broken in the Russian version, just some frames create such impression. In Donetsk, hard to know (to blurry to tell crack from dirt) but there is serious change in angle there somehow; (could be the windshield playing some tricks). (Also, in Donetsk, it is dirty windshield, not actually certain what makes the dot; but it is roughly where expected, so I can go with this being paint assumption). <br />
:No point for the rebels to display it prominently in Donetsk (not far from UAF BUK base), than go towards Snizhne; this just has no point at all. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 00:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
:I'm the one, ironically, claiming to see things in that griny mess. I'd never do it unless I saw t spot well whiter than the others AND seen in another view ... didn't even notice until then. To note, your descriptions are of the first version of the graphic, now updated. Becuase of overall problems, I cut what seemed just the number panel (including shadowed edge) and put it on top of where it should be. Same proportions, within a pixel or two, "find edges" to mark the white patches, and it remains lining up. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 3x2 comp 2.png|right|420px]]At right: it can't be the embarrassingly misrepresented Ukrainian 312 they're hiding, unless that was painted over before this other one .... FWIW, the middle dot would still line up with the serif on that "1." As the updated blog article notes, if "the Russians" were smart, they would have painted this slender 312, or other recognizable number and style, on there. Instead, this nonsense.... <br />
<br />
I suppose that Ukraine ''might'' have known about this 3x2 video and match in advance (and never mentioned it?) and that's why they found a photo of ''a Buk 312''' (not checking what it actually showed, and just claimed they knew was en route to escape into Russia, after parking for yet another photo?) No, that doesn't make much sense. But I sense a link. Maybe that's because I'm seeing 312 when maybe it's 872, for all we really know. Maybe instead of partly painted out it was just left never fully painted in. Too many unknowns and now I'm unenthusiastic about it. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Whatever one thinks of this graphic comparison and interpretation, the strange and suspect thinking it implies is consistent with what else we know about how this "secret" operation was carried out. If true, it would fit this broader pattern (real or reported clues left by whoever, all open to interpretation, and here couched in the terms of allegations by Kiev and supporters):<br />
<br />
* Recalling that this whole weapon itself would have no normal business in the area and would be denied later, it should have been kept secret. Instead, it was driven around in broad daylight on the same day as the crime, just partly covered with a tarp but revealing all clues needed to identify it, its hidden ID number, and its full rack of missiles.<br />
* The truck it was so displayed on was stolen in Donetsk, and kept with the huge sign on its side with the apparent owner's phone number on it. When the media called that number, little surprise, the owner told them pro-Russian "fighters from Slaviansk" who took over his whole trucking company on July 8 (see [[#The Truck Owner's Story|here]]) Put lightly, this is a stupid way to secure a rig one intends to use for a secret operation like this was supposed to be.<br />
* They loaded the truck in Donetsk, likely at the commandeered site in the north of Donetsk, near the Ukrainian base with Buk launchers, in a coincidence. This truck then got seen leaving Donetsk on the 17th, parked pointing east at the east outskirts, then seen driving in convoy (a couple civilian cars with the operational crew moved with the truck) past Zuhres and then through Torez to the east. They were seen arriving in Snizhne around noon, then the Buk unit seen off the truck and driving in stand-alone, and it was then seen again driving south out of Snizneh, towards the apparent launch location.<br />
* The people running the convoy made sure AP journalists saw them in Snizhne just before the shoot-down from a bit south of there. The convoy stopped, and a man in unusual uniform "approached the journalists. The man wanted to make sure they had not recorded any images of the missile launcher. Satisfied that they hadn’t" filmed that secret missile launcher there, but had noticed it, and their intention to remain sooper seekrit "the convoy moved on." All this was made quite clear to the media and apparently published even before the news that MH17 was shot down. ([http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/what-happened-the-day-flight-17-was-downed/2014/07/25/716c36e4-142b-11e4-ac56-773e54a65906_story.html AP Via Washington Post]) <br />
* After the disastrous attempt to secretly provoke a Russian invasion, with utmost discretion the operators put the smoking gun, its rack of one-less missiles left uncovered, back on the same truck and drove it and the phone number back to Russia - by a strange detour on a long route towards the other easily-recognizable smoking gun rebel capitol, Lugansk ... when government ATO forces had just battled their way to the edge of Lugansk ... and got seen there passing at dawn on the main highway south, apparently having come from the center of town, and then presumably drove to Krasnodon (rebel-held) and to Russia....<br />
<br />
The fail delivery here is almost flawless, with no mistake left unmade and hardly any reasonable gaps to call for deduction. Letting multiple camera views on both sides of the porous border capture and track the gradual move to this stealth mode seems pretty consistent to me.--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Note: the implications of this contested finding, and the visual basis for it as well, is continued below under [[#If Buk 3x2 Was in Russia]] --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
I think one point is still not discussed here. Look at this video from 26 June 2014. You might have seen it before. But what is striking, all the Buks shown do not have numbers painted on them. Not only it will allow to paint new numbers or any clumsy painting on the side, using video of a known BUK, it also means that those BUKS were not accounted for when Ukrs presented evidence, if they ever presented, about the location of all the existing and operational BUKS <br />
[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BBEYZHOT0bQ]--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 13:29, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== General Observations === <br />
*It is clear that pro-Kiev side produced early and persistent stream of fakes, misrepresentations, or selective half-truths, all aimed to place the blame on Russia and/or "separatists" as a part of well organised and supported information warfare. This information warfare did not establish an objective to prove the blame of Russia or "separatists", as any of those media creations will not survive a rigorous scrutiny, and there is nothing to bring to court in particular. However it successfully altered Western perceptions in early days past the catastrophe, and helped to impose sanctions and other 'increased costs' on Russia, bringing the world on the brink of another cold war. It brought situation in Ukraine closer to perpetual chaos, and kept closely related people to continue killing each other every day. Although those fakes and misrepresentations were later realized to be such, those costs and calamities were not reversed. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*After moving equipment close to border, why would Russia send just a single TELAR to Ukraine in a highly visible manner as it was alleged? For meaningful operation of Buk, one would send at least 1 TELAR, 1 TEL (to be able to load missiles), and 1 command vehicle (as radar on TELAR gives only poor basic operation)? There are also lots of support vehicles seen, in case of something meaningful all that is needed. So moving single TELAR is all but pointless from military standpoint. Single TELAR is mostly for a show of sort. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Reported SIghtings == <br />
(consider along with the visual sightings below) <br />
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/what-happened-the-day-flight-17-was-downed/2014/07/25/716c36e4-142b-11e4-ac56-773e54a65906_story.html AP via Washington Post] <br />
shows the separatists strategy to not be seen as they rolled the murder weapon around:<br />
:''Even before the plane was downed, the AP had reported on the presence of the missile launcher in the town July 17. Here is what that dispatch said:''<br />
:''“An Associated Press reporter on Thursday saw seven rebel-owned tanks parked at a gas station outside the eastern Ukrainian town of Snizhne. In the town, he also observed a Buk missile system, which can fire missiles up to an altitude of 22,000 meters (72,000 feet).''<br />
:''AP journalists saw the Buk moving through town at 1:05 p.m. The vehicle, which carried four 18-foot (5.5-meter) missiles, was in a convoy with two civilian cars.''<br />
:''The convoy stopped. A man in sand-colored camouflage without identifying insignia — different from the green camouflage the rebels normally wear — approached the journalists. The man wanted to make sure they had not recorded any images of the missile launcher. Satisfied that they hadn’t, the convoy moved on.''<br />
<br />
That kind of pro-Russian sooper-seekrisy aimed at the media in front of the media should stop them being seen, right? No, oddly, it didn't. See below. The clumsy bastards could hardly have implicated themselves any more thoroughly than they did that day. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
One interesting post at the Ukraine@War blog mentions two tweets, both from July 17 and before the crash, mentioning this BUK launcher on a trailer at places consistent with the video record. [https://twitter.com/MOR2537/status/489702736766586880 One of them] (translated) sounds perhaps ''too'' informed, and says "Was driven missile system on the tractor cover + two cars after Thorez (Torez) in snowy (Sniznoyeh) in 12-10 (at 12:10? Too early...)." [https://twitter.com/_StradivariuS_/status/489704260045910016 The other one] says "(someone this) morning wrote that (the truck) stood (parked for some time) on b.Shahtostroiteley not intersection with Ilchicha, aside (heading towards) Makeevki. waiting to see (to be seen?) If that's an intersection named, it's a different parking spot identified as being [https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=48.002515,37.854917&spn=0.010222,0.02444&t=h&z=16 here on Google Maps,] one km west of the spot it was parked for the "Paris Match" photo. Otherwise, it refers only to the same place. The contributor noted "Another interesting detail in that tweet is that “it was standing” and “they were waiting”. My understanding of that phrasing is that the #Buk was actually parked there for some time. Meaning there might be witnesses." <ref name="UWD">[http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com/2014/07/reconstruction-of-whereabouts-of-buk.html CONFIRMED the BUK that shot down MH17 has indeed been in Donetsk] P. Martin, Ukraine@War, July 23, 2014</ref> There was a witness with a camera, and a photo sent to the Western media. That almost seems to have been the idea - to get witnessed like that. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== SBU Wiretap Clues ==<br />
I just had a look at the SBU wiretap transcripts, ones released July 19. In it is a segment tying in with the above stop or stops in Donetsk, the exact spot of the [[#Paris Match Photo]], and the general orders to drive east with the launcher. I'm not up on the wiretap stuff - if this is the same material said to be corroborated by the US as the real people talking. But briefly, know that parking spot in just past a roundabout, by a motel and a bus station, well short of a crossing Hornostaivska street halfway to Makiivka. Important clue to why it was here this thing had to get seen and talked about: one source claims this roundabout at the edge of town is "a big separatist checkpoint established on Jun 3 at the road circle." <ref name="UWD" /> This is supposed to all be pretty damning, and I must say it's at least looking like a pretty slick plan may be going on here, with pre-scripted parts that come into play later, etc. From Kiev mouthpiece UaToday, parts of a transcript they ran with the video and other allegations, on the 19th - How credible is this evidence?<br />
:''Khmuryi: Sergei Nikolaevich Petrovskiy, year of birth 1964, officer of Main Intelligence Directorate of Russian Federation, Deputy Chief of Ihor Girkin on Intelligence, at the time of the interception he was in Donetsk.''<br />
:''“Buryat” – militant of terrorist organization “DNR” (to be indentified).''<br />
:''Buryat: – Where should we load this beauty, Nikolaievich?''<br />
:''Khmuryi: Which one? This one?''<br />
:''B: Yes, the one I’ve brought. I’m already in Donetsk.''<br />
:''K: Is it the one I’m thinking about? “B…,”M” one?''<br />
:''B: Yes, yes, yes. “BUK”,”BUK”.''<br />
:''K: Is it on a tractor?''<br />
:''B: Yes, it’s on it. We need to unload it somewhere, '''in order to hide.'''''<br />
:''K: Is it with a crew?''<br />
:''B: Yes, with the crew.''<br />
:''K: '''Don’t hide it anywhere.''' She’ll go there now.''<br />
:...<br />
:''Khmuryi: – Tell me, have you brought me one or two?<br />
:''Buryat: One, one. Because they had a misunderstanding there. They didn’t give us a tug. We loaded it and went at their own pace.''<br />
:''K: Did it go on her own or on a tug?''<br />
:''B: It crossed the line (border).''<br />
:''H: And now have you brought it on a tug? Don’t put in anywhere… I’ll tell now where it should go, it will go together with “Vostok” tanks.''<br />
:...<br />
:''K: Sanych, the point is that my “BUK–M” (modified Russian SAM system) will go with yours, it is on a tug. Where should I drive it to put in a column?''<br />
:''Sanych: There, behind “Motel”, not reaching Hornostaevka.''<br />
:''K: Just after the Motel, right?''<br />
:''Khmuryi: Listen to me carefully, behind the circle near “Motel” there will be you know what. Call to “Bibliotekar” (Librarian).'' <br />
The next part, to me, suggests that as far back as the 19th or earlier, people talking on tape were seeding, or working by, the SBU-proposed Aeroloft plot with the town mix-up. In that light:<br />
:''...Bring inside only those, who just came back, only as much as you need for the convoy. Leave everyone else here. Not far away '''there is Pervomaiskoe, look at the map.'''''<br />
:''DNR militant: I got it.'' (Or did he not quite get it?) <br />
:''Khmuryi: Settle somewhere in that area, bring there those who are left. Your task is reserve, plus protection of this piece (BUK–M), which you will drive now. “Giyrza” will come there too. If anything, I’m on line.'' <ref name="Trans">[http://www.uatoday.info/?p=2579&lang=en SBU releases more conversations implicating Russia in shooting down Malaysia Airlines flight (VIDEO, TRANSCRIPT)] UAToday, July 19, 2014</ref><br />
--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The veracity of that recording needs challenged well now ... the day too early claim [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17#SBU wiretap video|did not pan out,]] so it won't be that easy. Has anyone really done a good analysis tearing it apart some other way? Could it even be half-legit, with some local rebels tricked by some undercover (wire-wearing, not wire-tapping) supposed defector delivering it "with a team" coming "from Russia" (meaning Parubiy et al.)? Who knows? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Imagery Mapping ==<br />
[[File:MH17 Storyful video mapping.png|right|330px]]There have been quite a number now of photos and videos showing BUK launchers ostensibly in separatist strongholds, on July 17. The geo-location of these in such towns by social media networks has been the subject of some recent media commentary. These purported placements are worth collecting and considering here. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
One somewhat comprehensive and updated/evolving page: [http://blog.storyful.com/2014/07/19/how-social-sleuthing-uncovered-evidence-of-anti-aircraft-missile-system-in-eastern-ukraine/#.U9oY_Ua3498 How Social Sleuthing Uncovered Evidence of Surface-to-Air Missile Systems in Eastern Ukraine] Inset is a small preview of the interactive map they made of all placed images (as it stands at the end of July - [https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=200399683004956931329.0004feca5d1fbab0a1d25&msa=0&ie=UTF8&t=h&source=embed&ll=48.206371,38.968506&spn=1.281328,2.334595&z=8 full-size presentation with links, on Google Maps]) <ref name="Story1" /> <s>Note that one of them is way up in Lugansk - which one is a little unclear at the moment - the site may be wrong</s>) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;List of Scenes, placed or not<br />
* Billboard Video: released by Interior Ministry, filmed in Krasnodon before dawn, the Interior Minister says. Russian military analysis places it in Krasnoarmeysk, and the Open Newsroom crew contradicts both and decided "collaborative geo-location was able to place the footage in southwestern Luhansk.'' <ref name="Story1">[http://blog.storyful.com/2014/07/19/how-social-sleuthing-uncovered-evidence-of-anti-aircraft-missile-system-in-eastern-ukraine/#.U9oY_Ua3498 How Social Sleuthing Uncovered Evidence of Surface-to-Air Missile Systems in Eastern Ukraine] Storyful blog, July 19, 2014 and onward (updated)</ref> <br />
* Surveillance Video: located to Snizhne by Eliot Higgins, date unclear. <ref name="Story1" /><br />
* Zuhres video: Pre-geo-located by the uploader [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=48%C2%B0+1'1.38%22N++38%C2%B018'6.04%22E&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=48.034019,38.391724&spn=0.629958,1.564178&gbv=2&hnear=H21,+Zuhres,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&gl=us&t=h&z=10 here in Zuhres.] Higgins confirms, 100% sure, and others concur. Driving east. <ref name="Story1" /><br />
* Torez square photo - located by an associate of Higgins - filmed app. 11:40 AM in central Torez. See below. <br />
* Another photo placed: Snizneh, nearest the shoot-down area (f/c)<br />
* [http://www.parismatch.com/Actu/International/EXCLU-MATCH-Un-camion-vole-pour-transporter-le-systeme-lance-missiles-577289 Paris Match photo] - allegedly Snizhne, reportedly placed '''in northern Donetsk city.''' See below. <br />
<br />
===Billboard Video===<br />
(to be condensed) <br />
A video released by the Ukrainian Interior Ministry is highly dubious and worth some analysis. It shows what seems to be a BUK launcher loaded on a truck driving some direction in some town at what seems to be early twilight (or pre-dawn, depending). The [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4HJmev5xg0 original posting] (with almost 2 million views already) gives no details: "Militants take out missile system "Buk" to the border with Russiam" the title translates. "No description available," it says below, and no comments allowed.<br />
From what I've seen no one knows where this is filmed. Daily Mail says it's a "separatist stronghold," unnamed, and headed south, back towards Russia. "Ukrainian spies reportedly filmed the launcher used in the attack being smuggled to Russia - with two missiles missing." Eliot Higgins was cited by [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/20/malaysia-airlines-mh17-videos-missile-launcher-torez-snizhne the Guardian] with his new team of fundraistigators as geolocating some video and photo but not, apparently, this one. As explained at [https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1278239551/bellingcat/posts/919158 the kickstarter link] they give, Higgins writes:<br />
:''In the above video, posted by the Ukranian Ministry for Interior claiming to show the Buk missile launcher being driven towards Russia it was possible to match the transporter in the video to the transporter in Torez, details of which... (you have to subsidize their operation to see)'' --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== Avakov's Placement: Krasnodon or Lugansk ====<br />
Interior Minister Arsen Avakov said in [https://www.facebook.com/arsen.avakov.1/posts/670837696339673 a Facebook post of July 18] Google-translated: <br />
:''Covert surveillance units of MIA of Ukraine today July 18 at 4.50 am was recorded caterpillar tractor loaded with missile complex, moving in the direction through Krasnodon, toward the border with the Russian Federation. The video can be seen uncovered missiles. Two missiles in place - the average is not visible. ''<br />
:''There is an analysis of this and other information gathered. Presumably this is the missile system "Buk" that made a last shot at a civilian plane from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur .. ''<br />
:''Criminals try to hide the traces of this heinous crime. Not succeed. Security Service and Interior Ministry of Ukraine has collected and collects more irrefutable facts and evidence, the author points out the tragedy of the terrorist organization DNI / LC and its Russian backers Putin.'' <br />
:''The investigation of events MIA issue a comprehensive report on the information. This fragment consider it necessary to publish immediately.''<br />
<br />
By the 22nd, "online sleuths" had placed it in Lugansk (see below). Avakov then confirmed this - he was wrong the first time. One article makes it sound like he wasn't just echoing the sleuths:<br />
:''On July 22, Ukraine's Minister of Internal Affairs, Arsen Avakov, gave the exact coordinates of the video’s location: separatist-held Luhansk, about a 45-minute drive from Krasnodon. Locals quickly verified this claim by photographing the scene, which perfectly matches the landmarks seen in the video.'' ([http://globalvoicesonline.org/2014/07/29/russia-ukraine-mh17-conspiracy-buk/# article by one of the sleuths])<br />
<br />
====Krasnoarmeysk====<br />
One source venturing a guess is [http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ the Russian government and RT witrh their 10 intriguing questions:]<br />
:''“For example, media circulated a video supposedly showing a Buk system being moved from Ukraine to Russia. This is clearly a fabrication. This video was made in the town of Krasnoarmeisk, as evidenced by the billboard you see in the background, advertising a car dealership at 34 Dnepropetrovsk Street. Krasnoarmeysk has been controlled by the Ukrainian military since May 11.”''<br />
[[File:MH17 Billboard Vid Russian Analysis.png|right|250px]]There is a sign, but I cannot make it out just yet, if ever. Can they really? Even if that's so, surrounding towns might be good places for a dealership in Krasnoarmeysk to advertise. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
At right now is a still from a video claiming to show this, I still don't see it. They seem to think the gray span says that, perhaps from seeing a clearer view of this ubiquitous sign elsewhere. Opps. There's no reason to say a dealership in one town can only have billboards in that town. This alone fails. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 14:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Krasnoarmiis'k,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&hl=en&ll=48.323387,37.919312&spn=1.252829,3.128357&sll=48.226502,37.386475&sspn=0.627601,1.564178&oq=Krasnoarm&t=h&doflg=ptk&hnear=Krasnoarmiis'k,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&z=9 on Google Maps as Krasnoarmiis'k] - ''not'' to be confused with the Krasnoarmeisk not far away in Russia. Distance: about 100 km almost due west of the crash site. Panorama, possiblt location, directions/implications forthcoming. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Dnepropetrovsk Street is the main street of Krasnoarmeisk, leading northwest to Dnepropetrovsk. It tried matching this to the street corner where the car dealership is located. Yandex Maps did not provide a street view. It could be there, but too few details to make a positive match. Whatever this is, it is not evidence for anything. The least the SBU could have done is provide the location and some corroborating photographs.<br />
:The same applies to all so called "evidence" provided by Ukraine and the US State Department. As far as I can tell it is only cut-and-paste of unrelated footage to ''illustrate'' the claims made. A perfect example of this illusion is the "satellite photos" of Russian artillery shelling Ukraine released on Sunday morning. A photo of Russian GRADs on some unidentifiable field was placed next to a satellite image with an arrow pointing "Here Be Monsters!" Purely illustrative and no proof. There is a difference between legerdemain Hocus Pocus and outright forgery. The Russian video presentation displayed screen capture recording from the ATC radar, usually stored for two weeks. For this to be a hoax, Russia would need to create a forged tape of the radar data. Highly unlikely, as the the claim of authenticity had support of the full authority and prestige of the Russian Armed Forces. If the US presentation turns out to be hoax, State Department will claim the photos were never meant to be evidence. Some internee was told to prepare a presentation using stock images for some facts they ''knew'' to be true – trust us! -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 14:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: You must have missed [https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BtZSVQrIMAARzKr.jpg:large this], Petri! ;oP --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 18:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
::: That is an awesomely perfect picture for this sorry episode so far. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 14:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
::It would be neat though if we could show where this is and thus which way its's headed. The Kiev authorities, I think, know what happened. They say it was this exact launcher missing two missiles. It could be. Where is it at filming time and where headed? If it's true this same one was in Torez (dubious but possible) we'd have a direction traveled until that point also, and a rough time, 8:30 or so. [http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jul/27/mh17-storyful-social-media-twitter-youtube The Guardian again] citing Storyful's open-source investigation: <br />
::::''“There are now four pieces of content – three pieces of video and one image – which, in the case of three, conclusively show a Buk [surface-to-air] missile within rebel-held territory and in the case of the fourth, almost definitely in their territory,” says Storyful executive editor David Clinch. “Of those four pieces, individual groups or companies probably verified in or around the same time one or another of them.”''<br />
:''Open Newsroom verified three pieces of content and is investigating the fourth, thanks to its 900-strong network of journalists and experts. ''''<br />
:The fourth is this video. Wouldn't it be a coup if we were the first to place it? Force that intern excuse and then laugh at it. That said, it's not the most likely to place but you, Petri, especially, might be able to. I think I might. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 22:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* [https://plus.google.com/118234537318646233652/posts/LZV1XZD854E James Miller Google + July 21] "Was a Buk sighted in Krasnoarmeysk or Krasnodon (continued analysis)? We've taken a new look at this video which has been debated since it was posted days ago. We're fairly confident, though not 100% confident, in this geoanalysis, but we're making significant progress. Any more information would be extremely helpful. " Cited: [http://www.interpretermag.com/russia-this-week-lurid-anti-ukraine-propaganda-broadcast-on-state-tv/#1753 Russia This Week: Defense Ministry Claim on Buk in Billboard Video Doesn’t Add Up]<br />
:''...As we reported on our Ukraine Liveblog, the Buk was spotted before the shoot-down of the Malaysian airplane and ultimately geolocated to the town of Torez, near the location of the crash in Grabovo. Then the video, taken early the next morning on 18 July, showed a scene in Krasnodon,... <br />
--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Google Earth has one photo [http://www.panoramio.com/photo/55329278 from ул. Днепропетровская.] The street has about the same width. The streetlights are not quite the same. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 14:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
::That image doesn't help a match, especially since by now it looks like Lugansk. For the record, there was a go by pro-rebel social media people at identifying a spot in town to explain the video scene, but it didn't do that either. [http://wikimapia.org/#lat=48.276196&lon=37.176087&z=18&l=0&m=b this spot on Wikimapia] is what they pointed to - filmed from the marked building, they say, looking southwest to the mall. No matching anything. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 02:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== Placed in Lugansk! ====<br />
[[File:MH17 Billboard Vid-Lugansk Match.png|right|800px]]Storyful's rundown states of this video:<br />
:''The footage is not the original, however we believe that the first instance of this footage was removed by the uploader and the version below is the earliest we can find. Ukrainian Interior Minister, Arsen Avakov, made early claims that the video was filmed in the Ukrainian town of Krasnodon near the Russian border, however collaborative geo-location was able to place the footage in southwestern Luhansk.'' <ref name="Story1" /> <br />
It links to "Bellingcat," which you have to pay to see much of. [https://plus.google.com/118234537318646233652/posts/bMdeBzY8yty James Miller] passes on that it's "Mystery SOLVED: Video released by Ukraine's Interior Ministry does in fact show a Buk, possibly missing several missiles, in Lugansk headed east from the MH17 crash site and in the direction of Russia." The spot they think matches the video (better panorama coming) is [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=48%C2%B032'44.7%22N+39%C2%B015'52.6%22E&ie=UTF8&ll=48.545926,39.265147&spn=0.002436,0.00611&t=h&cid=0&z=18 here on Google Maps]. Was that a highway? Where's the cross-street? I see elsewhere they have a high view showing the same basic billboard there, but that's going to be true of several spots in this area. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
My impression of the scene - based on the panoramic view below - is far from matching with this. That does not look like a highway, and it just seems like a small town. However, I finally saw some of the supporting images (see [http://news.bigmir.net/ukraine/827864-V-Lygansk-vehala-kolonna-voennoi-tehniki--SMI here] and [https://twitter.com/djp3tros/status/491651820188860416/photo/1 here] - source of the inset image.) It seems a likely match after all. I won't say I confirm it with any certainty, but I don't think I'll be challenging it like I was preparing to do. Note the different billboard in the right spot, and the matching one over there. There are other images, apparently more current, showing that that they moved the one sign over to the right spot They don't point to the pinkish roofed building beyond the red-roofed one, but that adds to the match (compare to below). Whenever this video was made and whatever it really means, it seems quite likely it was at this spot in Lugansk shortly before dawn. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
There is another video from June 2014 showing the same billboard with the same car ad:<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ez8cZ3nqjCs Луганск 02 07 14]<br />
The video shows a column of BMPs with one 9K35 Strela-10 short-range surface to air missile system passing the intersection in Lugansk. I suspect they came from Russia, as [https://www.facebook.com/groups/IOUCO/permalink/584402078339517/ I specifically asked] for Putin to send in the Russian tanks that morning. They passed exactly when I expected them to, at 6 minutes past 4 am. (I estimated it would take 2 hours 6 minutes from the border.) -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 17:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== ACLOS Review ====<br />
As noted above, my review agrees with the placement agreed by the others. For what it's worth, the huge panorama I made (the middle is full-resolution) and starting notes from before I realized no work was needed. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 03:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
[[File:MH17 Billboard Video Pan.png|center|880px]]<br />
It seems to be filmed near the edge of town, or edge of a hill anyway, with a clear view ahead, two vague homes/buildings seen down the slope. Otherwise, very non-descript. The angle of intersection will be one of the better clues - it looks to me not 90 degrees ( |- ), but with the road the truck is on either slanting or curving somewhat towards the camera ( /- ). One important observation: '''there's no logical reason he should have been just happening to film this area''' unless he knew something interesting would drive by at just this odd time. That's clarified by how he zooms in just before it enters frame - he was waiting for that truck. How did he know about it? Informants on the other side of town phoning ahead makes enough sense, I suppose. <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 launcher truck composite.png|left|480px]]Another issue: If this is dusk (sunset 8:20 PM local), isn't this facing roughly northwest? If so, this vehicle is driving roughly north, not south. And we might start looking on the west edge of town. There's a highway out to the northwest, back towards Kiev. This street is too narrow and unmarked to be the highway, obviously, but it might be driving that way, for example. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
:Or, alternately, he's facing towards the sun about to rise, early on the 18th, as alleged by the Interior Ministry) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
::That he happened to be filming just before dawn is even less likely than dusk. He clearly knew this was coming, whatever that means. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 03:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Above is the composite scene without truck. At left is the truck without background. Besides lightening the scene, it seemed worth getting the clearest details from different frames into a composite view of the truck and its load. This helps compare to the launchers seen in other areas and different times. So far, they all seem to look the same and perhaps be the same. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 03:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br /><br />
<br />
==== HRI ====<br />
Pretty good points [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/08/05/mh17-the-lugansk-buk-video/ from Human Rights Investigations]:<br />
:''To sum up, the statement of Avakov, the film and its location suggest the Ukrainian authorities had advance knowledge of this BUK and trailer’s movements or control over it. It is also extremely strange that this BUK, allegedly after shooting down MH17, is supposedly filmed by a Ukrainian surveillance team in ostensibly rebel territory, with its covering missing, as if to show the world a missile is missing.''<br />
--[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Paris Match Photo ===<br />
[[File:MH17 Paris Match.png|770px]]<br /><br />
* [http://www.parismatch.com/Actu/International/EXCLU-MATCH-Un-camion-vole-pour-transporter-le-systeme-lance-missiles-577289 Originally published by Paris Match] on July 25, with the claim the picture was taken by their own reporting team near Snizhne at mid-day on the 17th. Note the prominent, apparent, telephone number prominently centered in the picture - (050) 471-41-80. The truck and launcher, as far as can be seen, are quite similar to or the same as the one seen in the billboard video anyways. How many of its missiles the unit has at this moment is unclear. <br />
<br />
* [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/07/28/why-is-paris-match-on-the-location-of-a-buk/ Human Rights Investigations:] "it turns out to have been taken in Donetsk, 75km away" (citing someone else's geo-location - [https://www.google.com/maps/@48.004592,37.87265,3a,75y,63.38h,82.21t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sRGnHwZ5YZnuGO-n_VvruWg!2e0 site link given.] <br />
:''We know this because the phone number on the truck panel (050 471 4180) leads straight to this hire place (photo):<br />
:''According to Paris-Match, the proprietor of this establishment claimed “rebels” had stolen a number of his vehicles earlier in the month. If we go from here to towards Snizhne we find the location of the Paris-Match photo, near a car dealership on Makiivske Highway on the outskirts of Donetsk:''<br />
:''After informing Paris-Match of the mistake regarding the video location, the author of the article Alfred De Montesquiou has now got back and explained:''<br />
:''Hello, indeed, it appears there was a mixup in caption : the picture was taken leaving Donetsk on road to Snijne, not in actual Snijne'' <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Donestk Buk Map.png|thumb|right|480px|Map: this truck location, the company's apparent headquarters ([https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Molodykh+Shakhtariv+St,+19,+Donetsk,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&ll=48.044923,37.783184&spn=0.079187,0.195522&hnear=Molodykh+Shakhtariv+St,+19,+Donetsk,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&t=h&z=13 GM link]), and the A-1402 missile base relative to each other.]]<br />
<br />
'''Questions:''' Was it a caption mix-up, or did their team really not know where it was taken, and just believed the real source when he said Snizneh? Who is the true photographer who knew to catch this picture near the company's base, apparently at the outset of a rather epic journey? Why did the rebel thieves leave the prominent phone number on the stolen truck used for such an important task? It wound up leading to man who pointed right to the rebel thieves, and prove yet again separatists, not Kiev allies, were the ones driving BUKs around. Was that so hard to foresee? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''To Do:''' Verify the geo-location - set a time, presuming July 17, by sunlight and that location - establish which way it's traveling relative to the government-run anti-aircraft base just a few km north of here and relative to the other places and times this truck and others were spotted rolling around prominently and getting filmed a lot by the right kind of people, in areas presumed to be impenetrable to any such frame-up operation - look into this company, etc. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''Location:''' I can't confirm it with certainty, but it's extremely consistent. Two standard but distinct pole types that close together on the right with a pull-over lane ending at the blue one, and consistent-scale foliage behind. Proceding on the location as likely enough to warrant the work. The stretch of highway identified runs northeast, heading 33 degrees. The truck is most likely not driving at the moment, as it's in the pull-over lane. But it's pointed as if ready to leave Donetsk as soon as they finish doing something in theis spot. All we can see they're doing is getting filmed, and maybe that's just what they're waiting for. Ahead would be the an industrial area, the eastern suburb of Makiivka, then Khartsyzk, etc. and further east Torez and Snizhne (driving times unsure, date also unsure. Russia claims the one launcher left the northern base sometime between in August 14 and 17 images. <ref name="RT10">[http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ 10 more questions Russian military pose to Ukraine, US over MH17 crash] RT. July 21, 2014</ref><br />
<br />
'''Time:''' I'm not sure how exactly to set this up, but the shadows appear to stretch almost right across the highway, with only a slight northern shift. The azimuth thus appears to be fairly close to to 140˚ (reached at 11:09 AM). As for solar altitude, trying to line up the launcher's corner with its shadow gives a reading of app. 56˚ (= 10:50 AM, with azimuth 133˚) or perhaps 59˚ (= 11:18, az 143.5). The graphic shows both readings. Which is better? I used [http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/solcalc/ NOAA solar calculator], with coordinates: lat 48.017102 long:37.9037626 time=GMT+2, DST +1 --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
There is more to consider about this truck, its company, its owner, and his story. But other than this photo's extra-clear view of the phone number and apparent proximity to headquarters, those are better covered in the section below [[#The Truck Owner's Story]].<br />
<br />
==== Time? ====<br />
[[File:MH17 Paris Match elev.png|right|220px]]<br />
Bellingcat was originally claiming that photo was taken at 9 am. [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/09/08/images-show-the-buk-that-downed-flight-mh17-inside-russia-controlled-by-russian-troops/] [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/11/08/origin-of-the-separatists-buk-a-bellingcat-investigation/]<br />
<br />
Then they were claiming 11 am as an obvious time without retracting previous 9am claim. Seems like 9am was more comfortable for them to match to photos from Zuhres and Torez. <br />
<br />
Sorry, using smartphone. Not very easy to comment --[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 01:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:<small>Looks like you put the same link twice, -it says 11 a.m.--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)</small><br />
::Antidyatel, welcome! Resup, thanks! I'd like to see any 9 am citation. But otherwise they agree on it being around 11? Good. The significance below is if the Zuhres square photo was taken at 11:40 AM as they say, it's basically impossible these images are from the same day as alleged - 69 km, 1 hour 14 mins drive between the spots, when there's only 20-40 minutes between the images. However, fudging it - let's say this is 10:50 and the other is 12:00 as I read it - that's 1:10 between, almost a perfect match. So maybe this isn't a great lead (I was never convinced it was). But 9:00 is way off and suggests they were fudging it to fit at that point. Would be good to document. BTW, on talk pages you can sign with <nowiki>--~~~~</nowiki> or the sign/scribble button. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: [https://web.archive.org/web/20141109132514/https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/11/08/origin-of-the-separatists-buk-a-bellingcat-investigation/ First archive.org snapshot] from the day after publishing (edit: a good three months after you called it :o)) says 11 am already. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 10:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: Okay, the links were fixed once or twice and [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/11/08/origin-of-the-separatists-buk-a-bellingcat-investigation/ the November report] says 11 am, not citing an azimuth or anything, just Paris Match saying it was "about 11 am," which doesn't count much for verification. The [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/09/08/images-show-the-buk-that-downed-flight-mh17-inside-russia-controlled-by-russian-troops/ earlier report from Sptember] might be based on something else when it mentions "a well known image from Paris Match, which shows a Buk in Donetsk at 9am on July the 17th." Neither one sounds like a firm final version. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== Screenshot from dashcam video? ====<br />
It it possible to identify if the photo was made by dashboard camera, smartphone, or other type of camera. Paris Match claimed that they made the photo. There are no date markings on the photo, which is strange. Position of the camera is such that it was either dashboard camera or the driver was making a photo (front and left side of the car). Paris Match was also implying in their report that it was a group of people in the car. "A sytem BUK missile launcher is photopgraphie by the team of Paris-Match in the suburbs of Donetsk, on the road to Snizhne the morning of July 17, hours before the flight Malaysia Airlines MH17 crash."[http://m.parismatch.com/Actu/International/EXCLU-MATCH-Un-camion-vole-pour-transporter-le-systeme-lance-missiles-577289]<br />
<br />
Why would they ask driver to make a photo? Dangerous or uncomfortable - illogical. If it was a dashboard camera, why not to release a video? And most importantly it would have a time stamp. <br />
<br />
Also in this report [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/01/17/new-images-of-the-mh17-buk-missile-launcher-in-ukraine-and-russia/] gives a new, a bit extended photo. Surprisingly the back of the BUK is nicely in focus, same as the truck cabin. While middle of the BUK is defocused. No wonder Paris Match cropped it. Bellingcat, that likes being so strict about photos, totally ignores this part. <br />
-- [[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 23:55,, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Yes, I agree. The two photos are crops from screenshots from a dashcam video. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 00:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
::Those must be two different shots at close-by time --look at position of street lamppost with respect to the truck cabin, one has it over black pipe, and the other more to the right from there. Can't think of a natural way for camera to focus on two different distances (maybe dirty and curvy windshield can be blamed but on tricky side here)-- FWIW. Usually dashboards have short focal length so that anything appear to be in focus; don't know why not the case here --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
RESUP, you are right. Those are two different shots. There is cable reflection from the windshield. Probably the cable is another indication of the dashboard camera.--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 13:35, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Torez Square Photo ===<br />
[[File:MH17 Torez Buk Analysis.png|left]]This is another image geo-located by the Brown Moses network (ally Aric Toller) to central Torez, [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Donetsk&hl=en&ll=48.023472,38.614014&spn=0.004923,0.01222&hnear=Donetsk,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&t=h&z=17 here on Google Maps.] Like others, it was initially stated as in another locale - Snizhne - and that had to be corrected. I can agree the location pointed to is either the photo's site or one strangely like it. [http://mashable.com/2014/07/23/citizen-journalists-mh17-spies/ Mashable noted] "Toler and Higgins were able to establish that the photograph was shot around 11:40 a.m. local time." I tried a quick azimuth measure, eyeballed relative only to the blue car, and got 165 degrees (yellow line, read backwards). This equates to a time of almost exactly 12:00 noon (about 30 minutes before solar noon, and 20 minutes later than their estimate). Seeing they're close to right, I'll presume they're closer than me and defer to 11:40. <br />
<br />
If this photo is taken at 11:40 AM, and it's the same truck seen leaving Donetsk around 11-11:20 AM, it's impossible these images are from the same day as alleged (Gmaps says it's 68.8 km, 1 hour 14 mins drive, when there's only 20-40 minutes between the images). That would mean multiple mobile launchers with multiple "Titan" trucks, or just one but with some date fudging. The company says a number of its trucks were stolen, so matching multiples are entirely likely. But so is date fudging, multiples or not. If that's so, I suspect the Donetsk photo was from July 15 or 16, and this one more likely from the day of the crime. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 04:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br /><br /><br /><br />
=== Zuhres Video ===<br />
[[File:Buk Zuhres Vid.png|right|480px]]Again, a truck of that same type loaded with the same apparent weapon is briefly seen driving east (detail at right). This one was never reported wrong and was in fact pre-geo-located by the uploader [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=48%C2%B0+1'1.38%22N++38%C2%B018'6.04%22E&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=48.034019,38.391724&spn=0.629958,1.564178&gbv=2&hnear=H21,+Zuhres,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&gl=us&t=h&z=10 here in Zuhres.] Higgins confirms, 100% sure, and others concur. <ref name="Story1" /> Zuhres location: on highway H21 halfway between Donetsk and the general disaster zone - 36 km east by road from the position of the truck in the Paris Match photo. I agree with the location, refined below as I lined up in the still used here - the blue line runs between the blue thing and the building corner (footprint, not roofline) to the front of the truck as it passes. <br />
<br />
The sky is fairly overcast, so solar angles can't be measured precisely; the differences in facet lighting are clear but not massive. A broad and inclusive azimuth range of 167˚ to 214˚ (rounded) is shown by the yellow arrows below. This yields a range (to the nearest minute) of 12:09 PM and 1:45 PM. The best middle is a bit early - 185 degrees. That would be 12:44 PM. Altitude, at solar noon, helps little. 12:09, 12:44, and all times between round off to 63˚. if that simply looks too high, we're forced to the later end of the time frame. - 57˚ at 1:45. My super broad-estimate: 12:45 +/- 50 minutes. Weather at this time on whatever day - as noted, it partly overcast, and it's windy. The clouds are moving fast, with slight lighting changes visible in just these few seconds. Winds by the swaying trees are from the southeast, perhaps, blowing northwest - at least at the building with a face running that way.<br />
[[File:Buk Zuhres analysis.png|center|680px]]<br />
<br />
==The Truck Owner's Story==<br />
The apparent owner of the white truck so important to the MH17 operation was of course tracked down via the giant phone number for his compant on its side. Interviewed at least twice now, first by Paris Match, then by Lithuanian agency Alfa, this businessman has been anonymized as Vassili (then Vasilijus). Thorough summary of the related, alleged facts, from each (translated) report:<br />
* [http://www.parismatch.com/Actu/International/EXCLU-MATCH-Un-camion-vole-pour-transporter-le-systeme-lance-missiles-577289 Paris Match, July 25:]<br />
:''Photographs of Paris Match showed that the rebels had failed to remove the billboard on the truck they had stolen. Thus we joined the owner of the vehicle. Vassili said the rebels occupied warehouses on the outskirts of Donetsk since July 8. "They are fighters Slaviansk. They landed and told me they loved my premises and we had to escape. They shipped me a dozen large vehicles, including the white truck. I do not know what happened to them, "admitted Vassili, distraught.'' (that was actually just what they published, aside from context material) <br />
<br />
* [http://www.alfa.lt/straipsnis/472203/alfa-lt-isskirtinis-interviu-su-raketas-buk-kuriomis-buvo-numustas-malaizijos-avialiniju-lektuvas-gabenusio-vilkiko-savininku?p=1#.U-GIxeOSyuZ Alfa.lt, July 29:]<br />
:''This person's testimony is crucial. After it becomes indisputably known that anti-missile system, which shot down a passenger plane was precisely the Kremlin-sponsored terrorist hands. ''<br />
Here, separatists are throughout called "terrorists" (Bezler is "the "People's Republic of Donetsk" terrorist gangs ringleader"). Vassili says these took over and occupied his company premises on July 8, taking the white truck - they said because it was needed He says they stayed in control of his facility for 8 days, apparently departing on the 9th day - July 17. Becuase of this, he and his staff - especially his drivers - were unable to do anything that whole time. He's entirely certain it's his truck in the videos (the phone number says so) as it's the only one of its type in that part of Donetsk (Žinoma, ji – vienintelė tokia Donecko srityje, tokios kitos nėra. Tokios „Volvo“ su tokia kabina). He says he still hasn't seen it since.<br />
:''...more and more irrefutable evidence that Russia supported the terrorists shot down over the temporary control of the territory in the east of Ukraine aboard passenger "Malaysia Airlines plane, and later sought to hide evidence.''<br />
But as Paris Match noted, they couldn't be bothered to detach the phone number to the guy with the whole dang story. <br />
:''Alfa.lt knowledge of the personal data, company name, knows his responsibilities and phone numbers (one is (050) 471-41-80), but because of '''the danger to his life''' that can not be published. "Stop saying my name, and I already have enough problems," said new horrific crime witness Vasilijus.'' <br />
This is valid; of course his best defense would have been to simply ''not'' implicate the separatists mostly running Donetsk, but it's too late now. DPR authorities might want him for questioning. And especially now that he's been publicized as a "crucial witness," others will want him to '''appear to have been brutally murdered by them''' (he will have served his main purpose by now, perhaps). I hope someone's able to arrange protective custody quickly enough, or that he can arrange his own vacation, or convince his friends (he'll know the ones) of his continuing usefulness to them alive. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Titan Gate blurry.png|left|380px]]Further bits on the business: Wikimapia has labels. One for the front building is generic. In English writing: [http://wikimapia.org/#lat=48.0399571&lon=37.794637&z=16&l=0&m=b&show=/24479492/Ochakivska-vulytsia-19 Ochakivska vulytsia, 19]. Beneath: Category: safety, '''private security company.''' Around this, a bigger labeled area including the back building and surrounding lot. Label: Территория службы охраны "Титан" Translated, it says "Territory protection service "Titan" (Donetsk)." Beneath it: "Category: '''Do not display name''', fenced area." (не отображать название, огороженная территория) Below, their gate area as it appears in Human Rights Investigation's still, and three versions I've seen randomly changing over the last day or so with different parts that could be the name blurred out (most recently back to not blurred). Is that unusual? I predict further twists in this, with the truck found somewhere bolstering the Kiev story, and with the company's "outing" being manipulated somehow. Feels a little spooky. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
;Assessing "Vassili's" Story<br />
<br />
There are a number of problems with and interesting questions about this witness' story and how it meshes with other allegation (details forthcoming).<br />
<br />
In Vassili's defense, I'll say the world needs to hear more. What happened in these eight days? Were Russian officers coming and going? Poring over air charts in the side room, before closing the door with an annoyed look? A lot could have happened - this could be a gold mine of direct evidence for war crimes trials of these terrorist gang's leaders (as understood). --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
[[File:MH17 Vassili's Truck August 1c.png|right|400px]]<br />
An apparent support: as HRI found, [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/08/07/new-sighting-of-volvo-linked-to-buk/ New sighting of Volvo linked to BUK?] August 7 - One of those provocatively deleted tweets, quite recent with a supposedly same-day (dawn or sunset) photo from somewhere in Donetsk - outskirtsy, like where <s>rebel</s> I mean Kiev junta forces proudly claim to almost be. this photo (saved by HRI) shows "a truck" carrying a tank, driving behind another tank. The posted thought it was for a new roadblack/barricade (concrete slabs were also being hauled). It appears to be the same truck Vassili says he lost, or one just like it. And this does look like the type of thing seaparatists would do if they had seized it, and still didn't realize how famous it had become. This thing likes to drive at dawn, doesn't it? How are checkpoints then, a little sleepy maybe? Hmmm... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::(added later: inset image - from the photo, color-corrected and cropped on just the truck - for full view see the article or below) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: FTR I took up HRI's challenge to identify the truck on that picture and did so with almost 100% certainty. It's a Volvo FH second generation (2001-2013) with low cabin. Like [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Volvo_LKW_Fahrerhaus.JPG this one] which has a higher cabin but other than that is quite a match. Also FTR, I noticed that the twitter account has "Donbass Bandera" as location, which can but must not mean anything. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: Bandera might mean something, in context, but no time to puzzle too much. Good ID work there. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Vassili's Truck August 1 Loc.png|left|380px]]The article passes on a geo-location I can confirm: [https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Makiivka,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine/@48.04073,37.967479,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m5!1e2!3m3!1s78165143!2e1!3e10!4m2!3m1!1s0x40e08e984a0db9a9:0xe4e52efde2e0641c Here on Google Maps,] photo taken, as described, from "opposite the Vostochno-evroppeyskiy restaurant & lounge “Atrium” in Makiivka on the H-21." A site photo of the "Atrium" is included. The graphic I made at left shows the approximate view, including the stairwell (to a subway station?), though the billboard is less clear. The view is roughly towards the rising sun northeast - a rough azimuth measure suggests the sun is shining from about <s>66</s> 71 degrees from north, for a time of around <s>5:24</s> 5:52 AM (elevation: <s>1.8</s> 6 degrees). --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC) and corrections --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
FWIW, I went over to militaryphotos.net and scanned [http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?236005-Situation-in-the-Ukraine-Crimea-*Photos-Videos*-ONLY/page200 the thread about Ukraine starting on page 200] in very early July, up until page 225 when all the known truck/BUK info and disinfo was posted. Watched countless military convoys, including a whole bunch from Donetsk in the time between. Not a sign of the truck in question. If it was in "rebel" hands since July 8 like the alleged owner claims, they used it only for "special ops", alone in the early morning or so, not in their larger relocation operations. Two things remotely interesting: in an operation [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0JdcC324Ek reactivating a WWII tank from a war museum in Donetsk], a similar trailer is used, but the truck is a different one. And in [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2eGNPJlkMo this video from July 5] but without given location, the Ukie army does some operations and two BUK TELARs are seen. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Possible Launch Sites ==<br />
*Launch site discussion here is based on a photo of disputed provenance, said to be made '''near [[Category_talk:Ukraine#Torez|Torez]]''', showing a plume of smoke (see on the right and below). Exact date is disputed, but it was posted shortly after the accident. A late update or second version of the photo emerged in December 2014; this is further discussed in the [[File_talk:MH17_Launch_Plume.png|talk page for the photo]]. A different launch location in '''Artemovsk''', based on Bezler account, is discussed elsewhere [[Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17#Bezler_Account|(link).]] . <br />
<br />
===What do we know? ===<br />
Questions about the photo, --if it is genuine-- include:<br />
<br />
*What is shown on the photo? (Likely a missile launch, but can be MANPAD, or some other launch; raising fire smoke not excluded though less likely) <br />
*When was the photo made? (Claimed to be couple of minutes after the MH 17 shootdown launch; but could be made on earlier days)<br />
*Where was the photographer, and where is than the 'launch site" Photograph claimed to be made in Torez (4 microdistrict?) . Claimed launch sites locations are [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/launch-location-detected-of-missile.html SE] or [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2107 NE] from the photographer. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
A site, or maybe a couple of locations, have now been forwarded, based on compelling evidence, as likely SAM launch sites of July 17 or thereabouts. This is worth careful consideration here. To start:<br />
<br />
* [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10984530/MH17-the-clues-which-may-lead-to-missile-launch-site.html UK Telegraph, July 22] This report with some detail and a photo visits a few areas where signs of possible BUK launcher movement and firing occurred recently. Caterpillar tracks, mostly light, signs of burning, various debris left behind, all or mostly "in the area of the town of Snizhnoye." These details might suggest whoever did this had multiple launchers set up in different areas that left as soon as the operation/accident was done. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
::So far, signs are saying it was just the one. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Below: The site shown on video, stitched panoramic view (with confusing curve). This helps get the fullest set of geo-location clues. I may even check if this is the same spot identified by Ukraine@War, below. It should be, or we might have two firing locations pretty near each other, which would be odd. The firing direction from here would be northwest, almost directly along MH17's flight path. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
[[File:MH17 Telegraph site.png|center|940px]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Launch Plume.png|right|340px]]Ukraine@War: [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/launch-location-detected-of-missile.html Launch location detected of missile that brought down MH17] The photo at right, cited by Kiev as proof of a BUK launch in the right area, July 17. The anlysis here looks good on first blush and lines the filming to northern Torez, plume on a line including a supposed patch of cat tracks just revelaed by fresh Google/GeoEye images of some fields [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Donetsk&hl=en&ll=47.989347,38.773155&spn=0.078813,0.195522&t=h&hnear=Donetsk,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&z=13 here] by Snizhne. As traced, the tracks look realistic to me. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: There is (a disappeared) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUvK5m2vxro BBC video ] suggesting that smoke is from a direction of Saur-Mogila (= constant fighting) and a coal mine. <br />
::Thus smoke may be unrelated to the launch. Also timing of photo is unclear. <br />
:: Buk trail from unrelated launch videos appears considerably [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDXScnEKaP0 more impressive than on the photo] , and traces well visible trajectory, likely attracting attention of many people . But there appears to be no witness reports. <br />
::Buk appears to use [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_navigation proportional navigation method], and if so, its navigation control will try to guide it on a straight path to impact.<br />
::Unless it was doing something else (but can it??? the answer requires expert knowledge), it was most likely on a straight line trajectory which can be deduced from the impact direction.<br />
--[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 00:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Yes, an odd video. I'm not certain they even picked the right view, but it looks about right - I think she and Oliphant (Telegraph) point to the same monument as a landmark - a place of fighting. Seems like they got close, but didn't have a specific spot like U@W picked, and didn't find anything. As for angle, I think it can maneuver around, but would prefer to fly straight (not an expert, don't know what "prefer" means here). And if it was hit head-on like the impact marks suggest, then it probably did fly just about straight into the jet. Obviously if it came over the wing, and was fired from here, it would have to curl around, but I don't think that's the case. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
<br />
The satellite images cited at Ukraine@War are available if you have Google Earth. As explained [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/satellite-images-reveal-how-buk-has.html here,] there's a .kmz package you can download [https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxEeOqcjSE5uQXlkWkxKeVhDaEk/edit here] that loads on Google Earth new, murky images from July 20 (but the display still says August, 2013). The tracks he highlights are visible, faintly. There are a couple sets perhaps connecting - some could be local paths - there's no recent enough images to say there weren't there July 16. One important missing thing is a patch of burnt grass it seems should show up up differently - it's not identified there, and not evident right around these tracks. From this, it's not a great fit, except that line of sight pointing here. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Plastic Debris 1.png|left|280px]]So is the Telegraph site and the Ukraine@War site the same thing? Well, the Telegraph article says they went to the spot identified on a blog, but found, as the image suggests: Two possible launch sites – a rundown collective farm and a nearby wheat field – showed some track marks but no sign of any rocket launch whatsoever." It was a farmer plowing his fields there who pointed them to ''a field nearby'' that burned the other day, and that 's the unclear site they show. "The location of the fire lies on the supposed flight path of the rocket, and track marks – though indistinct – are present. Some unidentifiable bits of green plastic littered the site of the fire." There were also discarded bottles (type unclear) and apparently this oddity, shown in a photo but not mentioned - soft bakelite-type plastic ... thing, with years in the 1980s and 1990s stamped in it. It's all near enough to the rebel town, the Russian border, and concealed rebel positions that they think only rebels could operate there. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
First, let's note that author "P. Martin" connects these possibly relevant tracks with the surveillance video showing the Buk launcher driving south The Telegraph spot, from the burnt grass, must the spot the exhaust pushed off from, and the burn line should probably be to the northwest. There's no sign of that alongside these track marks found on that visual line. That's a problem, as the exhaust never said a luncher was driving around thataway, but rather launching from thataway. <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Telegraph Spot Mapped.png|right|380px]][[File:MH17 Telegraph Spot Cleared.png|right|320px]]Rather, it's the nearby "Telegraph spot" - not quite on his line but close - that [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com/2014/07/exact-location-pinpointed-of-mh17.html Martin thinks is the EXACT location] That, he thinks, is in the next field south. It should be visible in the updated imagery, but it turns out this is just off the edge of the area they provided, so it can't be verified or ruled out based on that. The inset graphic shows this cut-off line, his previous possible firing locations (track-based, seemingly un-burnt, in yellow) The spot yields a best placement with coordinates already noted by Petri in a section [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Map#Buk locations and flight paths|here.]] (I picked out the spot myself, best guess, and got the same but 3 seconds east) It can't be checked like that for the telltale stripe to the northwest, but it looks pretty likely to me. The main view down the tracks (left half of the panorama above) would be looking south, and the near line of trees on the right running west. The pretty obvious tracks he identifies as likely launcher tracks, and they do seem to curve in where it stopped. Otherwise, to me, this has more the look of a pre-travelles semi-road on the line between fields. Either way, it probably drove that way, and fired from here, and not from the un-burnt spots north. All the tracks he notes, none certain in themselves, are supported in their possible relevance by this being what's at the end of the trail. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC) and [[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Added in November, the image below that. I noticed Google Maps had new post-crash imagery up, and re-checked the spot for burn marks, since it was just off the grid before. This replacement - overlayed with translucence - seems too late. The strip most likely to show the signs has apparently been harvested/cleared before this image Some will say that constitutes a coverup. And it might, but probably just out of stupid reflexive nervousness. I just wanted to measure its angle and stuff. There is a nice track right up to the spot, likely pre-existing and just unclear before, and what they used to get there. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Location Challenged ===<br />
<br />
The above stuff, as of now and as I've been running it mainly, seems to bear out the vaunted "social media sleuths" placing the launcher and probably the launch in "separatist-held territory." I agree with all locations provided, and times too. Everyone acknowledges date is less sure. There are compelling clues pointing to concrete firing spot, that seems to be lined up the hit the jet head-on, as it's starting to seem the airliner was hit. In this narrative, the questions people should be asking is who was really running that. But readings differ, and some differing views can be considered here. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* [https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByibNV3SiUoobnpCVDduaHVORHM/edit?usp=sharing MH17 Analysis] – CDN <br />
<br />
Petri posted this to the front page, a 25-page report with many graphics and explained reasoning. One of its conclusions, based on range to impact, mainly, meant that "the missile that downed MH17 was not fired from Snizhne." At the moment, I disagree. Petri, who is CDN, and are they soliciting feedback? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::The anonymous PDF was published via Saker's blog: [http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/08/detailed-expert-analysis-of-mh17-downing.html Detailed expert analysis of the MH17 downing] "CDN" has [http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/08/detailed-expert-analysis-of-mh17-downing.html?showComment=1407347983141#c8862773971299986141 responded] [http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/08/detailed-expert-analysis-of-mh17-downing.html?showComment=1407350196815#c7564049628743605813 twice] in the comments. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 00:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
I think these might be part of what threw the author(s) off:<br />
# the heading seems to be off, too southerly to trace back like that. At the end, maybe close enough<br />
# possibly too-wide debris field starting too early - final breakup likely E-NE of their spot (ie closer to in range)<br />
# Wrong presumed angle of impact <br />
# Lack of knowledge, specified on page 23, of this contrail image or, obviously, the supporting clues pointing to what might be "the Telegraph site" excluded here. "Why are there no images of the rebel missile and its impressive launch contrail?" Oops, there is and it point there. <br />
--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: I just skimmed it before coming here. It was posted [http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.de/2014/08/detailed-expert-analysis-of-mh17-downing.html over here] where you can join the discussion (which I haven't read yet just saw that Petri is there chiming in in comment 2 of currently 93). I think it's first valuable in presenting the known capabilities of the Buk etc. If your stuff above is true and it is one single truck with one single TELAR that was seen in the different locations, then it shows quite conclusively that the Telegraph position can not be the launching point, because even if the Ukie claim of disappearance from Radar 50km from the Russian border is not true, due to the position of the debris it could only be further away, not closer, which adds to the argument. My 2 cents for the moment. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
: Oh, not directly related to the critique, but driving around with a huge phone number that leads to a Titan security of all places is more than a bit suspicious, I'd say. ;o) --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: "the Telegraph position can not be the launching point" if my "stuff above is true and it is one single truck with one single TELAR that was seen in the different locations" - how? "because even if the Ukie claim of disappearance from Radar 50km from the Russian border is not true, due to the position of the debris it could only be further away, not closer, which adds to the argument." Huh? I think the field is placed really vaguely in that report, and that's what sets the impact point - it looks maybe kilometers off, to the west. Placed right, the implied impact point is further east, ie closer to the launcher. It is a valuable report, but that point should be re-checked more carefully before I could be convinced to write off all the other evidence pointing there. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::: Take a careful look at pages 9 and 10 of the PDF. Place the spot to where you think it's "right". Think how that would change the picture. The argument is based on the empirical location of the debris and unless I've missed some serious flaw in the numbers and basic calculations made on the pages leading to that, I think it's by rule of thumb a very sound argument. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 13:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::: I'll do my own soon - I can say it would end further east, relative to the border there, and probably start further east too, but maybe I'm unaware of some outlying debris - but first a though on the debris field I just had, even more relevant than size and placement - what does it actually say re: the plane? He presumes it would follow the trajectory east. Not much, really. With only so much momentum and breaking up, with five miles to fall, the main factor will be wind. Even a breeze has five miles to act on it. That was so with PA 103 - the wind was about perpendicular to the path, and that determined just where stuff scattered on a line across the borders area right to the north sea - only the cockpit and a few things were off much from that line. Here, if it blewa along the flight path, the reasoning would work fine. If it blew back, to the west, the plane was probably shot further east than the field suggests. Ie, closer yet to in range. The Zuhres video above shows wind apparently to the northwest, and pretty strong. Worth a review and re-think in that light. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 14:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::: With an initial speed of 907 km/h I see no reason to take wind into serious account. I see no reason at all for going into more detail in this rule of thumb argument, not on the debris, not on the alleged launching point. But I'm as always looking forward to what you can come up with. ;o) --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::: btw there's no exact calculation of the traveled distance of the falling pieces, it's just found plausible resulting from other data. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::::: There's good reason. [http://martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/PA103_debris.gif past precedent.] I did read it wrong - the blue oval is about right, I thought the scale by it, which is way off. That's the 20 km drift - if the wind was blowing due east at the right speed... to the near edge of the oval and 30 km to the far edge... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 15:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 four last points.png|center]]<br />
<br />
Debris fields as shown in MH17 WSJ data combined.jpg. The two tracks, 118 per Flightradar24 and other sources, and 111 from a Russian graphic (see label C), just in case. They cross at point E just to look cool - superimpose wherever to visualize a track-back on these or any line between. <br />
<br />
The four red "last points", eyeballed onto the map as shown in the various graphics used here (all pretty approximate): <br />
<br />
A: last return, flightradar 24 (erred, I think, way too far along - I suspect some inherent offset...)<br />
<br />
B: Russian ATC last return, '50 km' from the border (vague description, likely close to accurate)<br />
<br />
C: end of 111 track shown in MH17 radar 1.png (maybe arbitrary, lower resolution)<br />
<br />
D: report, deduced point of impact (presuming 20-30 km flight due east after impact, wind app. not considered at all)<br />
<br />
E: My guess for breakup point, where the damaged front came apart (should maybe be further east, right over the south part of the first orange blob). Actual impact point, an unclear distance back. probably not very far - downward flight could start anytime after that, decreasing the lateral distance traveled) . <br />
<br />
The cockpit, aerodynamic, shows the most like forward trajectory of this, relatively minimal wind complication. The heavy forward parts had more drag, wound up NW of there. A bit further NW, the light, high-drag, punctured upper fuselage. That these parts aren't spread further out suggests the jet managed to descend some ways before the front totally fell apart, and/or that the wind was fairly light. From there, most of the plane remained together, kept more momentum and little wind effect, and crashed kilometers east. The last part of this plummet, about one minute seen on video, it was nose-free and essentially nose-diving. A slight north trend, perhaps curtailed eastward progress, largely just down, leaves it all hitting together by Hrabove, scattering woth the fireball trajectory and wind deciding where these bits landed. That it only got so far from the forward parts again suggests this breakup was fairly low in the fall - maybe just before the start of the one video. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I'd say forget point D, it is way too far west, this plane was not going to fly 25km once hit. On debris, I'd put breakup where the "f" is in your word "forward" and impact not very far NW of that, lifting the whole 118 line a little northwards. You can't bring breakup below impact and count on wind pushing wreckage "uphill" because that first group of wreckage included 37 bodies, which would not "sail". The impact would be enough to knock the course slightly south, to drop the cockpit at Rozspyne, where it turned NE to end up at Grabovo. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 03:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Thanks. D is the presumed point used to rule out this launch location, the original point of this sub-section. That dot fails by a good margin. My E and your guess are both north of the flight path, along which all the red dots are (this graphic is confusing, needs updating, if I didn't flatten it). I was thinking a NNW wind did the north and west spreading, but the records say the wind was flat "east" (to the west). I'm left suspecting now the plane banked hard left just before it started breaking up. Actual impact, just before that. The "C" label is pretty arbitrary, but it keeps seeming about right. On the imagined red line 1t 117-118, I dunno, maybe 20-30 pixels back. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::Winds are described as 'from' not 'to. So a wind blowing to the NNW is reported as a SSE wind.<br />
::::A slip - I'm trying to say it that way now. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::Getting on to the wind. The actual breeze direction is usually a function of altitude - veering or backing from ground level observation. It can easily be 90 degrees out from ground level. You need to look at the vertical profile used in aeronautical soundings to see where debris will in the main blow to. --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 11:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::Sounds like a real headache to map. There's also changes over time, where east at 5:00 may change briefly ten minutes later, or 10,000 feet up. All that seems can be counted on is easterly winds in general - no exception to that. And generally, even if they measure it at the airport, it must extend up to the clouds, which can be seen swirling east over the area. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::No it doesn't extend to the clouds except by accident. Major direction change can happen in hundreds of metres altitude especially at night. Examples of wind shift between ground level and 700 millibars (9800 ft) in day time can show a direction change of 90 degrees - e.g. North to West. This is significant with MH17 where the breakups occurred between 33,000 feet and probably a few thousand feet for the final disintegrations. --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 11:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::FYI Here is all about [http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/48/ Veering and Backing] --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 11:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::As for the spread issue, I'm re-thinking it. As for the bodies, it depends on a few things but I take your point - bodies are dense. And I didn't know that detail - worth considering. Also a sad side-note: most bodies would be alive and aware, from what I learned looking at Lockerbie. Lack of O2 would black them all out at first, but gravity makes it so there's enough in that final stretch those not dead already (the lucky few) would probably "wake up" in time to both feel their injuries and their fall, and to see the "separatist-held" fields rushing up to kill them. :( ---[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::: My indications are they were all dead when they hit the ground. That's not to say some didn't suffer from the first blast up there. Using my (very long ago) rescue triage training, I examined all the body photos for type of injury. The main findings were (a) almost no blood (as the separatist intercepted call rightly claimed) (b)a lot of legs at angles suggesting hip/pelvic fracture (a very common injury in air crashes to people wearing seat belts) and (c) all the bodies appear swollen (in first-day photos). We are thinking of what happened as a decompression, a low-pressure event. But that was preceded by the blast detonation of the missile just outside... a high-pressure event. The very high pressure shock wave compresses the blood vessels and severely damages the lungs. Blood pressure and heart rate go sky high trying to compensate. In 1/2 a second the blast wave is gone and they are in decompression.The heart can't adjust fast enough. The lack of blood flow makes the brain and liver swell up, too, so normal blood circulation cannot be re-established even if the heart recovers. The Lockerbie bomb, and various exploding fuel tank cases, were lower pressure explosions; sadly many would have survived those until ground/water impact.[[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 20:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::So there is evidence of blast wave, not _just_ decompression alone? But no shrapnel wounds? --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 21:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::(cut my comment - I had misread - taken to [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Debunked topics#Bloodless bodies – fake Facebook profiles?|bloodless bodies spot]] FWIW - but I disagree with both the lack of blood and the validity of many "separatist" communications, but if we're not arguing a planeload of corpses being shot down, I won't argue it much.) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
More to the point, leaving the above graphic aside, would be this newer one I should finally add. Basic straight path, 118 and placed as agreed by most sources. Alleged launch location, measures app. My best guess is a 2 km range from 22.75 to 24.75, weighted to the center. Or most likely about 23.75 km out (irrespective of actual projectile flight path, that's where it made contact, but this helps visualize how the alleged launch site might line up with [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Forensics#Direction of projectiles?|the directional forensics]]). --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
[[File:MH17 missile intercept distances.png]]<br />
::Straight line from launch is okay. But impact has to be further north, ie before the most westerly debris. You've used the map which assumes that debris to be blown back by wind. That can't be right, as it included bodies (too dense to blow back) and witnesses saw them and plane sections falling straight down. This only makes about 1 mile difference to the missile range, so does nothing to exclude that launch location. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 01:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::The map of spread is only app., some orange area I made. The pink dot and lines are from a map, Russian analysis, as you say apparently presuming a SSE wind. Debris including people ''would'' be blown back to some degree, all of it, varyingly; trajectory can only do so much when you have five miles of falling, with the breezes acting the whole time, and the lightest parts will be back a bit, whatever direction and as mentioned above, a SSE winds at some time or altitude still isn't ruled out at all). Do we know just where in that area those passengers landed, and what types of things are its far end? ? <br />
(<br />
:::I mean, you could be right and it's a bit further back, maybe with a continuation due east from there and no real wind effect except slightly back. It was only 9-12 mph, and maybe it fell halfway before starting to fall apart, which means less spread. I'm thinking about a possible left turn to explain the north aspect, or it could be wind, or being further back (more north, as well as west), or a combination. The turn has to be a certain size, the wind direction is not certain aside from east prevailin, ... whatever point best explains whatever happened ... we're down to a shrinking agreed range, and as you say, it's all within range of the one spot, so it's not ruled out after all. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 04:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
At this stay of play, I feel it will be helpful to have displayed prominently an overall map reflecting best guess on impact location as well as already flagged suspected launch sites, that is the two launch sites we have been discussing (near Snezhny ; near Chernukhino) , PLUS launch locations flagged and TIMED by released satellite data (currently only Russian data is available). I would be generous with the range here, we can find range suggested by public sources but presumably actual range depends on a number of things (height, radar range, trajectory, wind), and may exceed the "official" range. Another useful graphics piece info would be indicating the front lines, if there is a way to have those known. '''I would be extremely cautious with displaying graphics reflecting just one way of thinking (whether "worst", "best", or "middle of the way"), for the reason that any graphics is easy for human brain to absorb, more than words spread out on all our numerous pages, and ''no graphics at all'' is better than displayed ''skewed'' graphics.''' One-sided graphics may be '''inviting''' even more noise releases "supporting" some already skewed scenarios, and I feel that was already happening way too often. I feel that most helpful stance at this point would be as neutral as it gets. (Regarding trajectories, a default guess is a straight line, anything else requires an explanation. Straight line is implied so no strong need to actually display it, especially if it ends up curling in suggestive funny ways on graphics). --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 09:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::I've been doing a lot of graphics, so not all fired up for more. But if you are, I wouldn't mind making another if it helps. Maybe this is best taken to [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Map#Interception Location]] (a lot of this is redundant, and I might move it, but at least I can say let's stop piling intercept stuff here as well as there). Up to picking a certain spot around Chernukino? Some outskirts area, on a major road, it'll be a guess. A couple guesses could be mapped. Also, if it seems worth it, I can do updates and upload the new version as needed. Any timed satellite launches, let me know. Front lines, not known and IMO misleading in this case. Those who would know would try - and maybe manage - to sneak this thing behind them... the caution about leading labels, I can leave to you - you could just tell me what to put. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
:::::Would take me forever, may try later on, but not immediately; some cleanup/re-arrangement seems the easiest option. (If there are tools for collaborative mapping, may be good to start using those; but not aware of any) --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 11:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The preliminary [[Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Dutch preliminary report|Dutch report]] says the flight recorders were suddenly lost at 13:20:04 UTC at a point that almost exactly matches the 22.6 km mark. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 22:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Plume Location Re-challenged ===<br />
There is another video, essentially giving a bellingcat in voice-altered Russian. We discussed all that essentially; but he seems at least to end up with a claim for geolocation for the plume photo. Seems to be a new one (or I forgot the old one already by now). The claim is based on [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2055 unrelated panoramic photo] somebody took nearby, and [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2025 claimed to be geolocated by presenter]. Here it is on <br />
[http://maps.yandex.ru/-/CVG0nLo~ yandex map] ; it is taken from a terricon located at Lutuginskii bugor(=hill). There is a cableway from there to TsOF (remember, Khuevyi Torez tells about cableway from Lutugino to TsOF, so here they are); [http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=48.012722&lon=38.665695&z=14&m=b&show=/10590043/ru/ЦОФ-им-Киселёва TsOF is central enrichment plant]; photos from TSOF do show a similar [http://photos.wikimapia.org/p/00/00/62/81/85_big.jpg cableway] . So based on that and an audio of locals of unknown provenance and authenticity, discussing a missile-looking trail in the direction of [http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=48.041767&lon=38.741055&z=14&m=b&show=/18687650/ru/Химмаш Khimmash], our presenter [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2107 ends up] with this [http://maps.yandex.ru/-/CVG0rMnO claimed plume location] , somewhere near this Mochalino village. And apart from this, his contribution to the topic is the claim of a white spot on the other side of 3'2 Buk which he claims to match on the way out. I do not believe all those Buk sightings were taken on the same day, and so do not believe in the overall glue-up of the story, but geolocating the plume, no matter what the plume is, remains legitimate. This author gives his answer to that question. Is this geolocation correct? I do not know, it is not tight, there are lots of cableways out there I presume, and some posts nearby are not too unusual. I do not see a tight fit between Lutuginski bugor photo and the plume photo--some elements do match, but those are obviously not identical places. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 02:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Excellent. Let's keep the title. But I guess you just forgot the previous location. This is the same view. The plume could be added, but I doubt it, and it's to that view at a consistent time on a consistent day. I'm not convinced ''all'' Buk sightings are same day, but most of them being so is a good fit with this plume that way, and a plane down with damage that seems consistent to me. (I hate this case) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::Are you sure it's the same? This new one is NNE from Torez, I thought it was placed SE from Torez by [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/launch-location-detected-of-missile.html U@W ]--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::Going back to check, this is a different filming location proposed. Line of sight isn't included, but it seems to be the same line over the same area to the same place. Even before he could see the distinctive mound, Petros (U@W) had [http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-cfSqhRb2dKo/U80x2OxK1XI/AAAAAAAATNk/r42WpH-Bf-Q/s1600/missile+trail+9.jpg this lineup], which includes this spot. Right where Petros pic says "trees" is what this guy decided were the foreground trees where it was filmed. I wondered when checking but decided on the further version. And seems to be the same result either way. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::I don't think this is accurate, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2107 video at this timestamp] gives 'место пуска ракеты' (launch location) near [http://maps.yandex.ru/-/CVGgVPJN Molchalino]. I have not seen this elsewhere, I only seen the one claimed to be SE of Torez. He does not discuss filming location, but shows it on video and assumes it is in Torez near the terricon, which is close to what other sources assume. He does show the line of site on the video; it is nearly perpendicular to U@W. Lots of terricons, coalmines (so likely cableways), and power lines leading there in this area, so location now seems uncertain. As I understand, no solid evidence for either of these two being the correct geolocation (those cableways seems to be quite common) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::::I am/was confused then. I thought it showed a SW view, just from closer to the mound. Now I see at 33:45 a view from right by it, looking NE? Can't explain the other one you see in the distance in the fuller view (right ?) That's kind of towards Molchalino, but that won't explain anything I suspect. (and what a bad fake or odd coincidence to have a plume up there and a the Buk tracking imagery lead to south of Snizhne, oops!) We'll see south and west faces of buildings if looking NE, so sun will be shining from well east of south, but also quite high, like mid-day in the early AM - or maybe just earlier mid-day, like 11 am. That would be another sloppy mistake. I doubt the details will line up. BUT a couple minor things didn't quite seem to the other way, so maybe worth a try (later). --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I will send this comment also to<br />
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/01/27/is-this-the-launch-site-of-the-missile-that-shot-down-flight-mh17<br />
The US map launch location can best best and almost exactly located from the last magnified picture:<br />
https://wp4553-flywheel.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/32.jpg<br />
That location is here:<br />
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.9571993,38.7466343,488m/data=!3m1!1e3<br />
The triangulation result in the last 3 pictures of the article introduces unnecessary error and clearly does not match the magnified picture.<br />
There is a structure that looks similar to an airfield and it is just south of Chervony Zhovten (=Oktyabr), matching with a witness observation in that place ("it was flying as if from Saurivka", though not matching 2 other witnesses in the zello audio, indicating it came from government held positions further south, [2:00] "Well, it appears everybody saw where the missile has flown from." [2:04] "Well, where you are, everybody saw it, but the Ukrainian media, as usual, will say, will say that that were us.")<br />
It would be outside the range of the plume picture geolocation bounds, which may be either an error given the long distance, or, the plume picture was taken the day before from the reported grad missile launch (as well as the burned field). (The photographer gave his camera to the SBU after twittering the first picture, so later pictures and dates can not be taken for sure).<br />
http://7mei.nl/not-buk-m1-new-video-proof/--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 19:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:(1) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkCcCmYlMZc That audio], as it turns out, was posted by Torezinfo on 24 July, and updated on 1 February. Torezinfo is a favorite posting place of Khuevyi Torez(=KT), who posted a very [https://twitter.com/WowihaY/status/489914266439671808 similar location map on 17 July already]. KT mentions zello recordings on 25 July in the follow-up, so shortly after it gets on torezinfo. With all that stuff linked to this KT poster, I would not put much trust that any of that is genuine. (Or that this KT poster is not acting as a medium for SBU). (2)[http://fr1.sidcdn.net/maps/nsdc/2014/07/large/map-nsdc-2014-07-17-uk-w3000.jpg Ukrainian map] does give us some Ukrainian held area somewhere to the South, but from that map it is hard to tell where exactly opolchenie ends and UAF begins--(I would not know) (3) Actually, going from there, not likely to hit on the left side--so having it from Artemovsk (as Bezler told, indeed) seems most probable --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 21:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:: Here is another map http://liveuamap.com/e/2014/16-of-july-saurivka-is-bombarded-over-and-over-by-rus-grad?ll=47.907137219641115;38.75392913818363&zoom=8<br />
::And here is an article which says that both Marinovka and Tarany were held by National guard. http://www.interpretermag.com/ukraine-liveblog-day-149-russian-tanks-and-artillery-reach-donetsk/#3353<br />
::I just opened bellingcat https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/01/27/is-this-the-launch-site-of-the-missile-that-shot-down-flight-mh17 and see that large parts of the article disappeared, I think they are working on it. That location given by the US photo does not really match well with the plume direction anymore, lets see what they come up with--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 21:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::I believe Marinovka was [http://lifenews.ru/news/136715 taken by opolchenie on 16 July] (lifenews report). Tarany--do not know, perhaps still Ukraine, but not totally sure. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 21:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::: other sources say attack was repelled and forced them to retreat to Stepanivka http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_in_Shakhtarsk_Raion http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/213817.html--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 22:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::: That US photo launch location differs by an angle of about 11 (?) degrees from the brown line in the bellingcat plot (measured from the photographer's location). https://wp4553-flywheel.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/101.jpg (launch location is just visible below the letter 'p' of 'the word 'suspected'). I think this a lot and puts the 'plume' into question. But then there is only the US photo, which itself could be a production based on social media (or worse).--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 22:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Well some believed this is for real, then they got a case to answer [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/22/mh17-us-intelligence-russia-separatists-report Guardian: Photograph: US intelligence community] [https://twitter.com/barbarastarrcnn/status/491559153559932928/photo/1 @barbarastarrcnn] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
In the following, I assume that most of the social media pieces and leaked audio tapes are correct and connect the dots in a different way:<br />
<br />
1. On July 14, an Ukrainian Antonow 26 airplane was shot down by a missile near the Russian border town of Donetsk.<br />
http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/what-weapon-was-used-to-shot-down-ukraine-air-force-antonov-26-at-july-14/<br />
The video in above link showed the missile flying for 39 seconds until it hit. Only a BUK can fly that long, a manpad or Pantsir, also claimed to have been used, not (see first comment in link).<br />
<br />
2. According to a recorded audio tape published by the Ukrainian Secret Service SBU, rebels possessed a BUK ('BUK3x2') in the Donetsk area at least since July 14 ('we already have BUK'). At that date it may have been either on Russian or already rebel held territory.<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVAOTWPmMM4<br />
<br />
3. A social media search discovered only one other system in the area, capable of shooting down AN26 - a Pantsir. However, a Pantsir can't fly for 39 seconds. Based on a max.speed of 780m/s and max range of 20km, it can only fly for about 25s.<br />
http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.co.nz/2014/11/unnoticed-video-of-26-downing-confirms.html<br />
Therefore and because of the crew's intent to engage in the civil war, it is likely that AN26 was shot down by BUK3x2. Afterwards BUK3x2 had only 3 missiles left.<br />
<br />
4. On July 16, Ukrainian and rebel statements both confirmed the shoot down of a SU-25 plane near the "Marinivka border crossing", which is only a few kilometers south-south east of Pervomaiske, the destination of BUK3x2. Ukraine's defence ministry said: "It is likely that [the hit] was carried out by air-to-air rockets from the Russian air force which were patrolling the border in a pair." <br />
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-28345039<br />
This may have been another reason to install a BUK system in this area on the next day, leaving room for an accidental Ukrainian shoot down, apart from an accidental rebel shoot down and a willful Ukrainian false flag shoot down.<br />
<br />
5. On July 16, rebels fired grad missiles from a location near Pervomaiske. The plume may have been photographed as well by an SBU informant in Torez and twittered on the next day, claiming to show the launch of the missile hitting MH17.<br />
http://7mei.nl/not-buk-m1-new-video-proof/<br />
<br />
6. On July 17, BUK3x2 was seen in rebel territory on its way to Pervomaiske, south of Torez. Ukrainian SBU knew about the arrival latest since July 14 and about its destination latest July 17 morning, allowing a false flag operation from positions held nearby.<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVAOTWPmMM4<br />
<br />
7. There was an ongoing battle in the region with "fluent" contact lines. Marinivka and Tarany, about 8 kilometers south-east and south of Pervomaiske, were controlled by Ukrainian National Guard as well as all of the border region. Marinivka would match well with the direction of the Torez plume photo.<br />
http://liveuamap.com/e/2014/16-of-july-saurivka-is-bombarded-over-and-over-by-rus-grad?ll=47.907137219641115;38.75392913818363&zoom=8<br />
http://www.interpretermag.com/ukraine-liveblog-day-149-russian-tanks-and-artillery-reach-donetsk/#3353<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_in_Shakhtarsk_Raion<br />
<br />
8. The Russian Defense ministry claimed in a news conference, that on July 17, Ukraine installed several BUK system near rebel held areas.<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bNPInuSqfs#t=1567<br />
<br />
9. In a popular 'zello' audio recording, witnesses in the area were talking about the launch of the missile hitting MH17. A witness from "Oktyabr" (Chervony Zhovten) claimed "it was flying as if from Saurivka". <br />
Two other witnesses said:<br />
[2:00] "Well, it appears everybody saw where the missile has flown from."<br />
[2:04] "Well, where you are, everybody saw it, but the Ukrainian media, as usual, will say, will say that that were us."<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkCcCmYlMZc<br />
<br />
10. A Reuter's witness also claimed that the missile was fired from Kiev held territory. Reuters, however, said, "off camera, he said that it was launched from a nearby rebel site. Asked why originally he said the opposite he said it was because he was afraid of the rebels."<br />
In a new interview this witness claims that "off camera comments were just made up by the [Reuters] journalist".<br />
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=497_1427729491<br />
<br />
11. BUK3x2 was again photographed in Lugansk with its 3 missiles, no missile fired since July 14.<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4HJmev5xg0<br />
<br />
12. The US presented a very low resolution satellite photo with the track of a missile added. The launch location does not match well with the direction geolocated with the Torez plume photo, it deviates by about 11 degrees in angle, hence either or both appear to be incorrect.<br />
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/01/27/is-this-the-launch-site-of-the-missile-that-shot-down-flight-mh17/#comment-12493<br />
<br />
13. Award winning investigative journalist Robert Parry reported about leaked US intelligence "that U.S. intelligence agencies do have detailed satellite images of the likely missile battery that launched the fateful missile, but the battery appears to have been under the control of Ukrainian government troops dressed in what look like Ukrainian uniforms."<br />
https://consortiumnews.com/2014/07/20/what-did-us-spy-satellites-see-in-ukraine/<br />
And later Parry wrote: "But I’m now told that U.S. intelligence analysts ... are concentrating on the scenario of a willful Ukrainian shoot-down of the plane, albeit possibly not knowing its actual identity."<br />
https://consortiumnews.com/2014/08/03/flight-17-shoot-down-scenario-shifts/<br />
<br />
14. During the coming months BUK shrapnel may have been collected from the AN26 wreckage and planted in the MH17 wreckage.--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 00:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Photographer Statement===<br />
[http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com.au/2014/12/interview-with-eyewitness-who-made.html Reported to say] : "That day did not foretell anything special would happen. In the morning I woke up and went to my work. At four ó clock in the afternoon I arrived home. And at 16:20 we heard an explosion. The first explosion was not very heavy. 15 seconds later, something like that, there was a second explosion, which was louder and it made the windows shake."<br />
: Did not foretell --an ass, --is this lawyer-written? 'We heard". --Took till December to polish up ? --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 16:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:: Agreed. 'I did not know in advance this would happen.' Uh, who said you might? And 15 seconds must be rocket travel. Did he hear the firing from there? Could be, not that far. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Time delay consideration ===<br />
Photographer reported two sound booms td=15 seconds apart; an interpretation may be launch and impact sounds arriving to him in Torez. If P=(0,0,0) is photographer cordinates, I=(d,0, h) is impact, with d ground distance between Torez and Rozypnoe, h is the height of flight at 10 km , and L =(x,y,0) is launch location, dist(A,B) is Euclidean distance between A and B, c is peed of sound, and n (about 2.5) is missile speed in Machs, then<br />
<br />
(1). dist (P,L) = dist(L,I)/n + dist (I,P) - td*c <br />
<br />
(2). dist (P,L) >= h/n + dist (I,P) - td*c <br />
<br />
(1) is a biquadratic equation for y given x (square enough times for square root to disappear); plotting that gives a closed 'ellipse-like' curve on (x,y) plane; once on that curve, time delay is exactly td seconds (doing this involves solving quadratic equations and removing spurious solutions not satisfying (1) ) . That curve is at distance about 13 km in NW direction from photographer in Torez, and about 22 km in SE direction from him on the Southern ( Saur Mogila side). <br />
<br />
(2) gives a simple estimate that distance between photographer and launcher is greater than the known right hand side; that distance is more than something like 13 km<br />
<br />
(3) Requiring launch withing the range, --launch is not more than 20 km horizontally from the impact-- selects a NW arc of the curve described in (1) ; that arc is to the NW from Torez, and goes slightly NW from the impact point (meaning its ground projection). <br />
<br />
Conclusion, based on the above, is that launch is too far from the photographer, to match the photo. <br />
<br />
(Knowing exact time delay can tighten the argument. With what's actually known, and objection can be raised that whatever actual time delay was, it appeared to be 15 seconds to the photographer. Graphics of the curve may be supplied if needed). --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Ooh. That kind of math could really come in handy with recorded audio cues, for example. But based on '15 seconds, something like that,' from memory months later, I wouldn't put any weight on it. If that turns out correct and pretty exact, there's a good point. Otherwise, the photo and other stuff is more solid, and says it's just about where it should be, as far as I've seen anyway. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Contrail ==<br />
This is what an "impressive launch contrail" of a big missile might look like.<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3lLwP1y0w8 АТО. Запуск двух ТРК Точка-У. Артемовск.] (ATO. The launch of two TRK Tochka-U. Artemivs'k.) – August 28, 2014<br />
-- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 22:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Something happens in the sky. This is the people's reaction:<br />
* ''20/09/2014 Over many parts of the DPR and LPR were seen circles in the sky.'' [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7310 1,] [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7311 2,] [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7312 3,] [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7313 4,] [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7314 5]<br />
-- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 03:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
Tochka U missile is single stage solid fuel, which is a mixture of ammonium perchlorate with rubber and aluminum powder (Russian [http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/tochka/9ch151.shtml "ДАП–15В" fuel] ).<br />
I could not find information on Buk with a comparable level of detail. Buk missile is single stage, solid fuel of some type, "dual-mode solid propellant (total work time - about 15 seconds)" [http://www.webcitation.org/67kZeZxeh] , [http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-9K37-Buk.html]<br />
Earlier "Куб" ("Cube") missile used [http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/kub/kub.shtml 'ballist' fuel,] [https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%85#.D0.91.D0.B0.D0.BB.D0.BB.D0.B8.D1.81.D1.82.D0.B8.D1.82.D0.BD.D1.8B.D0.B5 gunpowder] + plasticiser type (Russian "ВИК-2") at the start, followed by some sort of ramjet ("direct flow rocket engine") at final stage. It is not clear, but possible, that fuels and contrails of Tochka U and Buk are different. Here are some videos with Buk launch: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDXScnEKaP0] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EAtNpsXrgWs], and [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSXMhaFntrU a longer with stupid music version]. Those videos appear to be shot from a closer distance than Tochka U video; and a contrail on them does look quite impressive. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 10:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:The amount of smoke is highly dependant om Alumin(i)um loading. In general more aluminum is more 'oomph' and also more smoke.<br />
:On the other hand, it's common to alter the loading for other reasons. I refer to the Syrian Volcano (122mm variety) that started out as high Al-load and quite smokey but recent versions have low Al load but perhaps similar characteristics? --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 10:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Here is something that might be a BUK: Ukrainian AN-26 shot down from Russian border area on July 14th. Ukraine@war claims it as a BUK. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 10:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
* [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.fi/2014/11/unnoticed-video-of-26-downing-confirms.html Unnoticed video of AN-26 downing confirms shot down from Russian territory] – Ukraine@war, November 27, 2014<br />
** Video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoS4kgHxPnE Ukrainian Military Aircraft Su-25 Downed After Russian Attack Near Izvarino, July 16]<br />
:::Does not look like Buk, short contrail, --not all the way to the ground like on Buk video launches. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::It was a BUK. It flew 39 seconds in the video, a Pantsyr can't do this, see also first comment in this link http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/what-weapon-was-used-to-shot-down-ukraine-air-force-antonov-26-at-july-14/. Easy maths - at Mach 3 (1020m/s) it can fly for about 42 seconds (range 42 km, bit more because initially it is slower). According to the audio tape, BUK 3x2 was in the area on that day! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVAOTWPmMM4 Ukraine@war needed 5 months to find something else in the area, but the Pantsyr can't fly that long. This is how BUK 3x2 likely lost a missile.--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 21:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::::Well, yes, it does takes 42 seconds to fly 42 km at 1000 m/s , but that does not mean what we see '''must be''' a Buk. They start discussing that plane caught fire at 0:03 on the video already. We do not see what on hell is going on until some 30 s later. This plane likely was brought down by Igla or similar modern MANPAD. Possibly two hits, at 0:03 and another at around 0:30. Or it got on fire at the start of the video and than eventually went down (It is unlikely to have SU 25 pilot bailing out after Buk strike; or particularly likely catching fire as it's not aiming at the engine; contrail is weak for a Buk, too). Pantsir claims are much later from what I have seen,--- and no need for Pantsir to shoot SU 25. ---If something is there on SBU audio and some murky photo, does not mean it's all for real, and that what we do actually see all have to be linked to all that murky SBU stuff. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 22:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::::There may be some confusion here, just a recapture<br />
::::::First video https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xTT6BDRA8_k<br />
::::::0:03-0:11 buring object <br />
::::::0:17-0:33 contrail making a half looping<br />
::::::Second video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoS4kgHxPnE<br />
::::::0:29-0:39 contrail making a half looping + detonation.<br />
::::::ukraine@war http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/11/unnoticed-video-of-26-downing-confirms.html<br />
::::::says both videos show AN26 shoot down on July 14 (second video with wrong label SU-25)<br />
::::::says 2nd video impact at 0:39, claims missile has been burning for at least 39 seconds--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 06:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::::::After reconsideration, I would say ukraine@war is right, both videos show AN26 shoot down, but wrong, people were initially watching AN26 with engine burning and a second missile was fired. That missile was seen burning about 16 seconds in first video, and time has to be added to reach that altitude/location, so likely over 20 seconds. That would exclude man-pad, Pantsir (?), likely BUK, R73 air-to-air, ...--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 06:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Actually, it is interesting to know how contrail of Buk on a long haul launch looks like. It is said that it fires engine for some 15 seconds only (and unknown will it do less, if it can do away with less). That 15 seconds need to put it at a spot where it can reach the target with little, if any, engine work and doing turns only. It is not very clear how much targeting happens in the first 15 seconds, likely it does some; and it is self-guided and doing proportional navigation later on. Knowing details here allows to find exact trajectory, short of that thinking it goes straight to the collision point is a sensible idea. In any case, heavy contrail '''raising from the ground''', perhaps higher than the target is. Contrail is white, and stays put for a while. Seriously heavier than the stuff we see on social media. There are youtube videos of Buk launches giving an idea --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:These 15 seconds are wrong. Here is a video (start at 2:00) showing a SA-11 burn fuel for 35 seconds until its too far to distinguish. It is detonating at 42 seconds. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBlU2hHYJMg (I just copied the comment from here http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/what-weapon-was-used-to-shot-down-ukraine-air-force-antonov-26-at-july-14/ )--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 23:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::That video probably shows a modern version ('over horizon' capability was mentioned somewhere regarding modern developments; this one seems to be showing us something like that). 15 sec is coming from Russian sources [http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/buk/buk.shtml Зенитная ракета 9М38 выполнена с применением двухрежимного твердотопливного двигателя (общее время работы - около 15 секунд)]. Older versions also had shorter listed range. 22-25-35-42 km range, going through modifications. (Would be happier without 15 sec engine limit actually-easier to know trajectory) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::Actually what goes off is [https://digitalempire.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/9m38m1.jpg 9M38M1], the one supposed to have [http://pvo.guns.ru/buk/buk_02.htm 15 sec engine run], but the video lasts for 40 sec. This appears to be edited video, around 2:30 we got two tracks, than one slides right unreasonably for a natural recording. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 02:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::Since this is a point we haven't already covered around that I know of, I'll pop in for it. 42 seconds I gather is the time for the fuel to burn out and the thing to fall, like a grad rocket or the like can only do. But this is a missile with guidance, set to intercept a moving airliner. Therefore, app. 40-45 seconds is the longest, not the shortest, it can fly (or am I just confused?) But 15 seconds is plausible, depending. Still might be untrue, not trusting people saying stuff. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::::After the engine is off it is high up and and at high speed, still can fly until gravity acceleration brings it down, and is on guided flight -unlike Grad-because fins can move causing it to turn. Issues here are visuals (contrail all the way or only about 15 km in flight), and trajectory. With engine on for 40 +secs it will go straight to collision point doing proportional navigation all the way (exploding earlier if it needs to be). If it is only 15 sec, trajectory is less clear, it may for example use engine to climb high up, than do guided fall and proportional navigation to the target from a spot where engine delivered it (for low and close-by target, that may potentially end up with a hit from another side--some drawings from unclear sources were showing opposite side hits at under 1 km and direct hits at 10-15 km). Or it may use engine to end up on a ballistic trajectory hitting target (no side changing than). This is solid fuel engine so there is not much control on how quickly it burns off, that time is a set design feature. What we see on launch video is 40+ seconds of engine work-- will go direct to collision point in that case. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 12:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::::That's another clue that plume of smoke photo is not a Buk launch, that would give at least some 10-15 km worth of contrail, not a plume; with 40+seconds engine, contrail all the way to impact...(or else, launched from far away, over 40 km distance) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 12:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==About accents==<br />
<br />
[http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29109398 This report,] released one day before the preliminary official report, recycles visual imagery already discussed on this page, and attempts a new claim that a BUK crew spoke with Russian-'Muscovite' accent. The claim is made by (British-accent) actors representing 'eyewitness(es)', with a visual imagery of a car at unknown night-lighted location in the embedded video, and some text, provided in English. Regarding 'Muscovite' accent, first it is not easy to tell, for example [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBCfmlMkYMg this video] is Mr. Poroshenko speaking in Russian to a resident of Crimea, replying in Russian, and commented by a presenter, who is speaking 'Muscovite'. Although Mr. Poroshenko has a slight southern accent, there is little difference between the three speakers in practice. Moreover, actors and presenters can easily switch from Southern to Muscovite as required. <br />
<br />
Secondly, if somebody speaks 'Muscovite', this does not mean this person works for Russia or the rebels,--- he can work for any side (PS. No change of condition to the blue dumpster on Zuhres video was reported in this latest update). --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Thanks for bringing this. What a stupid report. "Three eyewitnesses, all civilians, separately told Panorama that they saw a missile-launcher in rebel-held territory a few hours before the Boeing jet was hit." Yeah, video shows the same. It was there. It probably shot down the plane. Accents, as you note, aren't the best indicator of anything, and even the reason sounds vague: the G thing, which even I know about (back to Olga/Olha). The "Russians" might even be Russian dissident mercenaries right from Moscow, for all we know. Who paid them? Their going up to the media and saying "you didn't see us" was not a good plan to stay secret. The witnesses: chosen at random? Directed to them? <br />
::''If correct, the Kremlin has to explain to the relatives of the 298 passengers and crew who died - including ten Britons - why Russian military personnel were allegedly seen in the area escorting a BUK shortly before MH17 was shot down.''<br />
:I think Russia could come up with a reason or two such allegations are made. Those ten Britons' tax dollars fund it. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: Hmm, this foreigner is confused by dat BBC talk: "If correct" ... doesn't that mean it ''wouldn't be'' merely "allegedly" but, well, correct? ;oP --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 23:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::It means "If {made up vague allegation) is correct....then "SHOCK HORROR CONCLUSION IS TRUE". this lets them be as wild or wide off the mark as they like and the magic "if correct" turns it true. Without any effort to check if it IS true in our understanding of that word.[[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 03:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::Another BBC weapon in its arsenal of innuendo and dissimulation is the quotation mark. Whenever they are dealing with something of dodgy provenance, or something of good provenance they want to weaken they put it in quotation marks. e.g. - ISIS beheaded 20 Syrians. becomes ISIS 'beheaded 20 Syrians' or 'ISIS' beheaded 20 Syrians or ISIS 'beheaded' 20 'Syrians' or ISIS beheaded '20' Syrians. No need for corrections later. Any version can be retrospectively justified or otherwise. --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 03:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== If Buk 3x2 Was in Russia ==<br />
Previously, it seemed quite likely the Buk launcher associated with the shoot-down was one of those owned and operated by the Kiev regime, simply snuck into separatist territory, maybe with some cover to make them even invite it in like a Trojan Horse. Then, I saw the November Bellingcat research on "Buk 3x2." As covered [[#Bellingcat and 3x2|above,]] this claims to match that unit with a distinct one seen three weeks earlier, driving in a military convoy well inside Russian territory. This is widely taken as clear proof the Russian military supplied the weapons, and it is strongly indicative of that. However, the general possibilities are worth laying out at this point.--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
All options below share these presumptions: <br />
* MH17 was brought down by the missing SA-11 missile AND/OR (in some cases) at least the launcher's appearance was coordinated to give that impression and is a clue to the plot <br />
* The videos and photos in question are genuine and not manipulated (my usual presumption, same here)<br />
* The Russia geolocations (many of them, making sense in context) are correct - Buk 3x2 as seen was seen in Russia, between Kurk, Stary Oskol, and a bit south of there (not verified but most likely correct) <br />
<br />
Presuming all that:<br />
* Buk 3x2 (seen in Russia) and the mystery one are not the same - this require paint job match and matching damage to the lip above the track to make a Kiev-owned unit look like that one. It's possible, but not the most compelling.<br />
* The two units are the same - it was in the convoy in Russia and also towed around Donetsk oblast July 17. <br />
<br />
If the unit is the same, there are a few possibilities for the nature of that connection, some of them silly or just there for logical fullness:<br />
* It was Kiev's unit and they snuck it over and into this convoy, and...<br />
** ... got it back later<br />
** ... the Russians kept it and used it for their own operation<br />
* It was Kiev's but some other way lost to the Russians <br />
* It was Russia's but Kiev managed to sneak over and steal it out of the convoy and then use it for the false-flag event<br />
* Same, but Donbass rebels then stole it from Kiev <br />
* It was Russian, and someone on the Russian side drove it over and then it was stolen by Kiev forces <br />
* Someone on the Russian side drove it over and it stayed in their control or handed over to their chosen parties, or transferred at the border - that is, no Kiev interference.<br />
<br />
So far, I'm inclined to call Bellingcat's reading (the last option, the widely accepted one) the single most reasonable one, though maybe outweighed by the ''combined'' alternatives. It's not fun to feel almost swayed to a view so close to Kiev's problematic narrative, but this is what I see, pretty basic. Some combined maybes go against the straightforward reading. As for other thoughts I might be missing, well, that's partly why it's here. Let me know, I'm all ears. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Starting from that reasonable if unproven last option, not one but three final types of possibility remain. If it was freely moving in convoy inside Russia, it probably belongs to Russia at the time. Presumed. However, it could be that...<br />
* '''A rogue officer''' at Kursk - maybe a closet Nazi who sympathizes with Kiev, hates Putin, or just took a bribe - provided this unit to Kiev. He would set up this convoy to anchor the thing in Russia, then send the shady unit on, with his own guys or to hand off to Kiev's, who took it from there as I've speculated. The strangely obvious manner it was displayed - on both sides of the border, with its number slowly fading away - is consistent with this motive + intelligence. <br />
* '''It happened as reported''' (one way or another) Putin's military signed off on the loan, apparently with a sent crew or maybe given to local handlers, who for their own purposes did fire that shot. The strangely obvious manner it was displayed is consistent with this + stupidity/sloppiness, providing proof that probably wasn't even needed, just helpful, to start the punishment. At that point, it would be a real problem about as trumpeted, and still I would suggest we consider what the real crime is under the circumstances, if the solutions pursued are fair, or if this is all just geo-politics and warfare by other means cloaked in a cynical disguise of concern for justice. ^ <br />
* '''Koo-koo (?):''' "as reported plus" - a mega conspiracy theory: it goes all the way to the top, and Putin is that rogue general selling the nation out, to demonize himself and Russia and be sure to get caught, in an elaborate staged play - Putin (or whoever's running things presumed to be run by HIM) is somehow controlled, his opposition scripted and ultimately geared towards provoking and achieving an expansion of "The West" into "The North." (I've always considered this possible, and one that's occurred to me more lately, and seems worth listing ... but I don't buy it. I'm going with "rogue officer" with a second bet on one of the other divergence points listed before that - unspecified. Third choice is "as reported.")--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::^ Not to apologize for egregious behavior if it really is that, but let's please compare this to the shoot-down of Iran Air 655 by the USS Vincennes in 1988. A US Naval ship illegally in Iranian waters shot down an Iranian passenger plane with 290 people aboard, despite all the safeguards and sensors working correctly (the consistent clues the ship's computers gave them saying "do not shoot" can only be overridden so totally by choice). But it was deemed by the US to be no crime, just accident and Iran's fault for being provocative, and useful in the effort to compel them to quit the war with Iraq they were just starting to win. In Ukraine, repeated Air Force attacks on rebel-held cities, often hiding their jets behind civilian airliners, might both justify arming the rebels with such defensive weaponry, and invite an honest mistake from a team running this machine in stand-alone mode. The SBU version however overrides this all: it was an accident, but the Russians' intent was never defensive, always planning to kill an airliner, just meaning it to be a different one. That would clearly be criminal in all regards, and it's a sub-set of "as reported" - not a very good one. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Sorry, I can't help you here as I don't share your presumptions. I consider it a waste of time and energy to connect dots that are laid out by "sources" like the SBU and Brown Noses - proven liars and at least in case of the former producers of fraud "evidence" - and therefore I didn't even read your logical chains based on them. Just saying to not make it appear that I agree. ;o) --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 10:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:Poking at specific presumptions could be helpful, but it all could go on and on and remain inconclusive anyway. And I take back what I say about leaning this way or that - I keep leaning different ways and on balance I'm feeling sort of weightless here. I think that comes through in the text... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I don't see the numbers matching, getting close is not good enough, and I quit it there. Yes, it is weird that they are close, and that this murky business is covered by Spiegel, but can't really help with any of that. There is lots of murky weird stuff going on all the time, can't change the whole world to stop it. (Also: the Russian Government would be fully capable of doing a painting job properly if deciding to starting painting at all, their food trucks are all nicely painted, etc; just too sloppy for them to be behind) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:The paint being what it is, between that and the bend and light patch below all lining up, I think we're down to the same unit, or faked to match, and the possibilities branching off those two. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::As discussed earlier, the dot is shifted off the middle, more on Russian video than in PM photo; in Russian video, number 2 has well-curved semi-circle; in PM, it is almost straight segment. Bad photos for comparison but it's off, as far as it's possible to tell. As for the skirt bend, too blurry and distorted on PM to tell; Russian video, I think it is actually dirt, not a bend. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Also, looks like two squares , a bit darker than background, over first digit in PM photo. Unclear is it paint or digital camera effect. Any sane person hiding something will paint over everything, not paint just specifically over the first digit. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::I think I got everything linesd up - it has to be de-skewed the same, and all ines up. You might be scraping bottom on this one. The curve is there, at its elongated part, at an angle. The dent/dirt looks the same, same place, relative to the light patch and all else. It's too much for coincidence by a couple of degrees. BUT I just shifted back to option ... should have numbered them. ... the middle starting option - image authenticity. I hardly ever call digital image fakery, and not calling it here, but... I still haven't checked the new (to us) June videos, so I'll stay presuming it might be okay - video's harder to fake than a photo. But on the other end, it all comes down to the one photo. That I noticed, no other views are close enough to say if these matching clues are present. (the bend, maybe). The squares you noticed, maybe a paint clue or just artifacting. It may too pixelly. I cannot really analyze the technicals properly to say. It looks okay, but possibly fishy too. Maybe the dirty windshield helps hid the painted in pixels to make this thing - just once - or maybe again in other images - look like that Russian 3x2 unit, exaggerated and going into rebel hands... Some kind of coincidences setting that up to work, but it's possible, and an expert should look closer at this picture. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC) <br />
::::I, --at the very start of discussion,-- zoomed picture on screen (by a lot), and measured length ratios (to the dot/ total panel length), parallel to the 2 sides of the panel, using ruler (millimeters one) over screen. I ended up with ratios in horizontal side of panel directions were off, by more than blurring; in vertical, could not tell-within blurring. This is not sensitive to skewing or zooming. So I don't think it's the same. May double-check measurement when have time; or somebody else can. Did not have time to try doing digital version of the same/similar method. Did not look carefully at comparison the 2 after de-skewing , but have an impression this is different; not that much skewing there; it looks essentially straight line on PM, skewing will not make circle into a line. May look at 2's some other time. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::::Finally took a closer look and PM was still off a bit on rotation and vertical-to-horizontal - in line with your observations. Still working out the adjusted graphic. The white is shifted a bit left of lining up perfectly... I think it's still close enough it's the same or is supposed to be, and not far enough off I'd call a bad fake - probably just pixel shift. Will see tonight. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 00:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Okay, I don't have a comprehensible graphic handy yet, but Maybe Resup is seeing what I am now. I was having a hard time aligning it all, so focused just one the one rectangle panel with the number. Still, on the PM photo I trace apparent edges, best line of dark pixels ... it lines up, proportion-wise, with the white spots on or a hair to apparent left. But when the whole image is placed by lining up that center, the rest of it doesn't line up - both sides seem shifted right, or the middle shifted left. (also the track areas appear far to the left, but they stick out a bit, and from the back angle flattened like this, that's why. Each difference in relief from "true flat" plane of the side will cause this... maybe I'm just not correlating it right, and maybe it's a clue the photo is messed with. possible offsets in both white patches as well, but maybe too in the natural fuzz zone. ?? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
If the launcher was driven over the Russian border, fired once then driven back again after it had carried out its mission, the part of the story that doesn't make sense is the sighting on a stolen flatbed truck outside Donetsk. If the Russians were prepared to supply a launcher but not a truck, the stolen truck would have had to be driven to the border to be loaded and there'd be no reason to risk a journey back to Donetsk. The west to east journey is more consistent with CL's original suggestion of a launcher from the Ukrainian base north of Donetsk. If this was a false flag, there would have had to be a paint job to give it Russian markings (maybe to match one in a recent video). Otherwise the videos would point to separatists with a captured Ukrainian BUK, leaving the Ukrainian government liable for failing to close its airspace when it knew that a BUK had gone missing. [[User:Pmr9|Pmr9]] ([[User talk:Pmr9|talk]]) 16:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:Now this sounds engaged, thanks P. Yes, why drive it to Donetsk? (Other than to be seen in the smoking-gun rebel capitol, before getting seen in Lugansk too) And I never thought of that why it had to be Russian. Indeed, for liability reasons, it had to be a snuck-in surprise, not captured (unless they could come up with a reason why they didn't learn about it, and I suppose they could). The suggestion has problems and was slow to gain adherents, but maybe this kind of thought has swayed people to realize Kiev "must be right" about that... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Sunday Times story: original is behind paywall but reprint [http://malaysiandigest.com/news/531506-ukraine-ignored-warning-to-close-malaysia-airlines-flight-mh17-airspace-before-tragedy.html here]. Eurocontrol's experts "spoke privately to their Ukrainian counterparts" about their concerns but Ukraine refused to close its airspace. "Ukraine intelligence sources said they had been made aware that several anti-aircraft systems had crossed from Russia into Ukraine at least a week before the MH17 incident. But they claimed the intelligence was not “100 per cent reliable” and could not have been used as grounds for 'drastic moves' such as shutting airspace". [[User:Pmr9|Pmr9]] ([[User talk:Pmr9|talk]])<br />
:::Okay, well there's a train headed this way then. Several units? The whole June convoy? We do have this alleged maybe-Buk launch just before on July 14, an associated loader seen later, etc. And Ukie intel somehow did point to this number "312" you can't see on the unit they tracked so quickly. Did they already have that obscure Russian video everyone missed until now? And more yet showing the "1" still there? That early on? (that's all very speculative, but interesting). It has to be snuck in, maybe, but then it helps that you can vouch for it - so they fudge and average this aspect. Main point then seems to be, whatever failures they mumble out on their own end, it has to implicate both Russia (provided weapon) and the rebels (held the space needing demonized).--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references /></div>Antidyatelhttps://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17/BUK_Tracking&diff=22581Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/BUK Tracking2015-06-06T13:33:32Z<p>Antidyatel: /* Kiev's Buks Shuffled? */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:MH17]]<br />
==Who Has the BUK Launchers in Ukraine?==<br />
=== Kiev's Holdings ===<br />
<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3MomxNHnUA#t=288 Ukrainian Buk in ATO area], 16 July 2014. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 23:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CBQbFC9loc#t=350 Captured map] of 1 battalion of UAF 95 air-mobile brigade, dated beginning of July 2014, show location of 2 positions of Ukrainian Buks. Basurin points them on the map; but video resolution is insufficient to see those. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 05:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Maps can be faked, but still I'm curious what it shows. I imagine there might be a flat image of the map somewhere. Resup, could you maybe have a look? It's too slow for me to try an image search with translated words. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
::I have not seen the map in news reports mentioning the finding; and now I see it says explicitly that they are not going to make it public, [http://real-info.info/novorossiya/13429-vlasti-dnr-ne-budut-obnarodovat-karty-vsu-do-okonchaniya-rassledovaniya-krusheniya-mh17 until MH 17 investigation is completed]--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 23:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::Here is a press conference report--with video but not the map --[https://vk.com/strelkov_info?w=wall-57424472_57351 (Basurin press conference)]--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 23:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
It is possible to understand what it means when they say Ukr army controlled territory. But what is rebel controlled territory. Even if we take the maximum estimate for rebel numbers in July 2014 of 10,000 fighters, it gives a fraction of a rebel per square km, if we assume uniform distribution. In reality rebels very concentrated in Lughansk, Donetzk, Saur Mogila, 2 cauldrons. So everything else is free for all territory. When MSM declares rebel controlled territory, they just rely on Kiev's maps. Very reliable source. --[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 13:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)-- Antidyatel June 6<br />
:That's a good point that really came into play with the [[Mariupol Market Shelling]] incident - turns out all this eastern fire form rebel-held areas is from areas listed by Kiev as places they don't have full control over, that any crazy thing could happen from and it's prob'ly not them. Might even be a section on that here, if not, could be. There is an apparent pass right through a checkpoint, basically where the Pari Match "photo" was taken. That at least is a problem for a simple slip-in op, but it can be done and otherwise the theory could explain a lot (like, everything maybe) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC) <br />
<br />
<br />
==== BUK 312 and comrades ====<br />
[[File:Buk 312 sbu.jpg|thumb|left|BUK 312 on a trailer. Photo shown on SBU website and later removed. – ''[[:File:Buk 312 sbu.jpg|more...]]'']]<br />
Part of the material the Ukrainian SBU released to suggest that "rebels" shot down MH17 with a BUK, was photo material showing a BUK TELAR numbered 312 on a trailer, alleging it has been photographed on its way back to Russia. This was quickly shown to be extremely questionable as evidence surfaced showing number 312 in Ukrainian hands. The SBU then removed the photos from their website while other material like a suggestive photo showing a "plume" remained there. <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Buk 321.png|thumb|TELAR 321 as posted by @MOR2537 to illustrate what he alleges to have witnessed]]<br />
This was outlined (and a screenshot saved) in more detail [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/07/21/the-mh17-investigation-and-buk-312/ over at Human Rights Investigations]. A [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bj-VZB0ZdEA video embedded there] shows BUK 312 in Ukrainian hands back in March. The other two TELAR's seen in the video are numbers 323 and 321. BUK 321 [http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Ukrainian+government+forces+maneuver+antiaircraft+missile+launchers+they+transported+north+west+from+Slavyansk+eastern+Ukraine+Friday+July+2014+Photo+Dmitry+Lovetsky/10004193/story.html has been seen] in Ukrainian hands just two weeks before MH17 crashed, transported close to "liberated" Slavyansk. <br />
<br />
Interestingly enough, one of the tweets [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com/2014/07/reconstruction-of-whereabouts-of-buk.html spoon-fed by Ukrainian loyalists to imaginative Dutch blogger Ukraine@War] to suggest that there have been eyewitnesses for a "rebel" BUK, is then [https://twitter.com/MOR2537/status/489709431467171841 followed-up by the alleged eyewitness] with a picture of BUK 321 to illustrate what he has seen. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::yep, he is a conduit for Kiev but seems to have outside info, too. Like originals of photos he can get geolocations off (he says). But also has good collection of very early photos etc which have since become hard to find.Not sure I trust him though. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 15:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::I hadn't seen that before, thanks. I'll be considering... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 22:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: More photos: [http://www.armyrecognition.com/images/stories/east_europe/russia/missile_vehicle/sa-11_gadfly/pictures/sa-11_gadfly_anti-aircraft_missile_to_armoured_tracked_vehicle_Russian_army_russia_011.jpg 321] - [http://rt.com/files/news/2a/b1/40/00/640x480.jpg 312] - [http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1870560.1405614701!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_970/correction-ukraine.jpg 321] --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:Buk 312 in Lugansk.png|thumb|left|According to alleged former operator "A", this is BUK 312 after relocation sometime in Spring 2014 in Metallist settlement of Lugansk, with Yubileynaya mines in the background]]<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmI2KCOt_sA Anatolii Sharii] version of events, shows that Buk blamed on Russia has number 312 and was earlier photographed as part of Ukrainian convoy. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 20:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Sharii interviewed a Ukrainian soldier who served on Buk 312; this can be found on [http://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/1947657.html Cassad]. The guy does not know about MH17; but recalls SBU claiming it was this Buk 312 responsible. From this interview, meaning of 312: 3 is division number, 1 battery number, 2 unit number in a battery (there are loading and command vehicles, not just launchers). This UAF Buk is initially from Luhansk; than relocated to Kramatorsk; than places in a field. A serviceman took it on a ride with hand break on, leading to a small fire affecting electrics and requiring repairs. So it was traveling on a trailer at some point. It was than moved to Dnepropetrovsk, village of Novogrigorievka (apparently for repairs, and after trailer photo was taken, but exact date was not given). Buks from Luhansk which were not broken were moved by UAF elsewhere (and according to the soldier, were photographed in variaous places including Gorlovka; while 3 broken Buks remained in Luhansk) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: Interesting. I see that the "[http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Ukrainian+government+forces+maneuver+antiaircraft+missile+launchers+they+transported+north+west+from+Slavyansk+eastern+Ukraine+Friday+July+2014+Photo+Dmitry+Lovetsky/10004193/story.html has been seen]" link to the Montreal Gazette is dead by now. If anything I'm surprised that it lasted that long. Minitrue at work. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 04:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: [http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2014/12/17/shooting-down-mh-17-buk-312-story-false- Here] (and mirrored [http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2014/12/17/buk-312-crew-member-says-rebel-shoot-down-of-flight-mh17-story-is-false-transcript/ here]) is an English translation of the interview. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: And [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2rRCSNp33I here] is the video itself with English subtitles. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 20:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:What you said about the accident and the photo showing the damaged BUK on a trailer is about the very photo the SBU showed on their website as "evidence" and later removed. Also adding that he says friends in Lugansk saw "rebels" trying to repair the units they had left behind, but he knows that "whole equipment units" were lacking so the remaining stuff was "unusable". And that he says that he asked his ex-comrades still operating the BUK if they dunnit, and they said they didn't. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Good to see this section expand. Interesting additions from the alleged operator, and reasonable-sounding (the photo might show smoke stains to the back left side). But in the end, this issue might be not so relevant. I doubt it was Kiev's unit 312 that was used, and seeing how Kiev always was eyeing a supposedly Russian unit 3x2, maybe 312 ... In fact, if the middle number connotes unit number, and it's done the same, the launcher is always 1 and it would be 312 (or is that mixed-up?) So maybe all this really shows is how Kiev knew but didn't want to say all along, implausibly picking their own 312 to illustrate that knowledge with an embarrassing but harmless "error", while awaiting ... as it turns out, the independent Bellingcat investigation that finds 3x2 somehow in Russia... That tracked this ludicrous Buk field trip, as presented and followed on this page, which almost seems tailor-made for them, but Kiev wants us to know they they were secretly on the ball too from the start. (all thoughts in progress, a bit distracted too) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::::If SBU wanted to point out they knew the TELAR had number 312, why would they publish the photo in [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmI2KCOt_sA such a low resolution] that the number could not be read? -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 21:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: As Resup summarized, 1 is the battery number. The leading 3 means it's from the Lugansk division. If this is true, the fact that 312, 321 and 323 have been seen together on video in March perfectly fits with what the alleged operator said: That they were removing units in usable state from (all batteries of the division) Lugansk early on, leaving the crap behind. And the view that the SBU just published everything they could find to fit their tale that the "rebels" used a BUK to down the plane, including this photo, cut-together and taken out of context audio tapes and that ridiculous "plume" pic, and the 3x2 bellingcat nonsense from lately is meant to distract from these facts, is much simpler and straight forward than what you tried to come up with here on the fly. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::Ah, I see it now, not when I was typing, sorrys. Middle number could be anything, bust mostly we always see low numbers, so odds are good it was a "1". 3 means from Lugansk if that's true (presuming so) and it's Ukrainian. Diff. number paintjob though, as noted below. But I'm sure the Ukies just faked this exact 312 to a different style of 312 and then painted it out partly, and just let it slip with the one photo of how it looked before...? We'll have a hard time agreeing here, as the stuff you just dismiss as "nonsense" looks kind of like possible evidence with details I'm sort of trying to consider. I don't see how you can just ignore it as if it must be wrong somehow, and all made up to distract from ... this 312 disguised as 3x2 theory? Where it wasn't even at the end of that fake plume anyway and might be totally irrelevant or entirely fake? Or, what am I missing? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::Didn't you say that you haven't even watched the videos and checked the geolocation/origin yourself, if they really are from Russia etc.? Well, I certainly won't. Because I have no reason to believe that the sources are more truthful with the "evidence" than they have been before, and that track record is well established. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::::Yeah, which is why I'm neither in a good position to say they aren't wrong/fake, nor to go against my usual presumption it will be sound (has been so far, on this subject anyway) And by the supposed stills compare to supposed satellite imagery, it looked like a good match (I did skim the site once I could). I don't like the implication either, and I want it to be wrong. And it may well be, but I'll want to see how. And hey, there's a whole other section or two about this below... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
:::: I watched the video [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bj-VZB0ZdEA with the Ukie BUKs in March] again. There are actually more than the three I mentioned earlier. It starts with 323, which is not a TELAR. Followed by the two TELARs 321 and 312. Then comes what is also not a TELAR but what looks differently than 323: Number 301. Followed by two more TELARs, 331 and 332. So they could all be from the Lugansk division, parts of batteries 0 to 3. But one would suspect that the batteries are internal always numbered the same way. "A" says:<br />
::::: ''BUK is a complex of 4 specialized military vehicles: command post, mobile target detection and assignment station, loading and starting station, self-propelled fire installation.''<br />
::::So if 1 and 2 are TELARs, why are there two of them and why is 301 what could be the detection station with a radar? Is 323 a loading station? --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::::Too rusty, but good questions. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::: Ah, I think we can sort this out [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SA-11 thanks to wikipedia]:<br />
:::::''A standard Buk battalion consists of a command vehicle, target acquisition radar (TAR) vehicle, six transporter erector launcher and radar (TELAR) vehicles and three transporter erector launcher (TEL) vehicles. A Buk missile battery consists of two TELAR and one TEL vehicle.''<br />
:::: So our "A" didn't mean that a battery consists of 4 vehicles, but that the whole BUK consists of 4 different kinds of vehicles, some more than once. From this I deduce that "0" is for command and detection units (here our main radar 301) of the Lugansk division 3, and the batteries 1,2 and 3 each consist of two TELARs (numbered 1 and 2, here 312,321,331 and 332) and one TEL (numbered 3, the first vehicle in the video, 323). Makes sense? --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 13:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::Russia said Ukraine had 27 BUK launchers in the crash area, i.e. one brigade, or what ever comes in the hierarchy above battalion. If all units are numbered the same way, from 101 to 333, then one TELAR in 18 should be numbered 312. Maybe [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:9K37_Buk_of_the_Ukrainian_military,_Independence_Day_parade_in_Kiev.JPG not.] Russian numbers seem to reach higher. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 01:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::::Good find. The existence of 114 and 115 makes it more complicated. The [http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buk_M1 German Wikipedia article] says, contradicting the English one, that one battery consists of one command vehicle, one main radar, four TELARs and four TELs. But if that's true, there's no logical place for Radar 301, and why would one TEL be number 3 and the other three TELs numbers 6 to 8? --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 10:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
How to read BUK numbers<br />
This is how you decipher 312:<br />
<br />
3 stands for the third (Lugansk) division,<br />
1 stands for the battery number, ours was no. 1,<br />
2 stands for one of the 2. service units in each battery, ours was no.2<br />
<br />
according to a Ukrainian who explains it was "his" bUK (but not in his hands at the time)that shot down MH17. One of th many reports [http://www.opednews.com/articles/Shooting-Down-MH-17--BUK-by-Michael-Collins-Buk-312_False-Accusations-Of-Terrorism_False-Flag-Attacks_Mh17-Airline-Crash-141217-104.html about this interview] This claim is now superceded by the Capt Voloshin air-to-air claims. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 15:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
That solder knew nothing about who shot the Boeing. He was talking to Sharii, who previously made a video showing that Buk shown on SBU website is actually Ukrainian Buk 312. Later, the soldier emerged, saying that Buk 312 was his. (Claim of this one shooting Boeing is not his, it is SBU early claim) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 16:48, 26 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
While Voloshin story may be a play on destroyed by SBU evidence. There is supposed to be a log of flights, missiles fired, likely those logs no longer exist. Also before they claimed SU 25 were lost on 16 of July, but SBU denial of Voloshin story had SU 25 shot on 17 of July. And that Dnepropetrovsk airport traffic control lady vanished without a trace. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 16:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Supposed 321 belonging to KIEV<br />
::video shows three BUk sets [http://eurazya.today/2015/04/11/about-the-buk-312-who-allegedly-shot-down-mh17/ from 0.31 mark] but I can't really pick the number, they say it is 321. at Gorlovka in March. One on a white lowloader. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 12:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== Russian claims ====<br />
As part of their July 21 presentation of evidence, the Russian Ministry of Defense published satellite images allegedly showing Ukrainian BUK positions around Donetzk ([http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ RT report]). It's no secret the Ukrainian military maintains a base with anti-aircraft units. The facility shown in the Russian presentation (best seen [http://rt.com/files/news/2a/9a/00/00/4.jpg here]) I located - it's south of Avdeyevka, 3 km north of the airport, about 5 km north of Donetsk like they say. Visual match first, then noticed the label could have found it for me ... [http://wikimapia.org/#lat=48.0999781&lon=37.7578908&z=16&l=0&m=b&show=/16956839/ru/Зенитно-ракетный-дивизион-в-ч-А-1428&search=Donetsk on Wikimapia]. Labels, translated: Anti-aircraft missile battalion (in / h A-1428) One of the three anti-aircraft missile battalions ("Buk-M1"), located in Avdeyevka, Mariupol and Lugansk." BUK-type launcher photos included. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The counter-arguments to this at least sometimes fail. [http://www.interpretermag.com/mh17-and-moscows-magical-mystery-jets/ Interpreter rag] decided "the presence of Ukrainian government air defense systems is something of a red herring, not least given the clear evidence that the separatists had deployed at least one Buk system in the area." The side with a ''motive'' and clear, moving and likely operating units of the things on that day (see below) is irrelevant and shouldn't be considered because there's apparently also proof the presumed bad guys also had the units they needed to be so presumed. The very fact that separatists aren't ruled out means the other side should be free of any danger of being ruled in, and the separatists should ruled in just as automatically as they were ''before'' this social-media verification came in. This is clearly an irresponsible suggestion. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC) and --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Kiev's Buks Shuffled?===<br />
<br />
* From Russia's military press conference: [http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ RT, 10 Questions] - [http://www.ruaviation.com/docs/1/2014/7/22/83/ in more detail]<br />
:''3. Why was a large group of air defense systems deployed to the militia-held area if the self-defense forces have no planes?''<br />
:“As far as we know, the Ukrainian military had three or four air defense battalions equipped with Buk-M1 SAM systems deployed in the vicinity of Donetsk on the day of the crash. This system is capable of hitting targets within the range of 35 km at the altitude of up to 22 km.”'' <br />
:''4. Why did Kiev deploy BUK missile systems on the edge of militia-controlled zones directly before the tragedy?''<br />
:''“We have satellite photos of the places where Ukraine had its air defense units deployed in the southeastern parts of the country. The first three photos were made on July 14. The first photo shows Buk launchers 8 km northwest of Lugansk. You can clearly see a TELAR and two TELs. The second photo shows radars 5 km north of Donetsk. You can see two TARs along with other equipment and technical structures. The third photo shows air defense systems north of Donetsk. You can clearly see a TELAR launcher and about 60 military and auxiliary vehicles, tents for vehicles and other structures.''<br />
<br />
:''“Here’s a photo of the same area made on July 17. Please note that the launcher has disappeared. The fifth photo shows a battery of Buk missiles at the village of Zaroshchenskoye 50 km east of Donetsk and 8 km south of Shakhtyorsk on the morning of the same day. The sixth photo shows the same area on July 18. As you can see, the battery has left.”''<br />
<br />
Note: the <s>latter</s> fourth photo of July 17 has substantial cloud cover, but unless they happened to hide the launchers in those areas (or Russia's satellites waited until the area was covered) it appears the noted vehicles have left to go do something - on/by the 17th, where they say launchers appear and then disappear in a town closer to the crash on the 17th. Zaroshchenskoye [http://maps.yandex.com/?text=Ukraine%2C%20Donets'ka%20region%2C%20Shakhtars'kyi%20district%2C%20Zaroshchens'ke%20ville&sll=38.446008%2C47.98844&ll=38.517419%2C48.048098&spn=0.810242%2C0.300187&z=11&l=map on Yandex maps] - 13 miles SSW of the crash sitel, 9 miles W-SW of Torez..--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
On July 30, Vitalyi Naida, head of Ukrainian Security Service SBU’s counter-intelligence, came up with a series of slides ([http://euromaidanpress.com/2014/07/30/russia-fakes-mh17-crash-site-satellite-images-says-sbu/ short article], [http://www.sbu.gov.ua/sbu/control/en/publish/article?art_id=129610&cat_id=35317 announcement on SBU website] with link to [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ut1JExQKV-0 youtube-video showing the slides (presumably Ukrainian language)]) allegedly showing that the Russian material was "faked". He points to a patch of trees, claiming they had been cut down shortly before the 17th, while Russia's images show the trees intact. On August 1, the Russian Ministry of Defense published [http://eng.mil.ru/en/analytics.htm a rebuttal] advising that<br />
:''Instead of presenting hastily doctored evidence to the international community, the SBU could do with better control over all the mercenary units in the areas around Donetsk and Lugansk organized by Kolomoisky, Lyashko, Yarosh and others, who shell Ukrainian territory without any control from those in charge of the anti-terrorist operation.''<br />
<br />
The trees probably are cut down by now, but we'll have to wait for the true details of just when they were and when the image showing that was taken, or if the image shown is even of any one day and not a composite - "doctored" as Russia says. Other clues suggest launchers moving out of this area at that time: The [[#Paris Match Photo]] - ostensibly from the morning of the 17th - shows the infamous launcher-loaded truck seen in Lugansk, or one just like it, being carried on a truck belonging to a company just south of the missile base in northern Donetsk. That was seen carrying the launcher east out of town at 11:15 AM, purportedly on July 17 (and with the location completely fudged to say Snizhne, when it was only headed there).--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Zaro redeploy.png|left|600px]]The Russian military press conference said "The fifth photo shows a battery of Buk missiles at the village of Zaroshchenskoye 50 km east of Donetsk and 8 km south of Shakhtyorsk on the morning of the same day. The sixth photo shows the same area on July 18. As you can see, the battery has left." (#5 inset) The Ukraine@War blog's analysis decided this image as well was fake. That's mentioned [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com/2014/08/ukrainian-sbu-comes-with-conspiracy.html here] if not elsewhere. The reason: "the shadows of these BUKs have a different direction for all three of them. It means these were pasted into the image." I have to admit, it looks a bit like that. The trees have consistent shadows to the west, in a morning image. The furthest vehicle to the left has a visible shadow about like that. The other two don't seem to, and the one furthest right seems to have a shadow on the wrong side (looks like early PM). I wracked my brain just a little thinking of other explanations aside from just low resolution. Nothing much came up. Anyone else? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br /><br /><br />
<br />
<br />
: '''New video proves UKIE BUKS ACTIVE'''<br />
: video has surfaced, posted to Youtube on July 16, taken a few days before, showing a Ukie BUK radar [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3MomxNHnUA being rotated]. The reporter is taken somewhere in a helicopter and proudly shown the BUK. Segment starts around 4.17 in the chopper, BUK shown briefly at 4.45. Label does not say where exactly, just reads "Officers of Ukrainian Armed Forces patrolling in the ATO zone". <br />
: This ties in with claims that they were doing anti-aircraft exercises, probably in response to claims/fears the Antonovs were brought down not by the rebs but by aircraft from Russia. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 10:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::Thanks! We had this July 16 video [[Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17/BUK_Tracking#Kiev.27s_Holdings| elsewhere]], but here is a good place... The other video, from March, was not seen. There were few more early sightings of Ukrainian Buks, uncertain locations, with those 3** numbers; maybe should get a good place to keep them all --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::: Location of sighting is unclear. But according to some reports ([http://lifenews.ru/news/136731 LifeNews]), on July 16 UAF SU 25 was shot down from a height of 6 km by opolchenie MANPADs. That was near Russian border, --reports say the plane actually crossed into Russia, not far from Marinovka. It could be suspected by Ukraine that a Russian plane was involved, so it will be plausible to have Ukrainian coverage of the accident area by BUKS. On July 14, it was reported that [http://m.rosbalt.ru/ukraina/2014/07/16/1292690.html AN 26 was shot down in Luhansk] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
--Antidyatel <br />
There is strange twist of Logic in Bellingcat report about satellite photos. The photo with Buks in the field is claimed to be manipulated.They found that July 17 image was manipulated but only invite region of clouds. They don't say that BUK was removed by software (there are 4 more vehicles missing). But on all Google earth photos BUK never moved. So did it move ever or not? Manipulation of Google earth photos or likely their source is not new.[http://www.imediaethics.org/News/130/Exclusive__google_investigating_photoshopped_gogle_map_image_.php]<br />
<br />
Surprising Google earth have more updated photos on the BUK base location and nearly nothing for the location where Russians seen BUKS. There is something strange about RUSSIAN supposed fakery. Doesn't make sense.--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 13:33, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Separatist Holdings===<br />
While much certainty has been shown it was a separatist BUK system responsible, everyone seems to acknowledge that ordinarily, they didn't have any, that were known of. Fresh sighting of them in the field, supposed admissions, and existing presumptions remain the strongest evidence. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;June 29 Seizure?<br />
The Open Newsroom team have latched onto a June 29 message from a Twitter account associated with the Donetsk People’s Republic, @DNRpress claiming separatist forces had conquered a base with anti-air BUK missiles. This is apparently the A-1402 base, as an Itar-Tass report specified. That report noted ... It seems to just cite the tweet which, it was found, used a dated photo online since mid-2013. In essence, there's no good evidence they ever did seize this place. But it was referred to by some as "Deleted DNR tweet confirming Russian rebels indeed have a BUK-M1." The crew at large seems a bit vague on the status of this base:<br />
:'' It appears that the A-1402 military unit was moved into the Donetsk region in 2007 from Odessa, and reports note that the unit was based near Donetsk airport. Local reports from June 29 cited ATO spokesman Alexei Dmitrashkivsky as stating that separatists had attacked the military unit.'' <ref name="Story1" /><br />
As we just found with geo-location, it's 3 km north of Donetsk airport, and it's the same place Russia believes is firmly government-held. It's the place they say at least one BUK-type launcher was removed from on July 17 for some reason, by Kiev's forces who run it. If [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Donetsk_Airport this basic Wikipedia article on the battle for the airport] is correct and/or in line with [[Attack on Donetsk Airport|our page on it]], the airport and anything military-related north of it would probably be government-held continuously to the present time. It's possible some launchers could have been lost during a brief seizure of the base, but this too seems doubtful. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
:Social media published many photos of the "liberated" Buk missiles. I searched for them on Google Image Search; all were old photos from more peaceful times. I have no idea what really happened. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 23:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Thanks. I hadn't looked into it myself, but recycled images made sense given the other clues that they never did take that base, or at least get anything out of it. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 00:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Something in English [https://www.facebook.com/TruthfromUkraine/photos/pb.1452285018328179.-2207520000.1409095455./1515506872005993/ on Facebook,] with links to Russian souces. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 23:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Your geolocation is wrong. The former [http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-SAM-Site-Configs-A.html SA-2 launch site] to the north of the runway is called A-1428, at least according to the [[:File:Donetsk Airport battles 5 Oct 2014.jpg|map by Komsomolskaya Pravda]]. The site was rebuilt sometime between 2002 and 2009 with new garages covering part of the SAM ring. Tactical maps say today it is still held by Ukraine, but may have been in NAF hands earlier. Base A-1402 is located south of the new terminal building along Stratonavtiv Street.<br />
<br />
When looking at the latest airport battles I noticed that Military Maps already shows structural damaged to the new terminal building. I did not expect Google to provide any relevant satelite data. In Libya we had almost daily satellite images of Tripoli, but in Syria we have seen no new photos of the battle-effected areas.<br />
<br />
I opened Google Earth to see what has changed during the war. It seems that the war has had no effect on either base. There is still a lot of military hardware parked on both bases. Most of the trucks and whatever are parked just where they were last year, or on many cases in 2007. I did not see anything that I could identify as a BUK launcher. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 02:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;Held by July 14?<br />
The US embassy in Kiev said in [http://ukraine.usembassy.gov/statements/asmt-07192014.html a press statement of July 19]:<br />
:''Intercepts of separatist communications posted on YouTube by the Ukrainian government indicate the separatists were in possession of a SA-11 system as early as Monday July 14th. In the intercepts, the separatists made repeated references to having and repositioning Buk (SA-11) systems.'' (also quoted [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/20/malaysia-airlines-mh17-videos-missile-launcher-torez-snizhne at the Guardian])<br />
As "Corporal Frisk" [http://corporalfrisk.wordpress.com/2014/07/21/comment-on-the-us-assessment-of-the-downing-of-flight-mh17/ aptly responded:]<br />
:''Having perhaps the world’s best intelligence network, and then using easily faked videos of separatist communications posted on YouTube as evidence sure has a degree of ridicule attached to it, but is also an inidcation that US intelligence believes at least some of these transcripts are real.''<br />
That's totally apt if one suspends the usual definition of "believe" (to include "wants to appear to believe," etc.) In the same piece, the author apparently gives more "credibility to the charges that the Buk-M1 is indeed Russian supplied (and possibly crewed), as opposed to stemming from captured Ukrainian stocks." As covered below, this I can agree with if we suspend the usual definition of "Russian" (to include "allegedly Russian villains," "the Ukrainian version of [http://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2011/07/african-mercenaries.html Libya's African Mercenaries] and [http://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/wiki/The_Shabiha:_Ghost_Stories%3F Syria's Shabiha]," etc.) this would be spot-on. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:54, 10 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
(more allegations to cover?)<br />
<br />
;The One That Matters<br />
Whatever the evidence rebels had Buk systems by the 14th, Kiev also has suggested, and many have accepted, that ''the one that mattered'' at least - the launcher unit that shot down MH17 on the 17th - wasn't theirs at all, but brought in and operated by Russians for the day only. If only for that reason, all the above is likely moot. See next section. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Russian Buk Field Trip? ===<br />
The Kiev regime's narrative also suggests separatists had no BUK systems of their own. Rather, someone else brought one in to their area, took it on some kind of tour through several towns thought accessible only to rebels and allies, and got it seen in each place. Then these people '''shot the airliner down themselves on the separatists' behalf.''' That party is the Russians, they say. This is perhaps best encapsulated by "counter-terrorism" chief Vitaly Nayda's early assessment. AP's July 25 report summarized it, saying "the account was based on information from intercepts, spies and resident tips."<br />
:''Nayda laid the blame fully on Russia: He said the missile launcher came from Russia and was operated by Russians. ... According to Nayda, at 1 a.m. on July 17 the launcher rolled into Ukraine across the Russian border aboard a flatbed truck. He cited communications intercepts that he would not share with the AP. By 9 a.m., he said, the launcher had reached Donetsk, the main rebel stronghold 125 miles (200 kilometers) from the border. In Donetsk it is presumed to have been off-loaded from the flatbed and started to move in a convoy on its own.''<br />
:''Nayda said the Buk turned back east toward Snizhne. Townspeople who spoke to the AP said it rolled into Snizhne around lunchtime.''<br />
:''...As for the Buk, Nayda said, intelligence suggests it went back on the move shortly after the attack. That very night, he said, it crossed the border, back into Russia.''<br />
<br />
This is full of details that don't line up with the emerging record, but the gist including a grand-circuit tour including both separatist stronghold/capitols Donestk and Lugansk plus the disaster zone, seems about right. But the evil they allowed came from and returned to Russia.<br />
<br />
This does however jibe with the Kiev allegation (I learned of through [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/07/25/snizhne-mh17-and-rebel-held-territory/ this excellent and relevant HRI article] that '''Russian jets''' violated Ukrainian airspace to '''bomb an apartment building in Snizneh on July 15th, killing 11 civilians.''' This all makes a bit of sense in context; that false flag attack was blamed by locals on Kiev'a noble Air Force - almost understandably! It "created the conditions" by which people ''might'' accept apparent a team of apparent Russians with a Buk launcher in their town two days later. The best guess for any single firing location is a field just southeast of that town (see [[#Possible Launch Sites|below]]). The locals might smile at, and later even cover for, this poisonous gift. But a trojan horse is a trojan horse, of course. They should have looked it in the mouth better, and been more aggressive with their questions. Because Russia has it in for the separatists, Kiev implies, using its skilled and well-documented team to murder 298 people in a horrific way on the separatists' behalf. This is not an accident, Kiev must know, but proof that Russia and its "inhuman" terrorists they must hate (and who do not seem to have any Buk launchers of their own, BTW) are the new global menace du jour. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Markings and the Mystery Launcher ===<br />
[[File:MH17 Buk 321 Parismatch comp.png|right]]A serial number on the launcher's side is apparently standard in Ukraine's arsenal (see [[#BUK 312 and comrades|above]]). Inset, an image comparing the side of the unit seen in [[#Paris Match Photo]], the one blamed for the shoot-down on the 17th, to TELAR unit 321. The side panels are easy enough to correlate and see the unit in the photo lacks a number, but does have a sliver of white paint (or similar) in one corner. Whoever was moving this painted it it out before this, so there is some attempt at concealment. Is this color of paint only available in Russia? The white sliver here could be part of the number, if it were painted higher up/larger than Ukraine usually does. I can't say yet how they do it. I did a Dogpile Photo search, lots of pictures, context unclear, different vehicles from different sides, mainly Vitaly Kuzmin photos so app. Russian military parades and such: --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
* Number shown, diff. vehicle: [http://military-vehicle-photos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/9881.jpg #1(loader?)] - [http://pix.avaxnews.com/avaxnews/8a/6f/00006f8a_medium.jpeg #2 same?] <br />
* Launchers with no visible numbers: [http://77rus.smugmug.com/Military/May-5th-Parade-rehearsal-2014/i-t7RjrzP/0/M/5may14-33-M.jpg #1] - [http://77rus.smugmug.com/Military/12-April-Parade-2013-rehearsal/i-KHVD3Tv/0/M/12aprilrehearsal_33-M.jpg #2] - [http://livedoor.blogimg.jp/gunzichannel/imgs/b/e/be60ae58.jpg #3] - [http://military-vehicle-photos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/9880.jpg #4] - [http://77rus.smugmug.com/Military/13th-April-rehearsal-Alabino/i-fKQdjW4/0/M/13April-Rehersal-Alabino-26-M.jpg #5] <br />
* Same vehicle, Buk TELAR launcher with numbers: not found. <br />
<br />
At the moment, the lack of a number almost makes it look Russian. The next panel over seems to have smaller numbers, or characters anyway. Nothing yet tells me the Russians add a smaller number on the panel behind that, with or without special stencils available only in Russia. Is that even a number, or does it say return to Putin? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== Bellingcat and 3x2 ====<br />
:''moved from [[#Paris Match Photo]]''<br />
<br />
Adam: somebody's favorite Bellingcat is now saying, I understand, that he is capable to read off the number of this Buk from this blurry low resolution Paris Match photo, using unspecified colored magic and some expertly fitted proprietary boxes. Well actually this is so proprietary that he can ONLY read the first number 3, and the last number 2, but is completely unable to read the middle one. Because, he does not want this to be this Ukrainian [http://uainforg.livejournal.com/1811500.html Buk 312] , nah, noway. He rather want it to be the Russian Buk 3 X 2, where X stand for Russian, and for secret, as somebody is said to unearth this dirty monster in Russia, as he says (I guess). This looks too much baloney as far as I am concerned; you can read any number you set in advance from this blurry photo, and fit there any other crap, boxed-shaped or wiggly, all essentially at will. Just recording this latest saga page in case somebody has more enthusiasm to chase it than myself. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 00:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
:No, you didn't quite understand, but thanks for the tip. An interesting twist I wish I'd caught sooner. First, this helps the West at large get in synch finally with Kiev - it was Russia, not the separatists, who owned and perhaps ran that unit. Second, it seems to me the match is at least as good as they say, but there's at least one aspect of it I think is hilarious and I wouldn't be surprised if they managed to miss it. I'll be back - this one deserves a quick blog post. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: I agree with Resup, this stinks of baloney designed to divert attention from the [[#BUK_312_and_comrades]] story. The worst thing about Brown Noses and cohorts is the amount of coordinated promo they get in pre$$titute media. SPIEGEL today [http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/jan-fleischhauer-ueber-wladimir-putin-und-mh17-abschuss-kolumne-a-1004898.html has a op-ed piece by a particularly douchebaggy example] on those independent genius investigators as well. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::I need to brush up on what that 312 story is... because it looks like this used to say 312. Ultimately I suspect its some kind of baloney, but just where it breaks down I don't know. It is amazing how they get such praise for investigating the right things (never did get back to the Houla Massacre) and finding the right truth... Daily Fail says "The authors said that 'our investigation was made possible by the examination of open source material overlooked by other organisations'." Oh goodness, that technique they must have invested ... maybe if we started doing that we'd get praises too! --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/11/08/origin-of-the-separatists-buk-a-bellingcat-investigation/<br />
The report and whole site was not coming up when I tried (might be a problem on my end), so I don't even know what's behind their pay-wall. In the interim I checked around. [http://thetruthserumblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/an-open-and-transparent-investigation.html Here's a critical blog article I like] that mentions another article praising the report. But what was useful was [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2827853/Russian-military-supplied-missiles-ahead-MH17-shooting-says-new-independent-report-evidence-points-Russian-separatists-responsible.html the Daily Mail's Australian promo article] with the cover and a few images from the report as well as a summary. The 3x2 ... This lets me quickly see what 3x2 refers to. And actually, it looks like a good description and even a good match. The number is not from Paris Match photo but from footage I haven't noticed, they say from inside Russia - presumably a Russian unit then - seen conspicuously moving towards Ukraine in late June. (the source of these images and details might be worth checking into) ... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 3x2 Comp.png|right]]Bottom is Paris Match, skewed to match. Top is the new (to me) Bellingcat June 23 image As I just put together [http://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2014/11/how-russians-covered-up-truth-partly.html here,] they seem to be onto something here. It's something silly. But it's something strongly suggested by real paint in recognizable patterns.<br />
<br />
Implied: Russians wanted to hide this thing's identity, maybe because they were about to do something secret with it. So first they painted out the number in the middle - I think it was a one. Except they left one little corner of white visible. Just got tired. It's identifiable (in both images). <br />
<br />
Then before it appeared in Ukraine, it was rendered totally unidentifiable: they boldly blacked out the 3, and perhaps at the same time even, the 2 - except for a larger identifiable sliver. Just got tired. It's next to the other dot. <br />
<br />
Haha, no way to connect these now! Also a light patch next to the small number (and the number, as far as we can see) matches, as does a light patch along the lip below that. My guess: this is the same suspect vehicle seen gettin' hauled all over on the "stolen" truck with the phone number left on. Was it actually in Russian territory as well as near so many rebel checkpoints around dawn? For how long was it there? Bellingcat cannot confirm that Russian unit 3x2 ever returned to its base in Russia ... nor, I guess, that it ever actually left, or was ever Russian, or didn't have its truncated paint job simulated and expanded on another vehicle... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
::He got some photos of an actual [http://www.kavicom.ru/news-view-12861.html convoy], almost certainly in Russia, fairly hi-res photos, no 3*2 there. Than out-of-a-blue-or-elsewhere, he gives photos from convoy made by 'local residents', now with discolored 3*2 photo(s) there; I could not spot details where this photo is now coming from. He claims it "shows on 8 out of 16 videos", but I do not know where is a single one. He also compares tank track and plate above profiles for these 2 photos; details are blurred (and also those profiles change from use), can't say how much they match each other by eye; don't trust his fitted lines, or his conclusion accepting those, but did not try matching myself (no tools to do it quickly; or enough photo resolution to feel strongly motivated). This is doable but doing it tool-free takes time; and not knowing that second photo is definitely in Russia, I am not convinced spending a lot of time is worthwhile. This is clearly a well-supported operation, so the burden of proving their own version is on them; and they did not bother even linking the videos, no clue where are those. His report downloads without problems at this time. <br />
::Also details such as dirty rear skirt and a bend there likely are common; dirt is because exhaust is through the opening above; skirt likely is bent when there is servicing, or example changing tracks or doing something else, like maybe servicing engine. Buk 321 above on this page has dirt and bend, for example. This bend is something which can be easily produced, same goes with the painting job, both things together can be done in well under 1/2 hour. If they had an example of how something in Russia looks like, not difficult to do it for a blurry photo. Clearly, with phone well-displayed, etc, the purpose of all this is a demo job. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Here is a publication [http://censor.net.ua/video_news/274823/ukraina_zaschischaet_donetsk_ot_napadeniya_rossii_zenitnoraketnye_kompleksy_buk_zanimayut_pozitsii_fotovideo Ukraine defends Donesk from Russiam attack, missile complex Buk takes positions], with photo, video of Ukrainian BUks, numbers 323, 321, 312, 301, 331,332. (Some of them have dirty skirts, e.g. 301 looks dirty and bent...). Ukrainian radio is playing on the video. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 21:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Thanks, and I get the lack of motivation, and the ambiguity. That #312 I'll compare later ... looks like a different number style (thinner) with vehicle color less clear ... I guess this could be innocent dirt instead of black paint, but it's some thick dirt, and by the end almost totally covering the numbers on this particular unit ... or two that can seem the same. (?) So it still seems most likely paint, that is deliberate obfuscation - that was also comically slow and incomplete (with clean edges to the white parts and no visible parts of gray half-covered numbers) . It must be a problem with my system (updating soon) but I still can't connect to the site or get the report. I'm not mad motivated myself, but will want to check the alleged video source and geolocation eventually. Before I was seeing this as a Kiev unit simply snuck across the internal line. So the big wrinkle of course is it being in Russia. Options if the geolocation of June 23 is right: <br />
* it wasn't there (faked match-up - As you say, all matching features ''could'' be faked, not just the paint) <br />
* or Ukraine snuck theirs across (with a whole convoy?) just to get it seen there <br />
* or they snuck over and stole this one while it was near the border <br />
* or Russia willingly sent it over, with or without a subsequent theft by people intent on misusing it on the separatists' behalf. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
There is actually a 3*2 Buk in Russia, he put links to videos on his [https://www.mapbox.com/labs/bellingcat/index.html map], I looked at 06/23 Troitskiy (Odnoklassniki) goroskop odnoklassniki ru/video/14723648043?fromTime=25 . But I doubt it can be concluded that Paris Match is a match (number itself can't be read, this is just bogus). For example, that dot in the Russian version appears to be a bit further to the right (60 % of total panel length) , while Paris Match is closer to 50 (I got 52 %). Also, in Russian version, it is almost level with protruding to the right part of number 2; in Donetsk photo, I'd say it's a bit lower (but blurriness creates problems to measure) . Panel to the left of number panel appear to look very different; in Russian case, clear horizontal line above the main bottom line; not so in Donetsk, a messy lower line. As for the skirt, it it dirty but actually does not look broken in the Russian version, just some frames create such impression. In Donetsk, hard to know (to blurry to tell crack from dirt) but there is serious change in angle there somehow; (could be the windshield playing some tricks). (Also, in Donetsk, it is dirty windshield, not actually certain what makes the dot; but it is roughly where expected, so I can go with this being paint assumption). <br />
:No point for the rebels to display it prominently in Donetsk (not far from UAF BUK base), than go towards Snizhne; this just has no point at all. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 00:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
:I'm the one, ironically, claiming to see things in that griny mess. I'd never do it unless I saw t spot well whiter than the others AND seen in another view ... didn't even notice until then. To note, your descriptions are of the first version of the graphic, now updated. Becuase of overall problems, I cut what seemed just the number panel (including shadowed edge) and put it on top of where it should be. Same proportions, within a pixel or two, "find edges" to mark the white patches, and it remains lining up. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 3x2 comp 2.png|right|420px]]At right: it can't be the embarrassingly misrepresented Ukrainian 312 they're hiding, unless that was painted over before this other one .... FWIW, the middle dot would still line up with the serif on that "1." As the updated blog article notes, if "the Russians" were smart, they would have painted this slender 312, or other recognizable number and style, on there. Instead, this nonsense.... <br />
<br />
I suppose that Ukraine ''might'' have known about this 3x2 video and match in advance (and never mentioned it?) and that's why they found a photo of ''a Buk 312''' (not checking what it actually showed, and just claimed they knew was en route to escape into Russia, after parking for yet another photo?) No, that doesn't make much sense. But I sense a link. Maybe that's because I'm seeing 312 when maybe it's 872, for all we really know. Maybe instead of partly painted out it was just left never fully painted in. Too many unknowns and now I'm unenthusiastic about it. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Whatever one thinks of this graphic comparison and interpretation, the strange and suspect thinking it implies is consistent with what else we know about how this "secret" operation was carried out. If true, it would fit this broader pattern (real or reported clues left by whoever, all open to interpretation, and here couched in the terms of allegations by Kiev and supporters):<br />
<br />
* Recalling that this whole weapon itself would have no normal business in the area and would be denied later, it should have been kept secret. Instead, it was driven around in broad daylight on the same day as the crime, just partly covered with a tarp but revealing all clues needed to identify it, its hidden ID number, and its full rack of missiles.<br />
* The truck it was so displayed on was stolen in Donetsk, and kept with the huge sign on its side with the apparent owner's phone number on it. When the media called that number, little surprise, the owner told them pro-Russian "fighters from Slaviansk" who took over his whole trucking company on July 8 (see [[#The Truck Owner's Story|here]]) Put lightly, this is a stupid way to secure a rig one intends to use for a secret operation like this was supposed to be.<br />
* They loaded the truck in Donetsk, likely at the commandeered site in the north of Donetsk, near the Ukrainian base with Buk launchers, in a coincidence. This truck then got seen leaving Donetsk on the 17th, parked pointing east at the east outskirts, then seen driving in convoy (a couple civilian cars with the operational crew moved with the truck) past Zuhres and then through Torez to the east. They were seen arriving in Snizhne around noon, then the Buk unit seen off the truck and driving in stand-alone, and it was then seen again driving south out of Snizneh, towards the apparent launch location.<br />
* The people running the convoy made sure AP journalists saw them in Snizhne just before the shoot-down from a bit south of there. The convoy stopped, and a man in unusual uniform "approached the journalists. The man wanted to make sure they had not recorded any images of the missile launcher. Satisfied that they hadn’t" filmed that secret missile launcher there, but had noticed it, and their intention to remain sooper seekrit "the convoy moved on." All this was made quite clear to the media and apparently published even before the news that MH17 was shot down. ([http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/what-happened-the-day-flight-17-was-downed/2014/07/25/716c36e4-142b-11e4-ac56-773e54a65906_story.html AP Via Washington Post]) <br />
* After the disastrous attempt to secretly provoke a Russian invasion, with utmost discretion the operators put the smoking gun, its rack of one-less missiles left uncovered, back on the same truck and drove it and the phone number back to Russia - by a strange detour on a long route towards the other easily-recognizable smoking gun rebel capitol, Lugansk ... when government ATO forces had just battled their way to the edge of Lugansk ... and got seen there passing at dawn on the main highway south, apparently having come from the center of town, and then presumably drove to Krasnodon (rebel-held) and to Russia....<br />
<br />
The fail delivery here is almost flawless, with no mistake left unmade and hardly any reasonable gaps to call for deduction. Letting multiple camera views on both sides of the porous border capture and track the gradual move to this stealth mode seems pretty consistent to me.--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Note: the implications of this contested finding, and the visual basis for it as well, is continued below under [[#If Buk 3x2 Was in Russia]] --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
I think one point is still not discussed here. Look at this video from 26 June 2014. You might have seen it before. But what is striking, all the Buks shown do not have numbers painted on them. Not only it will allow to paint new numbers or any clumsy painting on the side, using video of a known BUK, it also means that those BUKS were not accounted for when Ukrs presented evidence, if they ever presented, about the location of all the existing and operational BUKS <br />
[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BBEYZHOT0bQ]--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 13:29, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== General Observations === <br />
*It is clear that pro-Kiev side produced early and persistent stream of fakes, misrepresentations, or selective half-truths, all aimed to place the blame on Russia and/or "separatists" as a part of well organised and supported information warfare. This information warfare did not establish an objective to prove the blame of Russia or "separatists", as any of those media creations will not survive a rigorous scrutiny, and there is nothing to bring to court in particular. However it successfully altered Western perceptions in early days past the catastrophe, and helped to impose sanctions and other 'increased costs' on Russia, bringing the world on the brink of another cold war. It brought situation in Ukraine closer to perpetual chaos, and kept closely related people to continue killing each other every day. Although those fakes and misrepresentations were later realized to be such, those costs and calamities were not reversed. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*After moving equipment close to border, why would Russia send just a single TELAR to Ukraine in a highly visible manner as it was alleged? For meaningful operation of Buk, one would send at least 1 TELAR, 1 TEL (to be able to load missiles), and 1 command vehicle (as radar on TELAR gives only poor basic operation)? There are also lots of support vehicles seen, in case of something meaningful all that is needed. So moving single TELAR is all but pointless from military standpoint. Single TELAR is mostly for a show of sort. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Reported SIghtings == <br />
(consider along with the visual sightings below) <br />
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/what-happened-the-day-flight-17-was-downed/2014/07/25/716c36e4-142b-11e4-ac56-773e54a65906_story.html AP via Washington Post] <br />
shows the separatists strategy to not be seen as they rolled the murder weapon around:<br />
:''Even before the plane was downed, the AP had reported on the presence of the missile launcher in the town July 17. Here is what that dispatch said:''<br />
:''“An Associated Press reporter on Thursday saw seven rebel-owned tanks parked at a gas station outside the eastern Ukrainian town of Snizhne. In the town, he also observed a Buk missile system, which can fire missiles up to an altitude of 22,000 meters (72,000 feet).''<br />
:''AP journalists saw the Buk moving through town at 1:05 p.m. The vehicle, which carried four 18-foot (5.5-meter) missiles, was in a convoy with two civilian cars.''<br />
:''The convoy stopped. A man in sand-colored camouflage without identifying insignia — different from the green camouflage the rebels normally wear — approached the journalists. The man wanted to make sure they had not recorded any images of the missile launcher. Satisfied that they hadn’t, the convoy moved on.''<br />
<br />
That kind of pro-Russian sooper-seekrisy aimed at the media in front of the media should stop them being seen, right? No, oddly, it didn't. See below. The clumsy bastards could hardly have implicated themselves any more thoroughly than they did that day. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
One interesting post at the Ukraine@War blog mentions two tweets, both from July 17 and before the crash, mentioning this BUK launcher on a trailer at places consistent with the video record. [https://twitter.com/MOR2537/status/489702736766586880 One of them] (translated) sounds perhaps ''too'' informed, and says "Was driven missile system on the tractor cover + two cars after Thorez (Torez) in snowy (Sniznoyeh) in 12-10 (at 12:10? Too early...)." [https://twitter.com/_StradivariuS_/status/489704260045910016 The other one] says "(someone this) morning wrote that (the truck) stood (parked for some time) on b.Shahtostroiteley not intersection with Ilchicha, aside (heading towards) Makeevki. waiting to see (to be seen?) If that's an intersection named, it's a different parking spot identified as being [https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=48.002515,37.854917&spn=0.010222,0.02444&t=h&z=16 here on Google Maps,] one km west of the spot it was parked for the "Paris Match" photo. Otherwise, it refers only to the same place. The contributor noted "Another interesting detail in that tweet is that “it was standing” and “they were waiting”. My understanding of that phrasing is that the #Buk was actually parked there for some time. Meaning there might be witnesses." <ref name="UWD">[http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com/2014/07/reconstruction-of-whereabouts-of-buk.html CONFIRMED the BUK that shot down MH17 has indeed been in Donetsk] P. Martin, Ukraine@War, July 23, 2014</ref> There was a witness with a camera, and a photo sent to the Western media. That almost seems to have been the idea - to get witnessed like that. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== SBU Wiretap Clues ==<br />
I just had a look at the SBU wiretap transcripts, ones released July 19. In it is a segment tying in with the above stop or stops in Donetsk, the exact spot of the [[#Paris Match Photo]], and the general orders to drive east with the launcher. I'm not up on the wiretap stuff - if this is the same material said to be corroborated by the US as the real people talking. But briefly, know that parking spot in just past a roundabout, by a motel and a bus station, well short of a crossing Hornostaivska street halfway to Makiivka. Important clue to why it was here this thing had to get seen and talked about: one source claims this roundabout at the edge of town is "a big separatist checkpoint established on Jun 3 at the road circle." <ref name="UWD" /> This is supposed to all be pretty damning, and I must say it's at least looking like a pretty slick plan may be going on here, with pre-scripted parts that come into play later, etc. From Kiev mouthpiece UaToday, parts of a transcript they ran with the video and other allegations, on the 19th - How credible is this evidence?<br />
:''Khmuryi: Sergei Nikolaevich Petrovskiy, year of birth 1964, officer of Main Intelligence Directorate of Russian Federation, Deputy Chief of Ihor Girkin on Intelligence, at the time of the interception he was in Donetsk.''<br />
:''“Buryat” – militant of terrorist organization “DNR” (to be indentified).''<br />
:''Buryat: – Where should we load this beauty, Nikolaievich?''<br />
:''Khmuryi: Which one? This one?''<br />
:''B: Yes, the one I’ve brought. I’m already in Donetsk.''<br />
:''K: Is it the one I’m thinking about? “B…,”M” one?''<br />
:''B: Yes, yes, yes. “BUK”,”BUK”.''<br />
:''K: Is it on a tractor?''<br />
:''B: Yes, it’s on it. We need to unload it somewhere, '''in order to hide.'''''<br />
:''K: Is it with a crew?''<br />
:''B: Yes, with the crew.''<br />
:''K: '''Don’t hide it anywhere.''' She’ll go there now.''<br />
:...<br />
:''Khmuryi: – Tell me, have you brought me one or two?<br />
:''Buryat: One, one. Because they had a misunderstanding there. They didn’t give us a tug. We loaded it and went at their own pace.''<br />
:''K: Did it go on her own or on a tug?''<br />
:''B: It crossed the line (border).''<br />
:''H: And now have you brought it on a tug? Don’t put in anywhere… I’ll tell now where it should go, it will go together with “Vostok” tanks.''<br />
:...<br />
:''K: Sanych, the point is that my “BUK–M” (modified Russian SAM system) will go with yours, it is on a tug. Where should I drive it to put in a column?''<br />
:''Sanych: There, behind “Motel”, not reaching Hornostaevka.''<br />
:''K: Just after the Motel, right?''<br />
:''Khmuryi: Listen to me carefully, behind the circle near “Motel” there will be you know what. Call to “Bibliotekar” (Librarian).'' <br />
The next part, to me, suggests that as far back as the 19th or earlier, people talking on tape were seeding, or working by, the SBU-proposed Aeroloft plot with the town mix-up. In that light:<br />
:''...Bring inside only those, who just came back, only as much as you need for the convoy. Leave everyone else here. Not far away '''there is Pervomaiskoe, look at the map.'''''<br />
:''DNR militant: I got it.'' (Or did he not quite get it?) <br />
:''Khmuryi: Settle somewhere in that area, bring there those who are left. Your task is reserve, plus protection of this piece (BUK–M), which you will drive now. “Giyrza” will come there too. If anything, I’m on line.'' <ref name="Trans">[http://www.uatoday.info/?p=2579&lang=en SBU releases more conversations implicating Russia in shooting down Malaysia Airlines flight (VIDEO, TRANSCRIPT)] UAToday, July 19, 2014</ref><br />
--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The veracity of that recording needs challenged well now ... the day too early claim [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17#SBU wiretap video|did not pan out,]] so it won't be that easy. Has anyone really done a good analysis tearing it apart some other way? Could it even be half-legit, with some local rebels tricked by some undercover (wire-wearing, not wire-tapping) supposed defector delivering it "with a team" coming "from Russia" (meaning Parubiy et al.)? Who knows? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Imagery Mapping ==<br />
[[File:MH17 Storyful video mapping.png|right|330px]]There have been quite a number now of photos and videos showing BUK launchers ostensibly in separatist strongholds, on July 17. The geo-location of these in such towns by social media networks has been the subject of some recent media commentary. These purported placements are worth collecting and considering here. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
One somewhat comprehensive and updated/evolving page: [http://blog.storyful.com/2014/07/19/how-social-sleuthing-uncovered-evidence-of-anti-aircraft-missile-system-in-eastern-ukraine/#.U9oY_Ua3498 How Social Sleuthing Uncovered Evidence of Surface-to-Air Missile Systems in Eastern Ukraine] Inset is a small preview of the interactive map they made of all placed images (as it stands at the end of July - [https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=200399683004956931329.0004feca5d1fbab0a1d25&msa=0&ie=UTF8&t=h&source=embed&ll=48.206371,38.968506&spn=1.281328,2.334595&z=8 full-size presentation with links, on Google Maps]) <ref name="Story1" /> <s>Note that one of them is way up in Lugansk - which one is a little unclear at the moment - the site may be wrong</s>) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;List of Scenes, placed or not<br />
* Billboard Video: released by Interior Ministry, filmed in Krasnodon before dawn, the Interior Minister says. Russian military analysis places it in Krasnoarmeysk, and the Open Newsroom crew contradicts both and decided "collaborative geo-location was able to place the footage in southwestern Luhansk.'' <ref name="Story1">[http://blog.storyful.com/2014/07/19/how-social-sleuthing-uncovered-evidence-of-anti-aircraft-missile-system-in-eastern-ukraine/#.U9oY_Ua3498 How Social Sleuthing Uncovered Evidence of Surface-to-Air Missile Systems in Eastern Ukraine] Storyful blog, July 19, 2014 and onward (updated)</ref> <br />
* Surveillance Video: located to Snizhne by Eliot Higgins, date unclear. <ref name="Story1" /><br />
* Zuhres video: Pre-geo-located by the uploader [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=48%C2%B0+1'1.38%22N++38%C2%B018'6.04%22E&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=48.034019,38.391724&spn=0.629958,1.564178&gbv=2&hnear=H21,+Zuhres,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&gl=us&t=h&z=10 here in Zuhres.] Higgins confirms, 100% sure, and others concur. Driving east. <ref name="Story1" /><br />
* Torez square photo - located by an associate of Higgins - filmed app. 11:40 AM in central Torez. See below. <br />
* Another photo placed: Snizneh, nearest the shoot-down area (f/c)<br />
* [http://www.parismatch.com/Actu/International/EXCLU-MATCH-Un-camion-vole-pour-transporter-le-systeme-lance-missiles-577289 Paris Match photo] - allegedly Snizhne, reportedly placed '''in northern Donetsk city.''' See below. <br />
<br />
===Billboard Video===<br />
(to be condensed) <br />
A video released by the Ukrainian Interior Ministry is highly dubious and worth some analysis. It shows what seems to be a BUK launcher loaded on a truck driving some direction in some town at what seems to be early twilight (or pre-dawn, depending). The [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4HJmev5xg0 original posting] (with almost 2 million views already) gives no details: "Militants take out missile system "Buk" to the border with Russiam" the title translates. "No description available," it says below, and no comments allowed.<br />
From what I've seen no one knows where this is filmed. Daily Mail says it's a "separatist stronghold," unnamed, and headed south, back towards Russia. "Ukrainian spies reportedly filmed the launcher used in the attack being smuggled to Russia - with two missiles missing." Eliot Higgins was cited by [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/20/malaysia-airlines-mh17-videos-missile-launcher-torez-snizhne the Guardian] with his new team of fundraistigators as geolocating some video and photo but not, apparently, this one. As explained at [https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1278239551/bellingcat/posts/919158 the kickstarter link] they give, Higgins writes:<br />
:''In the above video, posted by the Ukranian Ministry for Interior claiming to show the Buk missile launcher being driven towards Russia it was possible to match the transporter in the video to the transporter in Torez, details of which... (you have to subsidize their operation to see)'' --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== Avakov's Placement: Krasnodon or Lugansk ====<br />
Interior Minister Arsen Avakov said in [https://www.facebook.com/arsen.avakov.1/posts/670837696339673 a Facebook post of July 18] Google-translated: <br />
:''Covert surveillance units of MIA of Ukraine today July 18 at 4.50 am was recorded caterpillar tractor loaded with missile complex, moving in the direction through Krasnodon, toward the border with the Russian Federation. The video can be seen uncovered missiles. Two missiles in place - the average is not visible. ''<br />
:''There is an analysis of this and other information gathered. Presumably this is the missile system "Buk" that made a last shot at a civilian plane from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur .. ''<br />
:''Criminals try to hide the traces of this heinous crime. Not succeed. Security Service and Interior Ministry of Ukraine has collected and collects more irrefutable facts and evidence, the author points out the tragedy of the terrorist organization DNI / LC and its Russian backers Putin.'' <br />
:''The investigation of events MIA issue a comprehensive report on the information. This fragment consider it necessary to publish immediately.''<br />
<br />
By the 22nd, "online sleuths" had placed it in Lugansk (see below). Avakov then confirmed this - he was wrong the first time. One article makes it sound like he wasn't just echoing the sleuths:<br />
:''On July 22, Ukraine's Minister of Internal Affairs, Arsen Avakov, gave the exact coordinates of the video’s location: separatist-held Luhansk, about a 45-minute drive from Krasnodon. Locals quickly verified this claim by photographing the scene, which perfectly matches the landmarks seen in the video.'' ([http://globalvoicesonline.org/2014/07/29/russia-ukraine-mh17-conspiracy-buk/# article by one of the sleuths])<br />
<br />
====Krasnoarmeysk====<br />
One source venturing a guess is [http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ the Russian government and RT witrh their 10 intriguing questions:]<br />
:''“For example, media circulated a video supposedly showing a Buk system being moved from Ukraine to Russia. This is clearly a fabrication. This video was made in the town of Krasnoarmeisk, as evidenced by the billboard you see in the background, advertising a car dealership at 34 Dnepropetrovsk Street. Krasnoarmeysk has been controlled by the Ukrainian military since May 11.”''<br />
[[File:MH17 Billboard Vid Russian Analysis.png|right|250px]]There is a sign, but I cannot make it out just yet, if ever. Can they really? Even if that's so, surrounding towns might be good places for a dealership in Krasnoarmeysk to advertise. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
At right now is a still from a video claiming to show this, I still don't see it. They seem to think the gray span says that, perhaps from seeing a clearer view of this ubiquitous sign elsewhere. Opps. There's no reason to say a dealership in one town can only have billboards in that town. This alone fails. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 14:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Krasnoarmiis'k,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&hl=en&ll=48.323387,37.919312&spn=1.252829,3.128357&sll=48.226502,37.386475&sspn=0.627601,1.564178&oq=Krasnoarm&t=h&doflg=ptk&hnear=Krasnoarmiis'k,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&z=9 on Google Maps as Krasnoarmiis'k] - ''not'' to be confused with the Krasnoarmeisk not far away in Russia. Distance: about 100 km almost due west of the crash site. Panorama, possiblt location, directions/implications forthcoming. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Dnepropetrovsk Street is the main street of Krasnoarmeisk, leading northwest to Dnepropetrovsk. It tried matching this to the street corner where the car dealership is located. Yandex Maps did not provide a street view. It could be there, but too few details to make a positive match. Whatever this is, it is not evidence for anything. The least the SBU could have done is provide the location and some corroborating photographs.<br />
:The same applies to all so called "evidence" provided by Ukraine and the US State Department. As far as I can tell it is only cut-and-paste of unrelated footage to ''illustrate'' the claims made. A perfect example of this illusion is the "satellite photos" of Russian artillery shelling Ukraine released on Sunday morning. A photo of Russian GRADs on some unidentifiable field was placed next to a satellite image with an arrow pointing "Here Be Monsters!" Purely illustrative and no proof. There is a difference between legerdemain Hocus Pocus and outright forgery. The Russian video presentation displayed screen capture recording from the ATC radar, usually stored for two weeks. For this to be a hoax, Russia would need to create a forged tape of the radar data. Highly unlikely, as the the claim of authenticity had support of the full authority and prestige of the Russian Armed Forces. If the US presentation turns out to be hoax, State Department will claim the photos were never meant to be evidence. Some internee was told to prepare a presentation using stock images for some facts they ''knew'' to be true – trust us! -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 14:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: You must have missed [https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BtZSVQrIMAARzKr.jpg:large this], Petri! ;oP --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 18:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
::: That is an awesomely perfect picture for this sorry episode so far. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 14:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
::It would be neat though if we could show where this is and thus which way its's headed. The Kiev authorities, I think, know what happened. They say it was this exact launcher missing two missiles. It could be. Where is it at filming time and where headed? If it's true this same one was in Torez (dubious but possible) we'd have a direction traveled until that point also, and a rough time, 8:30 or so. [http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jul/27/mh17-storyful-social-media-twitter-youtube The Guardian again] citing Storyful's open-source investigation: <br />
::::''“There are now four pieces of content – three pieces of video and one image – which, in the case of three, conclusively show a Buk [surface-to-air] missile within rebel-held territory and in the case of the fourth, almost definitely in their territory,” says Storyful executive editor David Clinch. “Of those four pieces, individual groups or companies probably verified in or around the same time one or another of them.”''<br />
:''Open Newsroom verified three pieces of content and is investigating the fourth, thanks to its 900-strong network of journalists and experts. ''''<br />
:The fourth is this video. Wouldn't it be a coup if we were the first to place it? Force that intern excuse and then laugh at it. That said, it's not the most likely to place but you, Petri, especially, might be able to. I think I might. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 22:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* [https://plus.google.com/118234537318646233652/posts/LZV1XZD854E James Miller Google + July 21] "Was a Buk sighted in Krasnoarmeysk or Krasnodon (continued analysis)? We've taken a new look at this video which has been debated since it was posted days ago. We're fairly confident, though not 100% confident, in this geoanalysis, but we're making significant progress. Any more information would be extremely helpful. " Cited: [http://www.interpretermag.com/russia-this-week-lurid-anti-ukraine-propaganda-broadcast-on-state-tv/#1753 Russia This Week: Defense Ministry Claim on Buk in Billboard Video Doesn’t Add Up]<br />
:''...As we reported on our Ukraine Liveblog, the Buk was spotted before the shoot-down of the Malaysian airplane and ultimately geolocated to the town of Torez, near the location of the crash in Grabovo. Then the video, taken early the next morning on 18 July, showed a scene in Krasnodon,... <br />
--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Google Earth has one photo [http://www.panoramio.com/photo/55329278 from ул. Днепропетровская.] The street has about the same width. The streetlights are not quite the same. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 14:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
::That image doesn't help a match, especially since by now it looks like Lugansk. For the record, there was a go by pro-rebel social media people at identifying a spot in town to explain the video scene, but it didn't do that either. [http://wikimapia.org/#lat=48.276196&lon=37.176087&z=18&l=0&m=b this spot on Wikimapia] is what they pointed to - filmed from the marked building, they say, looking southwest to the mall. No matching anything. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 02:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== Placed in Lugansk! ====<br />
[[File:MH17 Billboard Vid-Lugansk Match.png|right|800px]]Storyful's rundown states of this video:<br />
:''The footage is not the original, however we believe that the first instance of this footage was removed by the uploader and the version below is the earliest we can find. Ukrainian Interior Minister, Arsen Avakov, made early claims that the video was filmed in the Ukrainian town of Krasnodon near the Russian border, however collaborative geo-location was able to place the footage in southwestern Luhansk.'' <ref name="Story1" /> <br />
It links to "Bellingcat," which you have to pay to see much of. [https://plus.google.com/118234537318646233652/posts/bMdeBzY8yty James Miller] passes on that it's "Mystery SOLVED: Video released by Ukraine's Interior Ministry does in fact show a Buk, possibly missing several missiles, in Lugansk headed east from the MH17 crash site and in the direction of Russia." The spot they think matches the video (better panorama coming) is [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=48%C2%B032'44.7%22N+39%C2%B015'52.6%22E&ie=UTF8&ll=48.545926,39.265147&spn=0.002436,0.00611&t=h&cid=0&z=18 here on Google Maps]. Was that a highway? Where's the cross-street? I see elsewhere they have a high view showing the same basic billboard there, but that's going to be true of several spots in this area. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
My impression of the scene - based on the panoramic view below - is far from matching with this. That does not look like a highway, and it just seems like a small town. However, I finally saw some of the supporting images (see [http://news.bigmir.net/ukraine/827864-V-Lygansk-vehala-kolonna-voennoi-tehniki--SMI here] and [https://twitter.com/djp3tros/status/491651820188860416/photo/1 here] - source of the inset image.) It seems a likely match after all. I won't say I confirm it with any certainty, but I don't think I'll be challenging it like I was preparing to do. Note the different billboard in the right spot, and the matching one over there. There are other images, apparently more current, showing that that they moved the one sign over to the right spot They don't point to the pinkish roofed building beyond the red-roofed one, but that adds to the match (compare to below). Whenever this video was made and whatever it really means, it seems quite likely it was at this spot in Lugansk shortly before dawn. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
There is another video from June 2014 showing the same billboard with the same car ad:<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ez8cZ3nqjCs Луганск 02 07 14]<br />
The video shows a column of BMPs with one 9K35 Strela-10 short-range surface to air missile system passing the intersection in Lugansk. I suspect they came from Russia, as [https://www.facebook.com/groups/IOUCO/permalink/584402078339517/ I specifically asked] for Putin to send in the Russian tanks that morning. They passed exactly when I expected them to, at 6 minutes past 4 am. (I estimated it would take 2 hours 6 minutes from the border.) -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 17:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== ACLOS Review ====<br />
As noted above, my review agrees with the placement agreed by the others. For what it's worth, the huge panorama I made (the middle is full-resolution) and starting notes from before I realized no work was needed. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 03:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
[[File:MH17 Billboard Video Pan.png|center|880px]]<br />
It seems to be filmed near the edge of town, or edge of a hill anyway, with a clear view ahead, two vague homes/buildings seen down the slope. Otherwise, very non-descript. The angle of intersection will be one of the better clues - it looks to me not 90 degrees ( |- ), but with the road the truck is on either slanting or curving somewhat towards the camera ( /- ). One important observation: '''there's no logical reason he should have been just happening to film this area''' unless he knew something interesting would drive by at just this odd time. That's clarified by how he zooms in just before it enters frame - he was waiting for that truck. How did he know about it? Informants on the other side of town phoning ahead makes enough sense, I suppose. <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 launcher truck composite.png|left|480px]]Another issue: If this is dusk (sunset 8:20 PM local), isn't this facing roughly northwest? If so, this vehicle is driving roughly north, not south. And we might start looking on the west edge of town. There's a highway out to the northwest, back towards Kiev. This street is too narrow and unmarked to be the highway, obviously, but it might be driving that way, for example. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
:Or, alternately, he's facing towards the sun about to rise, early on the 18th, as alleged by the Interior Ministry) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
::That he happened to be filming just before dawn is even less likely than dusk. He clearly knew this was coming, whatever that means. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 03:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Above is the composite scene without truck. At left is the truck without background. Besides lightening the scene, it seemed worth getting the clearest details from different frames into a composite view of the truck and its load. This helps compare to the launchers seen in other areas and different times. So far, they all seem to look the same and perhaps be the same. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 03:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br /><br />
<br />
==== HRI ====<br />
Pretty good points [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/08/05/mh17-the-lugansk-buk-video/ from Human Rights Investigations]:<br />
:''To sum up, the statement of Avakov, the film and its location suggest the Ukrainian authorities had advance knowledge of this BUK and trailer’s movements or control over it. It is also extremely strange that this BUK, allegedly after shooting down MH17, is supposedly filmed by a Ukrainian surveillance team in ostensibly rebel territory, with its covering missing, as if to show the world a missile is missing.''<br />
--[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Paris Match Photo ===<br />
[[File:MH17 Paris Match.png|770px]]<br /><br />
* [http://www.parismatch.com/Actu/International/EXCLU-MATCH-Un-camion-vole-pour-transporter-le-systeme-lance-missiles-577289 Originally published by Paris Match] on July 25, with the claim the picture was taken by their own reporting team near Snizhne at mid-day on the 17th. Note the prominent, apparent, telephone number prominently centered in the picture - (050) 471-41-80. The truck and launcher, as far as can be seen, are quite similar to or the same as the one seen in the billboard video anyways. How many of its missiles the unit has at this moment is unclear. <br />
<br />
* [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/07/28/why-is-paris-match-on-the-location-of-a-buk/ Human Rights Investigations:] "it turns out to have been taken in Donetsk, 75km away" (citing someone else's geo-location - [https://www.google.com/maps/@48.004592,37.87265,3a,75y,63.38h,82.21t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sRGnHwZ5YZnuGO-n_VvruWg!2e0 site link given.] <br />
:''We know this because the phone number on the truck panel (050 471 4180) leads straight to this hire place (photo):<br />
:''According to Paris-Match, the proprietor of this establishment claimed “rebels” had stolen a number of his vehicles earlier in the month. If we go from here to towards Snizhne we find the location of the Paris-Match photo, near a car dealership on Makiivske Highway on the outskirts of Donetsk:''<br />
:''After informing Paris-Match of the mistake regarding the video location, the author of the article Alfred De Montesquiou has now got back and explained:''<br />
:''Hello, indeed, it appears there was a mixup in caption : the picture was taken leaving Donetsk on road to Snijne, not in actual Snijne'' <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Donestk Buk Map.png|thumb|right|480px|Map: this truck location, the company's apparent headquarters ([https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Molodykh+Shakhtariv+St,+19,+Donetsk,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&ll=48.044923,37.783184&spn=0.079187,0.195522&hnear=Molodykh+Shakhtariv+St,+19,+Donetsk,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&t=h&z=13 GM link]), and the A-1402 missile base relative to each other.]]<br />
<br />
'''Questions:''' Was it a caption mix-up, or did their team really not know where it was taken, and just believed the real source when he said Snizneh? Who is the true photographer who knew to catch this picture near the company's base, apparently at the outset of a rather epic journey? Why did the rebel thieves leave the prominent phone number on the stolen truck used for such an important task? It wound up leading to man who pointed right to the rebel thieves, and prove yet again separatists, not Kiev allies, were the ones driving BUKs around. Was that so hard to foresee? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''To Do:''' Verify the geo-location - set a time, presuming July 17, by sunlight and that location - establish which way it's traveling relative to the government-run anti-aircraft base just a few km north of here and relative to the other places and times this truck and others were spotted rolling around prominently and getting filmed a lot by the right kind of people, in areas presumed to be impenetrable to any such frame-up operation - look into this company, etc. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''Location:''' I can't confirm it with certainty, but it's extremely consistent. Two standard but distinct pole types that close together on the right with a pull-over lane ending at the blue one, and consistent-scale foliage behind. Proceding on the location as likely enough to warrant the work. The stretch of highway identified runs northeast, heading 33 degrees. The truck is most likely not driving at the moment, as it's in the pull-over lane. But it's pointed as if ready to leave Donetsk as soon as they finish doing something in theis spot. All we can see they're doing is getting filmed, and maybe that's just what they're waiting for. Ahead would be the an industrial area, the eastern suburb of Makiivka, then Khartsyzk, etc. and further east Torez and Snizhne (driving times unsure, date also unsure. Russia claims the one launcher left the northern base sometime between in August 14 and 17 images. <ref name="RT10">[http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ 10 more questions Russian military pose to Ukraine, US over MH17 crash] RT. July 21, 2014</ref><br />
<br />
'''Time:''' I'm not sure how exactly to set this up, but the shadows appear to stretch almost right across the highway, with only a slight northern shift. The azimuth thus appears to be fairly close to to 140˚ (reached at 11:09 AM). As for solar altitude, trying to line up the launcher's corner with its shadow gives a reading of app. 56˚ (= 10:50 AM, with azimuth 133˚) or perhaps 59˚ (= 11:18, az 143.5). The graphic shows both readings. Which is better? I used [http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/solcalc/ NOAA solar calculator], with coordinates: lat 48.017102 long:37.9037626 time=GMT+2, DST +1 --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
There is more to consider about this truck, its company, its owner, and his story. But other than this photo's extra-clear view of the phone number and apparent proximity to headquarters, those are better covered in the section below [[#The Truck Owner's Story]].<br />
<br />
==== Time? ====<br />
[[File:MH17 Paris Match elev.png|right|220px]]<br />
Bellingcat was originally claiming that photo was taken at 9 am. [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/09/08/images-show-the-buk-that-downed-flight-mh17-inside-russia-controlled-by-russian-troops/] [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/11/08/origin-of-the-separatists-buk-a-bellingcat-investigation/]<br />
<br />
Then they were claiming 11 am as an obvious time without retracting previous 9am claim. Seems like 9am was more comfortable for them to match to photos from Zuhres and Torez. <br />
<br />
Sorry, using smartphone. Not very easy to comment --[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 01:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:<small>Looks like you put the same link twice, -it says 11 a.m.--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)</small><br />
::Antidyatel, welcome! Resup, thanks! I'd like to see any 9 am citation. But otherwise they agree on it being around 11? Good. The significance below is if the Zuhres square photo was taken at 11:40 AM as they say, it's basically impossible these images are from the same day as alleged - 69 km, 1 hour 14 mins drive between the spots, when there's only 20-40 minutes between the images. However, fudging it - let's say this is 10:50 and the other is 12:00 as I read it - that's 1:10 between, almost a perfect match. So maybe this isn't a great lead (I was never convinced it was). But 9:00 is way off and suggests they were fudging it to fit at that point. Would be good to document. BTW, on talk pages you can sign with <nowiki>--~~~~</nowiki> or the sign/scribble button. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: [https://web.archive.org/web/20141109132514/https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/11/08/origin-of-the-separatists-buk-a-bellingcat-investigation/ First archive.org snapshot] from the day after publishing (edit: a good three months after you called it :o)) says 11 am already. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 10:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: Okay, the links were fixed once or twice and [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/11/08/origin-of-the-separatists-buk-a-bellingcat-investigation/ the November report] says 11 am, not citing an azimuth or anything, just Paris Match saying it was "about 11 am," which doesn't count much for verification. The [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/09/08/images-show-the-buk-that-downed-flight-mh17-inside-russia-controlled-by-russian-troops/ earlier report from Sptember] might be based on something else when it mentions "a well known image from Paris Match, which shows a Buk in Donetsk at 9am on July the 17th." Neither one sounds like a firm final version. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== Screenshot from dashcam video? ====<br />
It it possible to identify if the photo was made by dashboard camera, smartphone, or other type of camera. Paris Match claimed that they made the photo. There are no date markings on the photo, which is strange. Position of the camera is such that it was either dashboard camera or the driver was making a photo (front and left side of the car). Paris Match was also implying in their report that it was a group of people in the car. "A sytem BUK missile launcher is photopgraphie by the team of Paris-Match in the suburbs of Donetsk, on the road to Snizhne the morning of July 17, hours before the flight Malaysia Airlines MH17 crash."[http://m.parismatch.com/Actu/International/EXCLU-MATCH-Un-camion-vole-pour-transporter-le-systeme-lance-missiles-577289]<br />
<br />
Why would they ask driver to make a photo? Dangerous or uncomfortable - illogical. If it was a dashboard camera, why not to release a video? And most importantly it would have a time stamp. <br />
<br />
Also in this report [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/01/17/new-images-of-the-mh17-buk-missile-launcher-in-ukraine-and-russia/] gives a new, a bit extended photo. Surprisingly the back of the BUK is nicely in focus, same as the truck cabin. While middle of the BUK is defocused. No wonder Paris Match cropped it. Bellingcat, that likes being so strict about photos, totally ignores this part. <br />
-- [[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 23:55,, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Yes, I agree. The two photos are crops from screenshots from a dashcam video. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 00:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
::Those must be two different shots at close-by time --look at position of street lamppost with respect to the truck cabin, one has it over black pipe, and the other more to the right from there. Can't think of a natural way for camera to focus on two different distances (maybe dirty and curvy windshield can be blamed but on tricky side here)-- FWIW. Usually dashboards have short focal length so that anything appear to be in focus; don't know why not the case here --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
RESUP, you are right. Those are two different shots. There is cable reflection from the windshield. Probably the cable is another indication of the dashboard camera.--Antidyatel<br />
<br />
=== Torez Square Photo ===<br />
[[File:MH17 Torez Buk Analysis.png|left]]This is another image geo-located by the Brown Moses network (ally Aric Toller) to central Torez, [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Donetsk&hl=en&ll=48.023472,38.614014&spn=0.004923,0.01222&hnear=Donetsk,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&t=h&z=17 here on Google Maps.] Like others, it was initially stated as in another locale - Snizhne - and that had to be corrected. I can agree the location pointed to is either the photo's site or one strangely like it. [http://mashable.com/2014/07/23/citizen-journalists-mh17-spies/ Mashable noted] "Toler and Higgins were able to establish that the photograph was shot around 11:40 a.m. local time." I tried a quick azimuth measure, eyeballed relative only to the blue car, and got 165 degrees (yellow line, read backwards). This equates to a time of almost exactly 12:00 noon (about 30 minutes before solar noon, and 20 minutes later than their estimate). Seeing they're close to right, I'll presume they're closer than me and defer to 11:40. <br />
<br />
If this photo is taken at 11:40 AM, and it's the same truck seen leaving Donetsk around 11-11:20 AM, it's impossible these images are from the same day as alleged (Gmaps says it's 68.8 km, 1 hour 14 mins drive, when there's only 20-40 minutes between the images). That would mean multiple mobile launchers with multiple "Titan" trucks, or just one but with some date fudging. The company says a number of its trucks were stolen, so matching multiples are entirely likely. But so is date fudging, multiples or not. If that's so, I suspect the Donetsk photo was from July 15 or 16, and this one more likely from the day of the crime. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 04:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br /><br /><br /><br />
=== Zuhres Video ===<br />
[[File:Buk Zuhres Vid.png|right|480px]]Again, a truck of that same type loaded with the same apparent weapon is briefly seen driving east (detail at right). This one was never reported wrong and was in fact pre-geo-located by the uploader [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=48%C2%B0+1'1.38%22N++38%C2%B018'6.04%22E&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=48.034019,38.391724&spn=0.629958,1.564178&gbv=2&hnear=H21,+Zuhres,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&gl=us&t=h&z=10 here in Zuhres.] Higgins confirms, 100% sure, and others concur. <ref name="Story1" /> Zuhres location: on highway H21 halfway between Donetsk and the general disaster zone - 36 km east by road from the position of the truck in the Paris Match photo. I agree with the location, refined below as I lined up in the still used here - the blue line runs between the blue thing and the building corner (footprint, not roofline) to the front of the truck as it passes. <br />
<br />
The sky is fairly overcast, so solar angles can't be measured precisely; the differences in facet lighting are clear but not massive. A broad and inclusive azimuth range of 167˚ to 214˚ (rounded) is shown by the yellow arrows below. This yields a range (to the nearest minute) of 12:09 PM and 1:45 PM. The best middle is a bit early - 185 degrees. That would be 12:44 PM. Altitude, at solar noon, helps little. 12:09, 12:44, and all times between round off to 63˚. if that simply looks too high, we're forced to the later end of the time frame. - 57˚ at 1:45. My super broad-estimate: 12:45 +/- 50 minutes. Weather at this time on whatever day - as noted, it partly overcast, and it's windy. The clouds are moving fast, with slight lighting changes visible in just these few seconds. Winds by the swaying trees are from the southeast, perhaps, blowing northwest - at least at the building with a face running that way.<br />
[[File:Buk Zuhres analysis.png|center|680px]]<br />
<br />
==The Truck Owner's Story==<br />
The apparent owner of the white truck so important to the MH17 operation was of course tracked down via the giant phone number for his compant on its side. Interviewed at least twice now, first by Paris Match, then by Lithuanian agency Alfa, this businessman has been anonymized as Vassili (then Vasilijus). Thorough summary of the related, alleged facts, from each (translated) report:<br />
* [http://www.parismatch.com/Actu/International/EXCLU-MATCH-Un-camion-vole-pour-transporter-le-systeme-lance-missiles-577289 Paris Match, July 25:]<br />
:''Photographs of Paris Match showed that the rebels had failed to remove the billboard on the truck they had stolen. Thus we joined the owner of the vehicle. Vassili said the rebels occupied warehouses on the outskirts of Donetsk since July 8. "They are fighters Slaviansk. They landed and told me they loved my premises and we had to escape. They shipped me a dozen large vehicles, including the white truck. I do not know what happened to them, "admitted Vassili, distraught.'' (that was actually just what they published, aside from context material) <br />
<br />
* [http://www.alfa.lt/straipsnis/472203/alfa-lt-isskirtinis-interviu-su-raketas-buk-kuriomis-buvo-numustas-malaizijos-avialiniju-lektuvas-gabenusio-vilkiko-savininku?p=1#.U-GIxeOSyuZ Alfa.lt, July 29:]<br />
:''This person's testimony is crucial. After it becomes indisputably known that anti-missile system, which shot down a passenger plane was precisely the Kremlin-sponsored terrorist hands. ''<br />
Here, separatists are throughout called "terrorists" (Bezler is "the "People's Republic of Donetsk" terrorist gangs ringleader"). Vassili says these took over and occupied his company premises on July 8, taking the white truck - they said because it was needed He says they stayed in control of his facility for 8 days, apparently departing on the 9th day - July 17. Becuase of this, he and his staff - especially his drivers - were unable to do anything that whole time. He's entirely certain it's his truck in the videos (the phone number says so) as it's the only one of its type in that part of Donetsk (Žinoma, ji – vienintelė tokia Donecko srityje, tokios kitos nėra. Tokios „Volvo“ su tokia kabina). He says he still hasn't seen it since.<br />
:''...more and more irrefutable evidence that Russia supported the terrorists shot down over the temporary control of the territory in the east of Ukraine aboard passenger "Malaysia Airlines plane, and later sought to hide evidence.''<br />
But as Paris Match noted, they couldn't be bothered to detach the phone number to the guy with the whole dang story. <br />
:''Alfa.lt knowledge of the personal data, company name, knows his responsibilities and phone numbers (one is (050) 471-41-80), but because of '''the danger to his life''' that can not be published. "Stop saying my name, and I already have enough problems," said new horrific crime witness Vasilijus.'' <br />
This is valid; of course his best defense would have been to simply ''not'' implicate the separatists mostly running Donetsk, but it's too late now. DPR authorities might want him for questioning. And especially now that he's been publicized as a "crucial witness," others will want him to '''appear to have been brutally murdered by them''' (he will have served his main purpose by now, perhaps). I hope someone's able to arrange protective custody quickly enough, or that he can arrange his own vacation, or convince his friends (he'll know the ones) of his continuing usefulness to them alive. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Titan Gate blurry.png|left|380px]]Further bits on the business: Wikimapia has labels. One for the front building is generic. In English writing: [http://wikimapia.org/#lat=48.0399571&lon=37.794637&z=16&l=0&m=b&show=/24479492/Ochakivska-vulytsia-19 Ochakivska vulytsia, 19]. Beneath: Category: safety, '''private security company.''' Around this, a bigger labeled area including the back building and surrounding lot. Label: Территория службы охраны "Титан" Translated, it says "Territory protection service "Titan" (Donetsk)." Beneath it: "Category: '''Do not display name''', fenced area." (не отображать название, огороженная территория) Below, their gate area as it appears in Human Rights Investigation's still, and three versions I've seen randomly changing over the last day or so with different parts that could be the name blurred out (most recently back to not blurred). Is that unusual? I predict further twists in this, with the truck found somewhere bolstering the Kiev story, and with the company's "outing" being manipulated somehow. Feels a little spooky. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
;Assessing "Vassili's" Story<br />
<br />
There are a number of problems with and interesting questions about this witness' story and how it meshes with other allegation (details forthcoming).<br />
<br />
In Vassili's defense, I'll say the world needs to hear more. What happened in these eight days? Were Russian officers coming and going? Poring over air charts in the side room, before closing the door with an annoyed look? A lot could have happened - this could be a gold mine of direct evidence for war crimes trials of these terrorist gang's leaders (as understood). --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
[[File:MH17 Vassili's Truck August 1c.png|right|400px]]<br />
An apparent support: as HRI found, [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/08/07/new-sighting-of-volvo-linked-to-buk/ New sighting of Volvo linked to BUK?] August 7 - One of those provocatively deleted tweets, quite recent with a supposedly same-day (dawn or sunset) photo from somewhere in Donetsk - outskirtsy, like where <s>rebel</s> I mean Kiev junta forces proudly claim to almost be. this photo (saved by HRI) shows "a truck" carrying a tank, driving behind another tank. The posted thought it was for a new roadblack/barricade (concrete slabs were also being hauled). It appears to be the same truck Vassili says he lost, or one just like it. And this does look like the type of thing seaparatists would do if they had seized it, and still didn't realize how famous it had become. This thing likes to drive at dawn, doesn't it? How are checkpoints then, a little sleepy maybe? Hmmm... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::(added later: inset image - from the photo, color-corrected and cropped on just the truck - for full view see the article or below) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: FTR I took up HRI's challenge to identify the truck on that picture and did so with almost 100% certainty. It's a Volvo FH second generation (2001-2013) with low cabin. Like [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Volvo_LKW_Fahrerhaus.JPG this one] which has a higher cabin but other than that is quite a match. Also FTR, I noticed that the twitter account has "Donbass Bandera" as location, which can but must not mean anything. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: Bandera might mean something, in context, but no time to puzzle too much. Good ID work there. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Vassili's Truck August 1 Loc.png|left|380px]]The article passes on a geo-location I can confirm: [https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Makiivka,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine/@48.04073,37.967479,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m5!1e2!3m3!1s78165143!2e1!3e10!4m2!3m1!1s0x40e08e984a0db9a9:0xe4e52efde2e0641c Here on Google Maps,] photo taken, as described, from "opposite the Vostochno-evroppeyskiy restaurant & lounge “Atrium” in Makiivka on the H-21." A site photo of the "Atrium" is included. The graphic I made at left shows the approximate view, including the stairwell (to a subway station?), though the billboard is less clear. The view is roughly towards the rising sun northeast - a rough azimuth measure suggests the sun is shining from about <s>66</s> 71 degrees from north, for a time of around <s>5:24</s> 5:52 AM (elevation: <s>1.8</s> 6 degrees). --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC) and corrections --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
FWIW, I went over to militaryphotos.net and scanned [http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?236005-Situation-in-the-Ukraine-Crimea-*Photos-Videos*-ONLY/page200 the thread about Ukraine starting on page 200] in very early July, up until page 225 when all the known truck/BUK info and disinfo was posted. Watched countless military convoys, including a whole bunch from Donetsk in the time between. Not a sign of the truck in question. If it was in "rebel" hands since July 8 like the alleged owner claims, they used it only for "special ops", alone in the early morning or so, not in their larger relocation operations. Two things remotely interesting: in an operation [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0JdcC324Ek reactivating a WWII tank from a war museum in Donetsk], a similar trailer is used, but the truck is a different one. And in [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2eGNPJlkMo this video from July 5] but without given location, the Ukie army does some operations and two BUK TELARs are seen. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Possible Launch Sites ==<br />
*Launch site discussion here is based on a photo of disputed provenance, said to be made '''near [[Category_talk:Ukraine#Torez|Torez]]''', showing a plume of smoke (see on the right and below). Exact date is disputed, but it was posted shortly after the accident. A late update or second version of the photo emerged in December 2014; this is further discussed in the [[File_talk:MH17_Launch_Plume.png|talk page for the photo]]. A different launch location in '''Artemovsk''', based on Bezler account, is discussed elsewhere [[Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17#Bezler_Account|(link).]] . <br />
<br />
===What do we know? ===<br />
Questions about the photo, --if it is genuine-- include:<br />
<br />
*What is shown on the photo? (Likely a missile launch, but can be MANPAD, or some other launch; raising fire smoke not excluded though less likely) <br />
*When was the photo made? (Claimed to be couple of minutes after the MH 17 shootdown launch; but could be made on earlier days)<br />
*Where was the photographer, and where is than the 'launch site" Photograph claimed to be made in Torez (4 microdistrict?) . Claimed launch sites locations are [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/launch-location-detected-of-missile.html SE] or [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2107 NE] from the photographer. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
A site, or maybe a couple of locations, have now been forwarded, based on compelling evidence, as likely SAM launch sites of July 17 or thereabouts. This is worth careful consideration here. To start:<br />
<br />
* [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10984530/MH17-the-clues-which-may-lead-to-missile-launch-site.html UK Telegraph, July 22] This report with some detail and a photo visits a few areas where signs of possible BUK launcher movement and firing occurred recently. Caterpillar tracks, mostly light, signs of burning, various debris left behind, all or mostly "in the area of the town of Snizhnoye." These details might suggest whoever did this had multiple launchers set up in different areas that left as soon as the operation/accident was done. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
::So far, signs are saying it was just the one. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Below: The site shown on video, stitched panoramic view (with confusing curve). This helps get the fullest set of geo-location clues. I may even check if this is the same spot identified by Ukraine@War, below. It should be, or we might have two firing locations pretty near each other, which would be odd. The firing direction from here would be northwest, almost directly along MH17's flight path. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
[[File:MH17 Telegraph site.png|center|940px]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Launch Plume.png|right|340px]]Ukraine@War: [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/launch-location-detected-of-missile.html Launch location detected of missile that brought down MH17] The photo at right, cited by Kiev as proof of a BUK launch in the right area, July 17. The anlysis here looks good on first blush and lines the filming to northern Torez, plume on a line including a supposed patch of cat tracks just revelaed by fresh Google/GeoEye images of some fields [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Donetsk&hl=en&ll=47.989347,38.773155&spn=0.078813,0.195522&t=h&hnear=Donetsk,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&z=13 here] by Snizhne. As traced, the tracks look realistic to me. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: There is (a disappeared) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUvK5m2vxro BBC video ] suggesting that smoke is from a direction of Saur-Mogila (= constant fighting) and a coal mine. <br />
::Thus smoke may be unrelated to the launch. Also timing of photo is unclear. <br />
:: Buk trail from unrelated launch videos appears considerably [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDXScnEKaP0 more impressive than on the photo] , and traces well visible trajectory, likely attracting attention of many people . But there appears to be no witness reports. <br />
::Buk appears to use [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_navigation proportional navigation method], and if so, its navigation control will try to guide it on a straight path to impact.<br />
::Unless it was doing something else (but can it??? the answer requires expert knowledge), it was most likely on a straight line trajectory which can be deduced from the impact direction.<br />
--[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 00:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Yes, an odd video. I'm not certain they even picked the right view, but it looks about right - I think she and Oliphant (Telegraph) point to the same monument as a landmark - a place of fighting. Seems like they got close, but didn't have a specific spot like U@W picked, and didn't find anything. As for angle, I think it can maneuver around, but would prefer to fly straight (not an expert, don't know what "prefer" means here). And if it was hit head-on like the impact marks suggest, then it probably did fly just about straight into the jet. Obviously if it came over the wing, and was fired from here, it would have to curl around, but I don't think that's the case. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
<br />
The satellite images cited at Ukraine@War are available if you have Google Earth. As explained [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/satellite-images-reveal-how-buk-has.html here,] there's a .kmz package you can download [https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxEeOqcjSE5uQXlkWkxKeVhDaEk/edit here] that loads on Google Earth new, murky images from July 20 (but the display still says August, 2013). The tracks he highlights are visible, faintly. There are a couple sets perhaps connecting - some could be local paths - there's no recent enough images to say there weren't there July 16. One important missing thing is a patch of burnt grass it seems should show up up differently - it's not identified there, and not evident right around these tracks. From this, it's not a great fit, except that line of sight pointing here. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Plastic Debris 1.png|left|280px]]So is the Telegraph site and the Ukraine@War site the same thing? Well, the Telegraph article says they went to the spot identified on a blog, but found, as the image suggests: Two possible launch sites – a rundown collective farm and a nearby wheat field – showed some track marks but no sign of any rocket launch whatsoever." It was a farmer plowing his fields there who pointed them to ''a field nearby'' that burned the other day, and that 's the unclear site they show. "The location of the fire lies on the supposed flight path of the rocket, and track marks – though indistinct – are present. Some unidentifiable bits of green plastic littered the site of the fire." There were also discarded bottles (type unclear) and apparently this oddity, shown in a photo but not mentioned - soft bakelite-type plastic ... thing, with years in the 1980s and 1990s stamped in it. It's all near enough to the rebel town, the Russian border, and concealed rebel positions that they think only rebels could operate there. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
First, let's note that author "P. Martin" connects these possibly relevant tracks with the surveillance video showing the Buk launcher driving south The Telegraph spot, from the burnt grass, must the spot the exhaust pushed off from, and the burn line should probably be to the northwest. There's no sign of that alongside these track marks found on that visual line. That's a problem, as the exhaust never said a luncher was driving around thataway, but rather launching from thataway. <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Telegraph Spot Mapped.png|right|380px]][[File:MH17 Telegraph Spot Cleared.png|right|320px]]Rather, it's the nearby "Telegraph spot" - not quite on his line but close - that [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com/2014/07/exact-location-pinpointed-of-mh17.html Martin thinks is the EXACT location] That, he thinks, is in the next field south. It should be visible in the updated imagery, but it turns out this is just off the edge of the area they provided, so it can't be verified or ruled out based on that. The inset graphic shows this cut-off line, his previous possible firing locations (track-based, seemingly un-burnt, in yellow) The spot yields a best placement with coordinates already noted by Petri in a section [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Map#Buk locations and flight paths|here.]] (I picked out the spot myself, best guess, and got the same but 3 seconds east) It can't be checked like that for the telltale stripe to the northwest, but it looks pretty likely to me. The main view down the tracks (left half of the panorama above) would be looking south, and the near line of trees on the right running west. The pretty obvious tracks he identifies as likely launcher tracks, and they do seem to curve in where it stopped. Otherwise, to me, this has more the look of a pre-travelles semi-road on the line between fields. Either way, it probably drove that way, and fired from here, and not from the un-burnt spots north. All the tracks he notes, none certain in themselves, are supported in their possible relevance by this being what's at the end of the trail. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC) and [[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Added in November, the image below that. I noticed Google Maps had new post-crash imagery up, and re-checked the spot for burn marks, since it was just off the grid before. This replacement - overlayed with translucence - seems too late. The strip most likely to show the signs has apparently been harvested/cleared before this image Some will say that constitutes a coverup. And it might, but probably just out of stupid reflexive nervousness. I just wanted to measure its angle and stuff. There is a nice track right up to the spot, likely pre-existing and just unclear before, and what they used to get there. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Location Challenged ===<br />
<br />
The above stuff, as of now and as I've been running it mainly, seems to bear out the vaunted "social media sleuths" placing the launcher and probably the launch in "separatist-held territory." I agree with all locations provided, and times too. Everyone acknowledges date is less sure. There are compelling clues pointing to concrete firing spot, that seems to be lined up the hit the jet head-on, as it's starting to seem the airliner was hit. In this narrative, the questions people should be asking is who was really running that. But readings differ, and some differing views can be considered here. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* [https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByibNV3SiUoobnpCVDduaHVORHM/edit?usp=sharing MH17 Analysis] – CDN <br />
<br />
Petri posted this to the front page, a 25-page report with many graphics and explained reasoning. One of its conclusions, based on range to impact, mainly, meant that "the missile that downed MH17 was not fired from Snizhne." At the moment, I disagree. Petri, who is CDN, and are they soliciting feedback? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::The anonymous PDF was published via Saker's blog: [http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/08/detailed-expert-analysis-of-mh17-downing.html Detailed expert analysis of the MH17 downing] "CDN" has [http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/08/detailed-expert-analysis-of-mh17-downing.html?showComment=1407347983141#c8862773971299986141 responded] [http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/08/detailed-expert-analysis-of-mh17-downing.html?showComment=1407350196815#c7564049628743605813 twice] in the comments. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 00:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
I think these might be part of what threw the author(s) off:<br />
# the heading seems to be off, too southerly to trace back like that. At the end, maybe close enough<br />
# possibly too-wide debris field starting too early - final breakup likely E-NE of their spot (ie closer to in range)<br />
# Wrong presumed angle of impact <br />
# Lack of knowledge, specified on page 23, of this contrail image or, obviously, the supporting clues pointing to what might be "the Telegraph site" excluded here. "Why are there no images of the rebel missile and its impressive launch contrail?" Oops, there is and it point there. <br />
--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: I just skimmed it before coming here. It was posted [http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.de/2014/08/detailed-expert-analysis-of-mh17-downing.html over here] where you can join the discussion (which I haven't read yet just saw that Petri is there chiming in in comment 2 of currently 93). I think it's first valuable in presenting the known capabilities of the Buk etc. If your stuff above is true and it is one single truck with one single TELAR that was seen in the different locations, then it shows quite conclusively that the Telegraph position can not be the launching point, because even if the Ukie claim of disappearance from Radar 50km from the Russian border is not true, due to the position of the debris it could only be further away, not closer, which adds to the argument. My 2 cents for the moment. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
: Oh, not directly related to the critique, but driving around with a huge phone number that leads to a Titan security of all places is more than a bit suspicious, I'd say. ;o) --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: "the Telegraph position can not be the launching point" if my "stuff above is true and it is one single truck with one single TELAR that was seen in the different locations" - how? "because even if the Ukie claim of disappearance from Radar 50km from the Russian border is not true, due to the position of the debris it could only be further away, not closer, which adds to the argument." Huh? I think the field is placed really vaguely in that report, and that's what sets the impact point - it looks maybe kilometers off, to the west. Placed right, the implied impact point is further east, ie closer to the launcher. It is a valuable report, but that point should be re-checked more carefully before I could be convinced to write off all the other evidence pointing there. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::: Take a careful look at pages 9 and 10 of the PDF. Place the spot to where you think it's "right". Think how that would change the picture. The argument is based on the empirical location of the debris and unless I've missed some serious flaw in the numbers and basic calculations made on the pages leading to that, I think it's by rule of thumb a very sound argument. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 13:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::: I'll do my own soon - I can say it would end further east, relative to the border there, and probably start further east too, but maybe I'm unaware of some outlying debris - but first a though on the debris field I just had, even more relevant than size and placement - what does it actually say re: the plane? He presumes it would follow the trajectory east. Not much, really. With only so much momentum and breaking up, with five miles to fall, the main factor will be wind. Even a breeze has five miles to act on it. That was so with PA 103 - the wind was about perpendicular to the path, and that determined just where stuff scattered on a line across the borders area right to the north sea - only the cockpit and a few things were off much from that line. Here, if it blewa along the flight path, the reasoning would work fine. If it blew back, to the west, the plane was probably shot further east than the field suggests. Ie, closer yet to in range. The Zuhres video above shows wind apparently to the northwest, and pretty strong. Worth a review and re-think in that light. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 14:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::: With an initial speed of 907 km/h I see no reason to take wind into serious account. I see no reason at all for going into more detail in this rule of thumb argument, not on the debris, not on the alleged launching point. But I'm as always looking forward to what you can come up with. ;o) --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::: btw there's no exact calculation of the traveled distance of the falling pieces, it's just found plausible resulting from other data. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::::: There's good reason. [http://martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/PA103_debris.gif past precedent.] I did read it wrong - the blue oval is about right, I thought the scale by it, which is way off. That's the 20 km drift - if the wind was blowing due east at the right speed... to the near edge of the oval and 30 km to the far edge... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 15:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 four last points.png|center]]<br />
<br />
Debris fields as shown in MH17 WSJ data combined.jpg. The two tracks, 118 per Flightradar24 and other sources, and 111 from a Russian graphic (see label C), just in case. They cross at point E just to look cool - superimpose wherever to visualize a track-back on these or any line between. <br />
<br />
The four red "last points", eyeballed onto the map as shown in the various graphics used here (all pretty approximate): <br />
<br />
A: last return, flightradar 24 (erred, I think, way too far along - I suspect some inherent offset...)<br />
<br />
B: Russian ATC last return, '50 km' from the border (vague description, likely close to accurate)<br />
<br />
C: end of 111 track shown in MH17 radar 1.png (maybe arbitrary, lower resolution)<br />
<br />
D: report, deduced point of impact (presuming 20-30 km flight due east after impact, wind app. not considered at all)<br />
<br />
E: My guess for breakup point, where the damaged front came apart (should maybe be further east, right over the south part of the first orange blob). Actual impact point, an unclear distance back. probably not very far - downward flight could start anytime after that, decreasing the lateral distance traveled) . <br />
<br />
The cockpit, aerodynamic, shows the most like forward trajectory of this, relatively minimal wind complication. The heavy forward parts had more drag, wound up NW of there. A bit further NW, the light, high-drag, punctured upper fuselage. That these parts aren't spread further out suggests the jet managed to descend some ways before the front totally fell apart, and/or that the wind was fairly light. From there, most of the plane remained together, kept more momentum and little wind effect, and crashed kilometers east. The last part of this plummet, about one minute seen on video, it was nose-free and essentially nose-diving. A slight north trend, perhaps curtailed eastward progress, largely just down, leaves it all hitting together by Hrabove, scattering woth the fireball trajectory and wind deciding where these bits landed. That it only got so far from the forward parts again suggests this breakup was fairly low in the fall - maybe just before the start of the one video. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I'd say forget point D, it is way too far west, this plane was not going to fly 25km once hit. On debris, I'd put breakup where the "f" is in your word "forward" and impact not very far NW of that, lifting the whole 118 line a little northwards. You can't bring breakup below impact and count on wind pushing wreckage "uphill" because that first group of wreckage included 37 bodies, which would not "sail". The impact would be enough to knock the course slightly south, to drop the cockpit at Rozspyne, where it turned NE to end up at Grabovo. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 03:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Thanks. D is the presumed point used to rule out this launch location, the original point of this sub-section. That dot fails by a good margin. My E and your guess are both north of the flight path, along which all the red dots are (this graphic is confusing, needs updating, if I didn't flatten it). I was thinking a NNW wind did the north and west spreading, but the records say the wind was flat "east" (to the west). I'm left suspecting now the plane banked hard left just before it started breaking up. Actual impact, just before that. The "C" label is pretty arbitrary, but it keeps seeming about right. On the imagined red line 1t 117-118, I dunno, maybe 20-30 pixels back. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::Winds are described as 'from' not 'to. So a wind blowing to the NNW is reported as a SSE wind.<br />
::::A slip - I'm trying to say it that way now. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::Getting on to the wind. The actual breeze direction is usually a function of altitude - veering or backing from ground level observation. It can easily be 90 degrees out from ground level. You need to look at the vertical profile used in aeronautical soundings to see where debris will in the main blow to. --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 11:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::Sounds like a real headache to map. There's also changes over time, where east at 5:00 may change briefly ten minutes later, or 10,000 feet up. All that seems can be counted on is easterly winds in general - no exception to that. And generally, even if they measure it at the airport, it must extend up to the clouds, which can be seen swirling east over the area. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::No it doesn't extend to the clouds except by accident. Major direction change can happen in hundreds of metres altitude especially at night. Examples of wind shift between ground level and 700 millibars (9800 ft) in day time can show a direction change of 90 degrees - e.g. North to West. This is significant with MH17 where the breakups occurred between 33,000 feet and probably a few thousand feet for the final disintegrations. --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 11:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::FYI Here is all about [http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/48/ Veering and Backing] --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 11:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::As for the spread issue, I'm re-thinking it. As for the bodies, it depends on a few things but I take your point - bodies are dense. And I didn't know that detail - worth considering. Also a sad side-note: most bodies would be alive and aware, from what I learned looking at Lockerbie. Lack of O2 would black them all out at first, but gravity makes it so there's enough in that final stretch those not dead already (the lucky few) would probably "wake up" in time to both feel their injuries and their fall, and to see the "separatist-held" fields rushing up to kill them. :( ---[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::: My indications are they were all dead when they hit the ground. That's not to say some didn't suffer from the first blast up there. Using my (very long ago) rescue triage training, I examined all the body photos for type of injury. The main findings were (a) almost no blood (as the separatist intercepted call rightly claimed) (b)a lot of legs at angles suggesting hip/pelvic fracture (a very common injury in air crashes to people wearing seat belts) and (c) all the bodies appear swollen (in first-day photos). We are thinking of what happened as a decompression, a low-pressure event. But that was preceded by the blast detonation of the missile just outside... a high-pressure event. The very high pressure shock wave compresses the blood vessels and severely damages the lungs. Blood pressure and heart rate go sky high trying to compensate. In 1/2 a second the blast wave is gone and they are in decompression.The heart can't adjust fast enough. The lack of blood flow makes the brain and liver swell up, too, so normal blood circulation cannot be re-established even if the heart recovers. The Lockerbie bomb, and various exploding fuel tank cases, were lower pressure explosions; sadly many would have survived those until ground/water impact.[[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 20:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::So there is evidence of blast wave, not _just_ decompression alone? But no shrapnel wounds? --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 21:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::(cut my comment - I had misread - taken to [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Debunked topics#Bloodless bodies – fake Facebook profiles?|bloodless bodies spot]] FWIW - but I disagree with both the lack of blood and the validity of many "separatist" communications, but if we're not arguing a planeload of corpses being shot down, I won't argue it much.) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
More to the point, leaving the above graphic aside, would be this newer one I should finally add. Basic straight path, 118 and placed as agreed by most sources. Alleged launch location, measures app. My best guess is a 2 km range from 22.75 to 24.75, weighted to the center. Or most likely about 23.75 km out (irrespective of actual projectile flight path, that's where it made contact, but this helps visualize how the alleged launch site might line up with [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Forensics#Direction of projectiles?|the directional forensics]]). --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
[[File:MH17 missile intercept distances.png]]<br />
::Straight line from launch is okay. But impact has to be further north, ie before the most westerly debris. You've used the map which assumes that debris to be blown back by wind. That can't be right, as it included bodies (too dense to blow back) and witnesses saw them and plane sections falling straight down. This only makes about 1 mile difference to the missile range, so does nothing to exclude that launch location. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 01:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::The map of spread is only app., some orange area I made. The pink dot and lines are from a map, Russian analysis, as you say apparently presuming a SSE wind. Debris including people ''would'' be blown back to some degree, all of it, varyingly; trajectory can only do so much when you have five miles of falling, with the breezes acting the whole time, and the lightest parts will be back a bit, whatever direction and as mentioned above, a SSE winds at some time or altitude still isn't ruled out at all). Do we know just where in that area those passengers landed, and what types of things are its far end? ? <br />
(<br />
:::I mean, you could be right and it's a bit further back, maybe with a continuation due east from there and no real wind effect except slightly back. It was only 9-12 mph, and maybe it fell halfway before starting to fall apart, which means less spread. I'm thinking about a possible left turn to explain the north aspect, or it could be wind, or being further back (more north, as well as west), or a combination. The turn has to be a certain size, the wind direction is not certain aside from east prevailin, ... whatever point best explains whatever happened ... we're down to a shrinking agreed range, and as you say, it's all within range of the one spot, so it's not ruled out after all. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 04:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
At this stay of play, I feel it will be helpful to have displayed prominently an overall map reflecting best guess on impact location as well as already flagged suspected launch sites, that is the two launch sites we have been discussing (near Snezhny ; near Chernukhino) , PLUS launch locations flagged and TIMED by released satellite data (currently only Russian data is available). I would be generous with the range here, we can find range suggested by public sources but presumably actual range depends on a number of things (height, radar range, trajectory, wind), and may exceed the "official" range. Another useful graphics piece info would be indicating the front lines, if there is a way to have those known. '''I would be extremely cautious with displaying graphics reflecting just one way of thinking (whether "worst", "best", or "middle of the way"), for the reason that any graphics is easy for human brain to absorb, more than words spread out on all our numerous pages, and ''no graphics at all'' is better than displayed ''skewed'' graphics.''' One-sided graphics may be '''inviting''' even more noise releases "supporting" some already skewed scenarios, and I feel that was already happening way too often. I feel that most helpful stance at this point would be as neutral as it gets. (Regarding trajectories, a default guess is a straight line, anything else requires an explanation. Straight line is implied so no strong need to actually display it, especially if it ends up curling in suggestive funny ways on graphics). --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 09:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::I've been doing a lot of graphics, so not all fired up for more. But if you are, I wouldn't mind making another if it helps. Maybe this is best taken to [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Map#Interception Location]] (a lot of this is redundant, and I might move it, but at least I can say let's stop piling intercept stuff here as well as there). Up to picking a certain spot around Chernukino? Some outskirts area, on a major road, it'll be a guess. A couple guesses could be mapped. Also, if it seems worth it, I can do updates and upload the new version as needed. Any timed satellite launches, let me know. Front lines, not known and IMO misleading in this case. Those who would know would try - and maybe manage - to sneak this thing behind them... the caution about leading labels, I can leave to you - you could just tell me what to put. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
:::::Would take me forever, may try later on, but not immediately; some cleanup/re-arrangement seems the easiest option. (If there are tools for collaborative mapping, may be good to start using those; but not aware of any) --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 11:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The preliminary [[Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Dutch preliminary report|Dutch report]] says the flight recorders were suddenly lost at 13:20:04 UTC at a point that almost exactly matches the 22.6 km mark. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 22:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Plume Location Re-challenged ===<br />
There is another video, essentially giving a bellingcat in voice-altered Russian. We discussed all that essentially; but he seems at least to end up with a claim for geolocation for the plume photo. Seems to be a new one (or I forgot the old one already by now). The claim is based on [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2055 unrelated panoramic photo] somebody took nearby, and [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2025 claimed to be geolocated by presenter]. Here it is on <br />
[http://maps.yandex.ru/-/CVG0nLo~ yandex map] ; it is taken from a terricon located at Lutuginskii bugor(=hill). There is a cableway from there to TsOF (remember, Khuevyi Torez tells about cableway from Lutugino to TsOF, so here they are); [http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=48.012722&lon=38.665695&z=14&m=b&show=/10590043/ru/ЦОФ-им-Киселёва TsOF is central enrichment plant]; photos from TSOF do show a similar [http://photos.wikimapia.org/p/00/00/62/81/85_big.jpg cableway] . So based on that and an audio of locals of unknown provenance and authenticity, discussing a missile-looking trail in the direction of [http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=48.041767&lon=38.741055&z=14&m=b&show=/18687650/ru/Химмаш Khimmash], our presenter [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2107 ends up] with this [http://maps.yandex.ru/-/CVG0rMnO claimed plume location] , somewhere near this Mochalino village. And apart from this, his contribution to the topic is the claim of a white spot on the other side of 3'2 Buk which he claims to match on the way out. I do not believe all those Buk sightings were taken on the same day, and so do not believe in the overall glue-up of the story, but geolocating the plume, no matter what the plume is, remains legitimate. This author gives his answer to that question. Is this geolocation correct? I do not know, it is not tight, there are lots of cableways out there I presume, and some posts nearby are not too unusual. I do not see a tight fit between Lutuginski bugor photo and the plume photo--some elements do match, but those are obviously not identical places. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 02:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Excellent. Let's keep the title. But I guess you just forgot the previous location. This is the same view. The plume could be added, but I doubt it, and it's to that view at a consistent time on a consistent day. I'm not convinced ''all'' Buk sightings are same day, but most of them being so is a good fit with this plume that way, and a plane down with damage that seems consistent to me. (I hate this case) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::Are you sure it's the same? This new one is NNE from Torez, I thought it was placed SE from Torez by [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/launch-location-detected-of-missile.html U@W ]--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::Going back to check, this is a different filming location proposed. Line of sight isn't included, but it seems to be the same line over the same area to the same place. Even before he could see the distinctive mound, Petros (U@W) had [http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-cfSqhRb2dKo/U80x2OxK1XI/AAAAAAAATNk/r42WpH-Bf-Q/s1600/missile+trail+9.jpg this lineup], which includes this spot. Right where Petros pic says "trees" is what this guy decided were the foreground trees where it was filmed. I wondered when checking but decided on the further version. And seems to be the same result either way. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::I don't think this is accurate, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2107 video at this timestamp] gives 'место пуска ракеты' (launch location) near [http://maps.yandex.ru/-/CVGgVPJN Molchalino]. I have not seen this elsewhere, I only seen the one claimed to be SE of Torez. He does not discuss filming location, but shows it on video and assumes it is in Torez near the terricon, which is close to what other sources assume. He does show the line of site on the video; it is nearly perpendicular to U@W. Lots of terricons, coalmines (so likely cableways), and power lines leading there in this area, so location now seems uncertain. As I understand, no solid evidence for either of these two being the correct geolocation (those cableways seems to be quite common) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::::I am/was confused then. I thought it showed a SW view, just from closer to the mound. Now I see at 33:45 a view from right by it, looking NE? Can't explain the other one you see in the distance in the fuller view (right ?) That's kind of towards Molchalino, but that won't explain anything I suspect. (and what a bad fake or odd coincidence to have a plume up there and a the Buk tracking imagery lead to south of Snizhne, oops!) We'll see south and west faces of buildings if looking NE, so sun will be shining from well east of south, but also quite high, like mid-day in the early AM - or maybe just earlier mid-day, like 11 am. That would be another sloppy mistake. I doubt the details will line up. BUT a couple minor things didn't quite seem to the other way, so maybe worth a try (later). --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I will send this comment also to<br />
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/01/27/is-this-the-launch-site-of-the-missile-that-shot-down-flight-mh17<br />
The US map launch location can best best and almost exactly located from the last magnified picture:<br />
https://wp4553-flywheel.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/32.jpg<br />
That location is here:<br />
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.9571993,38.7466343,488m/data=!3m1!1e3<br />
The triangulation result in the last 3 pictures of the article introduces unnecessary error and clearly does not match the magnified picture.<br />
There is a structure that looks similar to an airfield and it is just south of Chervony Zhovten (=Oktyabr), matching with a witness observation in that place ("it was flying as if from Saurivka", though not matching 2 other witnesses in the zello audio, indicating it came from government held positions further south, [2:00] "Well, it appears everybody saw where the missile has flown from." [2:04] "Well, where you are, everybody saw it, but the Ukrainian media, as usual, will say, will say that that were us.")<br />
It would be outside the range of the plume picture geolocation bounds, which may be either an error given the long distance, or, the plume picture was taken the day before from the reported grad missile launch (as well as the burned field). (The photographer gave his camera to the SBU after twittering the first picture, so later pictures and dates can not be taken for sure).<br />
http://7mei.nl/not-buk-m1-new-video-proof/--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 19:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:(1) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkCcCmYlMZc That audio], as it turns out, was posted by Torezinfo on 24 July, and updated on 1 February. Torezinfo is a favorite posting place of Khuevyi Torez(=KT), who posted a very [https://twitter.com/WowihaY/status/489914266439671808 similar location map on 17 July already]. KT mentions zello recordings on 25 July in the follow-up, so shortly after it gets on torezinfo. With all that stuff linked to this KT poster, I would not put much trust that any of that is genuine. (Or that this KT poster is not acting as a medium for SBU). (2)[http://fr1.sidcdn.net/maps/nsdc/2014/07/large/map-nsdc-2014-07-17-uk-w3000.jpg Ukrainian map] does give us some Ukrainian held area somewhere to the South, but from that map it is hard to tell where exactly opolchenie ends and UAF begins--(I would not know) (3) Actually, going from there, not likely to hit on the left side--so having it from Artemovsk (as Bezler told, indeed) seems most probable --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 21:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:: Here is another map http://liveuamap.com/e/2014/16-of-july-saurivka-is-bombarded-over-and-over-by-rus-grad?ll=47.907137219641115;38.75392913818363&zoom=8<br />
::And here is an article which says that both Marinovka and Tarany were held by National guard. http://www.interpretermag.com/ukraine-liveblog-day-149-russian-tanks-and-artillery-reach-donetsk/#3353<br />
::I just opened bellingcat https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/01/27/is-this-the-launch-site-of-the-missile-that-shot-down-flight-mh17 and see that large parts of the article disappeared, I think they are working on it. That location given by the US photo does not really match well with the plume direction anymore, lets see what they come up with--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 21:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::I believe Marinovka was [http://lifenews.ru/news/136715 taken by opolchenie on 16 July] (lifenews report). Tarany--do not know, perhaps still Ukraine, but not totally sure. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 21:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::: other sources say attack was repelled and forced them to retreat to Stepanivka http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_in_Shakhtarsk_Raion http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/213817.html--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 22:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::: That US photo launch location differs by an angle of about 11 (?) degrees from the brown line in the bellingcat plot (measured from the photographer's location). https://wp4553-flywheel.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/101.jpg (launch location is just visible below the letter 'p' of 'the word 'suspected'). I think this a lot and puts the 'plume' into question. But then there is only the US photo, which itself could be a production based on social media (or worse).--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 22:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Well some believed this is for real, then they got a case to answer [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/22/mh17-us-intelligence-russia-separatists-report Guardian: Photograph: US intelligence community] [https://twitter.com/barbarastarrcnn/status/491559153559932928/photo/1 @barbarastarrcnn] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
In the following, I assume that most of the social media pieces and leaked audio tapes are correct and connect the dots in a different way:<br />
<br />
1. On July 14, an Ukrainian Antonow 26 airplane was shot down by a missile near the Russian border town of Donetsk.<br />
http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/what-weapon-was-used-to-shot-down-ukraine-air-force-antonov-26-at-july-14/<br />
The video in above link showed the missile flying for 39 seconds until it hit. Only a BUK can fly that long, a manpad or Pantsir, also claimed to have been used, not (see first comment in link).<br />
<br />
2. According to a recorded audio tape published by the Ukrainian Secret Service SBU, rebels possessed a BUK ('BUK3x2') in the Donetsk area at least since July 14 ('we already have BUK'). At that date it may have been either on Russian or already rebel held territory.<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVAOTWPmMM4<br />
<br />
3. A social media search discovered only one other system in the area, capable of shooting down AN26 - a Pantsir. However, a Pantsir can't fly for 39 seconds. Based on a max.speed of 780m/s and max range of 20km, it can only fly for about 25s.<br />
http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.co.nz/2014/11/unnoticed-video-of-26-downing-confirms.html<br />
Therefore and because of the crew's intent to engage in the civil war, it is likely that AN26 was shot down by BUK3x2. Afterwards BUK3x2 had only 3 missiles left.<br />
<br />
4. On July 16, Ukrainian and rebel statements both confirmed the shoot down of a SU-25 plane near the "Marinivka border crossing", which is only a few kilometers south-south east of Pervomaiske, the destination of BUK3x2. Ukraine's defence ministry said: "It is likely that [the hit] was carried out by air-to-air rockets from the Russian air force which were patrolling the border in a pair." <br />
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-28345039<br />
This may have been another reason to install a BUK system in this area on the next day, leaving room for an accidental Ukrainian shoot down, apart from an accidental rebel shoot down and a willful Ukrainian false flag shoot down.<br />
<br />
5. On July 16, rebels fired grad missiles from a location near Pervomaiske. The plume may have been photographed as well by an SBU informant in Torez and twittered on the next day, claiming to show the launch of the missile hitting MH17.<br />
http://7mei.nl/not-buk-m1-new-video-proof/<br />
<br />
6. On July 17, BUK3x2 was seen in rebel territory on its way to Pervomaiske, south of Torez. Ukrainian SBU knew about the arrival latest since July 14 and about its destination latest July 17 morning, allowing a false flag operation from positions held nearby.<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVAOTWPmMM4<br />
<br />
7. There was an ongoing battle in the region with "fluent" contact lines. Marinivka and Tarany, about 8 kilometers south-east and south of Pervomaiske, were controlled by Ukrainian National Guard as well as all of the border region. Marinivka would match well with the direction of the Torez plume photo.<br />
http://liveuamap.com/e/2014/16-of-july-saurivka-is-bombarded-over-and-over-by-rus-grad?ll=47.907137219641115;38.75392913818363&zoom=8<br />
http://www.interpretermag.com/ukraine-liveblog-day-149-russian-tanks-and-artillery-reach-donetsk/#3353<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_in_Shakhtarsk_Raion<br />
<br />
8. The Russian Defense ministry claimed in a news conference, that on July 17, Ukraine installed several BUK system near rebel held areas.<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bNPInuSqfs#t=1567<br />
<br />
9. In a popular 'zello' audio recording, witnesses in the area were talking about the launch of the missile hitting MH17. A witness from "Oktyabr" (Chervony Zhovten) claimed "it was flying as if from Saurivka". <br />
Two other witnesses said:<br />
[2:00] "Well, it appears everybody saw where the missile has flown from."<br />
[2:04] "Well, where you are, everybody saw it, but the Ukrainian media, as usual, will say, will say that that were us."<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkCcCmYlMZc<br />
<br />
10. A Reuter's witness also claimed that the missile was fired from Kiev held territory. Reuters, however, said, "off camera, he said that it was launched from a nearby rebel site. Asked why originally he said the opposite he said it was because he was afraid of the rebels."<br />
In a new interview this witness claims that "off camera comments were just made up by the [Reuters] journalist".<br />
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=497_1427729491<br />
<br />
11. BUK3x2 was again photographed in Lugansk with its 3 missiles, no missile fired since July 14.<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4HJmev5xg0<br />
<br />
12. The US presented a very low resolution satellite photo with the track of a missile added. The launch location does not match well with the direction geolocated with the Torez plume photo, it deviates by about 11 degrees in angle, hence either or both appear to be incorrect.<br />
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/01/27/is-this-the-launch-site-of-the-missile-that-shot-down-flight-mh17/#comment-12493<br />
<br />
13. Award winning investigative journalist Robert Parry reported about leaked US intelligence "that U.S. intelligence agencies do have detailed satellite images of the likely missile battery that launched the fateful missile, but the battery appears to have been under the control of Ukrainian government troops dressed in what look like Ukrainian uniforms."<br />
https://consortiumnews.com/2014/07/20/what-did-us-spy-satellites-see-in-ukraine/<br />
And later Parry wrote: "But I’m now told that U.S. intelligence analysts ... are concentrating on the scenario of a willful Ukrainian shoot-down of the plane, albeit possibly not knowing its actual identity."<br />
https://consortiumnews.com/2014/08/03/flight-17-shoot-down-scenario-shifts/<br />
<br />
14. During the coming months BUK shrapnel may have been collected from the AN26 wreckage and planted in the MH17 wreckage.--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 00:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Photographer Statement===<br />
[http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com.au/2014/12/interview-with-eyewitness-who-made.html Reported to say] : "That day did not foretell anything special would happen. In the morning I woke up and went to my work. At four ó clock in the afternoon I arrived home. And at 16:20 we heard an explosion. The first explosion was not very heavy. 15 seconds later, something like that, there was a second explosion, which was louder and it made the windows shake."<br />
: Did not foretell --an ass, --is this lawyer-written? 'We heard". --Took till December to polish up ? --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 16:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:: Agreed. 'I did not know in advance this would happen.' Uh, who said you might? And 15 seconds must be rocket travel. Did he hear the firing from there? Could be, not that far. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Time delay consideration ===<br />
Photographer reported two sound booms td=15 seconds apart; an interpretation may be launch and impact sounds arriving to him in Torez. If P=(0,0,0) is photographer cordinates, I=(d,0, h) is impact, with d ground distance between Torez and Rozypnoe, h is the height of flight at 10 km , and L =(x,y,0) is launch location, dist(A,B) is Euclidean distance between A and B, c is peed of sound, and n (about 2.5) is missile speed in Machs, then<br />
<br />
(1). dist (P,L) = dist(L,I)/n + dist (I,P) - td*c <br />
<br />
(2). dist (P,L) >= h/n + dist (I,P) - td*c <br />
<br />
(1) is a biquadratic equation for y given x (square enough times for square root to disappear); plotting that gives a closed 'ellipse-like' curve on (x,y) plane; once on that curve, time delay is exactly td seconds (doing this involves solving quadratic equations and removing spurious solutions not satisfying (1) ) . That curve is at distance about 13 km in NW direction from photographer in Torez, and about 22 km in SE direction from him on the Southern ( Saur Mogila side). <br />
<br />
(2) gives a simple estimate that distance between photographer and launcher is greater than the known right hand side; that distance is more than something like 13 km<br />
<br />
(3) Requiring launch withing the range, --launch is not more than 20 km horizontally from the impact-- selects a NW arc of the curve described in (1) ; that arc is to the NW from Torez, and goes slightly NW from the impact point (meaning its ground projection). <br />
<br />
Conclusion, based on the above, is that launch is too far from the photographer, to match the photo. <br />
<br />
(Knowing exact time delay can tighten the argument. With what's actually known, and objection can be raised that whatever actual time delay was, it appeared to be 15 seconds to the photographer. Graphics of the curve may be supplied if needed). --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Ooh. That kind of math could really come in handy with recorded audio cues, for example. But based on '15 seconds, something like that,' from memory months later, I wouldn't put any weight on it. If that turns out correct and pretty exact, there's a good point. Otherwise, the photo and other stuff is more solid, and says it's just about where it should be, as far as I've seen anyway. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Contrail ==<br />
This is what an "impressive launch contrail" of a big missile might look like.<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3lLwP1y0w8 АТО. Запуск двух ТРК Точка-У. Артемовск.] (ATO. The launch of two TRK Tochka-U. Artemivs'k.) – August 28, 2014<br />
-- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 22:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Something happens in the sky. This is the people's reaction:<br />
* ''20/09/2014 Over many parts of the DPR and LPR were seen circles in the sky.'' [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7310 1,] [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7311 2,] [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7312 3,] [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7313 4,] [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7314 5]<br />
-- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 03:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
Tochka U missile is single stage solid fuel, which is a mixture of ammonium perchlorate with rubber and aluminum powder (Russian [http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/tochka/9ch151.shtml "ДАП–15В" fuel] ).<br />
I could not find information on Buk with a comparable level of detail. Buk missile is single stage, solid fuel of some type, "dual-mode solid propellant (total work time - about 15 seconds)" [http://www.webcitation.org/67kZeZxeh] , [http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-9K37-Buk.html]<br />
Earlier "Куб" ("Cube") missile used [http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/kub/kub.shtml 'ballist' fuel,] [https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%85#.D0.91.D0.B0.D0.BB.D0.BB.D0.B8.D1.81.D1.82.D0.B8.D1.82.D0.BD.D1.8B.D0.B5 gunpowder] + plasticiser type (Russian "ВИК-2") at the start, followed by some sort of ramjet ("direct flow rocket engine") at final stage. It is not clear, but possible, that fuels and contrails of Tochka U and Buk are different. Here are some videos with Buk launch: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDXScnEKaP0] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EAtNpsXrgWs], and [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSXMhaFntrU a longer with stupid music version]. Those videos appear to be shot from a closer distance than Tochka U video; and a contrail on them does look quite impressive. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 10:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:The amount of smoke is highly dependant om Alumin(i)um loading. In general more aluminum is more 'oomph' and also more smoke.<br />
:On the other hand, it's common to alter the loading for other reasons. I refer to the Syrian Volcano (122mm variety) that started out as high Al-load and quite smokey but recent versions have low Al load but perhaps similar characteristics? --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 10:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Here is something that might be a BUK: Ukrainian AN-26 shot down from Russian border area on July 14th. Ukraine@war claims it as a BUK. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 10:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
* [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.fi/2014/11/unnoticed-video-of-26-downing-confirms.html Unnoticed video of AN-26 downing confirms shot down from Russian territory] – Ukraine@war, November 27, 2014<br />
** Video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoS4kgHxPnE Ukrainian Military Aircraft Su-25 Downed After Russian Attack Near Izvarino, July 16]<br />
:::Does not look like Buk, short contrail, --not all the way to the ground like on Buk video launches. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::It was a BUK. It flew 39 seconds in the video, a Pantsyr can't do this, see also first comment in this link http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/what-weapon-was-used-to-shot-down-ukraine-air-force-antonov-26-at-july-14/. Easy maths - at Mach 3 (1020m/s) it can fly for about 42 seconds (range 42 km, bit more because initially it is slower). According to the audio tape, BUK 3x2 was in the area on that day! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVAOTWPmMM4 Ukraine@war needed 5 months to find something else in the area, but the Pantsyr can't fly that long. This is how BUK 3x2 likely lost a missile.--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 21:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::::Well, yes, it does takes 42 seconds to fly 42 km at 1000 m/s , but that does not mean what we see '''must be''' a Buk. They start discussing that plane caught fire at 0:03 on the video already. We do not see what on hell is going on until some 30 s later. This plane likely was brought down by Igla or similar modern MANPAD. Possibly two hits, at 0:03 and another at around 0:30. Or it got on fire at the start of the video and than eventually went down (It is unlikely to have SU 25 pilot bailing out after Buk strike; or particularly likely catching fire as it's not aiming at the engine; contrail is weak for a Buk, too). Pantsir claims are much later from what I have seen,--- and no need for Pantsir to shoot SU 25. ---If something is there on SBU audio and some murky photo, does not mean it's all for real, and that what we do actually see all have to be linked to all that murky SBU stuff. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 22:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::::There may be some confusion here, just a recapture<br />
::::::First video https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xTT6BDRA8_k<br />
::::::0:03-0:11 buring object <br />
::::::0:17-0:33 contrail making a half looping<br />
::::::Second video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoS4kgHxPnE<br />
::::::0:29-0:39 contrail making a half looping + detonation.<br />
::::::ukraine@war http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/11/unnoticed-video-of-26-downing-confirms.html<br />
::::::says both videos show AN26 shoot down on July 14 (second video with wrong label SU-25)<br />
::::::says 2nd video impact at 0:39, claims missile has been burning for at least 39 seconds--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 06:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::::::After reconsideration, I would say ukraine@war is right, both videos show AN26 shoot down, but wrong, people were initially watching AN26 with engine burning and a second missile was fired. That missile was seen burning about 16 seconds in first video, and time has to be added to reach that altitude/location, so likely over 20 seconds. That would exclude man-pad, Pantsir (?), likely BUK, R73 air-to-air, ...--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 06:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Actually, it is interesting to know how contrail of Buk on a long haul launch looks like. It is said that it fires engine for some 15 seconds only (and unknown will it do less, if it can do away with less). That 15 seconds need to put it at a spot where it can reach the target with little, if any, engine work and doing turns only. It is not very clear how much targeting happens in the first 15 seconds, likely it does some; and it is self-guided and doing proportional navigation later on. Knowing details here allows to find exact trajectory, short of that thinking it goes straight to the collision point is a sensible idea. In any case, heavy contrail '''raising from the ground''', perhaps higher than the target is. Contrail is white, and stays put for a while. Seriously heavier than the stuff we see on social media. There are youtube videos of Buk launches giving an idea --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:These 15 seconds are wrong. Here is a video (start at 2:00) showing a SA-11 burn fuel for 35 seconds until its too far to distinguish. It is detonating at 42 seconds. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBlU2hHYJMg (I just copied the comment from here http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/what-weapon-was-used-to-shot-down-ukraine-air-force-antonov-26-at-july-14/ )--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 23:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::That video probably shows a modern version ('over horizon' capability was mentioned somewhere regarding modern developments; this one seems to be showing us something like that). 15 sec is coming from Russian sources [http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/buk/buk.shtml Зенитная ракета 9М38 выполнена с применением двухрежимного твердотопливного двигателя (общее время работы - около 15 секунд)]. Older versions also had shorter listed range. 22-25-35-42 km range, going through modifications. (Would be happier without 15 sec engine limit actually-easier to know trajectory) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::Actually what goes off is [https://digitalempire.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/9m38m1.jpg 9M38M1], the one supposed to have [http://pvo.guns.ru/buk/buk_02.htm 15 sec engine run], but the video lasts for 40 sec. This appears to be edited video, around 2:30 we got two tracks, than one slides right unreasonably for a natural recording. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 02:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::Since this is a point we haven't already covered around that I know of, I'll pop in for it. 42 seconds I gather is the time for the fuel to burn out and the thing to fall, like a grad rocket or the like can only do. But this is a missile with guidance, set to intercept a moving airliner. Therefore, app. 40-45 seconds is the longest, not the shortest, it can fly (or am I just confused?) But 15 seconds is plausible, depending. Still might be untrue, not trusting people saying stuff. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::::After the engine is off it is high up and and at high speed, still can fly until gravity acceleration brings it down, and is on guided flight -unlike Grad-because fins can move causing it to turn. Issues here are visuals (contrail all the way or only about 15 km in flight), and trajectory. With engine on for 40 +secs it will go straight to collision point doing proportional navigation all the way (exploding earlier if it needs to be). If it is only 15 sec, trajectory is less clear, it may for example use engine to climb high up, than do guided fall and proportional navigation to the target from a spot where engine delivered it (for low and close-by target, that may potentially end up with a hit from another side--some drawings from unclear sources were showing opposite side hits at under 1 km and direct hits at 10-15 km). Or it may use engine to end up on a ballistic trajectory hitting target (no side changing than). This is solid fuel engine so there is not much control on how quickly it burns off, that time is a set design feature. What we see on launch video is 40+ seconds of engine work-- will go direct to collision point in that case. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 12:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::::That's another clue that plume of smoke photo is not a Buk launch, that would give at least some 10-15 km worth of contrail, not a plume; with 40+seconds engine, contrail all the way to impact...(or else, launched from far away, over 40 km distance) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 12:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==About accents==<br />
<br />
[http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29109398 This report,] released one day before the preliminary official report, recycles visual imagery already discussed on this page, and attempts a new claim that a BUK crew spoke with Russian-'Muscovite' accent. The claim is made by (British-accent) actors representing 'eyewitness(es)', with a visual imagery of a car at unknown night-lighted location in the embedded video, and some text, provided in English. Regarding 'Muscovite' accent, first it is not easy to tell, for example [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBCfmlMkYMg this video] is Mr. Poroshenko speaking in Russian to a resident of Crimea, replying in Russian, and commented by a presenter, who is speaking 'Muscovite'. Although Mr. Poroshenko has a slight southern accent, there is little difference between the three speakers in practice. Moreover, actors and presenters can easily switch from Southern to Muscovite as required. <br />
<br />
Secondly, if somebody speaks 'Muscovite', this does not mean this person works for Russia or the rebels,--- he can work for any side (PS. No change of condition to the blue dumpster on Zuhres video was reported in this latest update). --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Thanks for bringing this. What a stupid report. "Three eyewitnesses, all civilians, separately told Panorama that they saw a missile-launcher in rebel-held territory a few hours before the Boeing jet was hit." Yeah, video shows the same. It was there. It probably shot down the plane. Accents, as you note, aren't the best indicator of anything, and even the reason sounds vague: the G thing, which even I know about (back to Olga/Olha). The "Russians" might even be Russian dissident mercenaries right from Moscow, for all we know. Who paid them? Their going up to the media and saying "you didn't see us" was not a good plan to stay secret. The witnesses: chosen at random? Directed to them? <br />
::''If correct, the Kremlin has to explain to the relatives of the 298 passengers and crew who died - including ten Britons - why Russian military personnel were allegedly seen in the area escorting a BUK shortly before MH17 was shot down.''<br />
:I think Russia could come up with a reason or two such allegations are made. Those ten Britons' tax dollars fund it. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: Hmm, this foreigner is confused by dat BBC talk: "If correct" ... doesn't that mean it ''wouldn't be'' merely "allegedly" but, well, correct? ;oP --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 23:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::It means "If {made up vague allegation) is correct....then "SHOCK HORROR CONCLUSION IS TRUE". this lets them be as wild or wide off the mark as they like and the magic "if correct" turns it true. Without any effort to check if it IS true in our understanding of that word.[[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 03:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::Another BBC weapon in its arsenal of innuendo and dissimulation is the quotation mark. Whenever they are dealing with something of dodgy provenance, or something of good provenance they want to weaken they put it in quotation marks. e.g. - ISIS beheaded 20 Syrians. becomes ISIS 'beheaded 20 Syrians' or 'ISIS' beheaded 20 Syrians or ISIS 'beheaded' 20 'Syrians' or ISIS beheaded '20' Syrians. No need for corrections later. Any version can be retrospectively justified or otherwise. --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 03:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== If Buk 3x2 Was in Russia ==<br />
Previously, it seemed quite likely the Buk launcher associated with the shoot-down was one of those owned and operated by the Kiev regime, simply snuck into separatist territory, maybe with some cover to make them even invite it in like a Trojan Horse. Then, I saw the November Bellingcat research on "Buk 3x2." As covered [[#Bellingcat and 3x2|above,]] this claims to match that unit with a distinct one seen three weeks earlier, driving in a military convoy well inside Russian territory. This is widely taken as clear proof the Russian military supplied the weapons, and it is strongly indicative of that. However, the general possibilities are worth laying out at this point.--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
All options below share these presumptions: <br />
* MH17 was brought down by the missing SA-11 missile AND/OR (in some cases) at least the launcher's appearance was coordinated to give that impression and is a clue to the plot <br />
* The videos and photos in question are genuine and not manipulated (my usual presumption, same here)<br />
* The Russia geolocations (many of them, making sense in context) are correct - Buk 3x2 as seen was seen in Russia, between Kurk, Stary Oskol, and a bit south of there (not verified but most likely correct) <br />
<br />
Presuming all that:<br />
* Buk 3x2 (seen in Russia) and the mystery one are not the same - this require paint job match and matching damage to the lip above the track to make a Kiev-owned unit look like that one. It's possible, but not the most compelling.<br />
* The two units are the same - it was in the convoy in Russia and also towed around Donetsk oblast July 17. <br />
<br />
If the unit is the same, there are a few possibilities for the nature of that connection, some of them silly or just there for logical fullness:<br />
* It was Kiev's unit and they snuck it over and into this convoy, and...<br />
** ... got it back later<br />
** ... the Russians kept it and used it for their own operation<br />
* It was Kiev's but some other way lost to the Russians <br />
* It was Russia's but Kiev managed to sneak over and steal it out of the convoy and then use it for the false-flag event<br />
* Same, but Donbass rebels then stole it from Kiev <br />
* It was Russian, and someone on the Russian side drove it over and then it was stolen by Kiev forces <br />
* Someone on the Russian side drove it over and it stayed in their control or handed over to their chosen parties, or transferred at the border - that is, no Kiev interference.<br />
<br />
So far, I'm inclined to call Bellingcat's reading (the last option, the widely accepted one) the single most reasonable one, though maybe outweighed by the ''combined'' alternatives. It's not fun to feel almost swayed to a view so close to Kiev's problematic narrative, but this is what I see, pretty basic. Some combined maybes go against the straightforward reading. As for other thoughts I might be missing, well, that's partly why it's here. Let me know, I'm all ears. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Starting from that reasonable if unproven last option, not one but three final types of possibility remain. If it was freely moving in convoy inside Russia, it probably belongs to Russia at the time. Presumed. However, it could be that...<br />
* '''A rogue officer''' at Kursk - maybe a closet Nazi who sympathizes with Kiev, hates Putin, or just took a bribe - provided this unit to Kiev. He would set up this convoy to anchor the thing in Russia, then send the shady unit on, with his own guys or to hand off to Kiev's, who took it from there as I've speculated. The strangely obvious manner it was displayed - on both sides of the border, with its number slowly fading away - is consistent with this motive + intelligence. <br />
* '''It happened as reported''' (one way or another) Putin's military signed off on the loan, apparently with a sent crew or maybe given to local handlers, who for their own purposes did fire that shot. The strangely obvious manner it was displayed is consistent with this + stupidity/sloppiness, providing proof that probably wasn't even needed, just helpful, to start the punishment. At that point, it would be a real problem about as trumpeted, and still I would suggest we consider what the real crime is under the circumstances, if the solutions pursued are fair, or if this is all just geo-politics and warfare by other means cloaked in a cynical disguise of concern for justice. ^ <br />
* '''Koo-koo (?):''' "as reported plus" - a mega conspiracy theory: it goes all the way to the top, and Putin is that rogue general selling the nation out, to demonize himself and Russia and be sure to get caught, in an elaborate staged play - Putin (or whoever's running things presumed to be run by HIM) is somehow controlled, his opposition scripted and ultimately geared towards provoking and achieving an expansion of "The West" into "The North." (I've always considered this possible, and one that's occurred to me more lately, and seems worth listing ... but I don't buy it. I'm going with "rogue officer" with a second bet on one of the other divergence points listed before that - unspecified. Third choice is "as reported.")--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::^ Not to apologize for egregious behavior if it really is that, but let's please compare this to the shoot-down of Iran Air 655 by the USS Vincennes in 1988. A US Naval ship illegally in Iranian waters shot down an Iranian passenger plane with 290 people aboard, despite all the safeguards and sensors working correctly (the consistent clues the ship's computers gave them saying "do not shoot" can only be overridden so totally by choice). But it was deemed by the US to be no crime, just accident and Iran's fault for being provocative, and useful in the effort to compel them to quit the war with Iraq they were just starting to win. In Ukraine, repeated Air Force attacks on rebel-held cities, often hiding their jets behind civilian airliners, might both justify arming the rebels with such defensive weaponry, and invite an honest mistake from a team running this machine in stand-alone mode. The SBU version however overrides this all: it was an accident, but the Russians' intent was never defensive, always planning to kill an airliner, just meaning it to be a different one. That would clearly be criminal in all regards, and it's a sub-set of "as reported" - not a very good one. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Sorry, I can't help you here as I don't share your presumptions. I consider it a waste of time and energy to connect dots that are laid out by "sources" like the SBU and Brown Noses - proven liars and at least in case of the former producers of fraud "evidence" - and therefore I didn't even read your logical chains based on them. Just saying to not make it appear that I agree. ;o) --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 10:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:Poking at specific presumptions could be helpful, but it all could go on and on and remain inconclusive anyway. And I take back what I say about leaning this way or that - I keep leaning different ways and on balance I'm feeling sort of weightless here. I think that comes through in the text... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I don't see the numbers matching, getting close is not good enough, and I quit it there. Yes, it is weird that they are close, and that this murky business is covered by Spiegel, but can't really help with any of that. There is lots of murky weird stuff going on all the time, can't change the whole world to stop it. (Also: the Russian Government would be fully capable of doing a painting job properly if deciding to starting painting at all, their food trucks are all nicely painted, etc; just too sloppy for them to be behind) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:The paint being what it is, between that and the bend and light patch below all lining up, I think we're down to the same unit, or faked to match, and the possibilities branching off those two. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::As discussed earlier, the dot is shifted off the middle, more on Russian video than in PM photo; in Russian video, number 2 has well-curved semi-circle; in PM, it is almost straight segment. Bad photos for comparison but it's off, as far as it's possible to tell. As for the skirt bend, too blurry and distorted on PM to tell; Russian video, I think it is actually dirt, not a bend. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Also, looks like two squares , a bit darker than background, over first digit in PM photo. Unclear is it paint or digital camera effect. Any sane person hiding something will paint over everything, not paint just specifically over the first digit. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::I think I got everything linesd up - it has to be de-skewed the same, and all ines up. You might be scraping bottom on this one. The curve is there, at its elongated part, at an angle. The dent/dirt looks the same, same place, relative to the light patch and all else. It's too much for coincidence by a couple of degrees. BUT I just shifted back to option ... should have numbered them. ... the middle starting option - image authenticity. I hardly ever call digital image fakery, and not calling it here, but... I still haven't checked the new (to us) June videos, so I'll stay presuming it might be okay - video's harder to fake than a photo. But on the other end, it all comes down to the one photo. That I noticed, no other views are close enough to say if these matching clues are present. (the bend, maybe). The squares you noticed, maybe a paint clue or just artifacting. It may too pixelly. I cannot really analyze the technicals properly to say. It looks okay, but possibly fishy too. Maybe the dirty windshield helps hid the painted in pixels to make this thing - just once - or maybe again in other images - look like that Russian 3x2 unit, exaggerated and going into rebel hands... Some kind of coincidences setting that up to work, but it's possible, and an expert should look closer at this picture. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC) <br />
::::I, --at the very start of discussion,-- zoomed picture on screen (by a lot), and measured length ratios (to the dot/ total panel length), parallel to the 2 sides of the panel, using ruler (millimeters one) over screen. I ended up with ratios in horizontal side of panel directions were off, by more than blurring; in vertical, could not tell-within blurring. This is not sensitive to skewing or zooming. So I don't think it's the same. May double-check measurement when have time; or somebody else can. Did not have time to try doing digital version of the same/similar method. Did not look carefully at comparison the 2 after de-skewing , but have an impression this is different; not that much skewing there; it looks essentially straight line on PM, skewing will not make circle into a line. May look at 2's some other time. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::::Finally took a closer look and PM was still off a bit on rotation and vertical-to-horizontal - in line with your observations. Still working out the adjusted graphic. The white is shifted a bit left of lining up perfectly... I think it's still close enough it's the same or is supposed to be, and not far enough off I'd call a bad fake - probably just pixel shift. Will see tonight. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 00:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Okay, I don't have a comprehensible graphic handy yet, but Maybe Resup is seeing what I am now. I was having a hard time aligning it all, so focused just one the one rectangle panel with the number. Still, on the PM photo I trace apparent edges, best line of dark pixels ... it lines up, proportion-wise, with the white spots on or a hair to apparent left. But when the whole image is placed by lining up that center, the rest of it doesn't line up - both sides seem shifted right, or the middle shifted left. (also the track areas appear far to the left, but they stick out a bit, and from the back angle flattened like this, that's why. Each difference in relief from "true flat" plane of the side will cause this... maybe I'm just not correlating it right, and maybe it's a clue the photo is messed with. possible offsets in both white patches as well, but maybe too in the natural fuzz zone. ?? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
If the launcher was driven over the Russian border, fired once then driven back again after it had carried out its mission, the part of the story that doesn't make sense is the sighting on a stolen flatbed truck outside Donetsk. If the Russians were prepared to supply a launcher but not a truck, the stolen truck would have had to be driven to the border to be loaded and there'd be no reason to risk a journey back to Donetsk. The west to east journey is more consistent with CL's original suggestion of a launcher from the Ukrainian base north of Donetsk. If this was a false flag, there would have had to be a paint job to give it Russian markings (maybe to match one in a recent video). Otherwise the videos would point to separatists with a captured Ukrainian BUK, leaving the Ukrainian government liable for failing to close its airspace when it knew that a BUK had gone missing. [[User:Pmr9|Pmr9]] ([[User talk:Pmr9|talk]]) 16:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:Now this sounds engaged, thanks P. Yes, why drive it to Donetsk? (Other than to be seen in the smoking-gun rebel capitol, before getting seen in Lugansk too) And I never thought of that why it had to be Russian. Indeed, for liability reasons, it had to be a snuck-in surprise, not captured (unless they could come up with a reason why they didn't learn about it, and I suppose they could). The suggestion has problems and was slow to gain adherents, but maybe this kind of thought has swayed people to realize Kiev "must be right" about that... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Sunday Times story: original is behind paywall but reprint [http://malaysiandigest.com/news/531506-ukraine-ignored-warning-to-close-malaysia-airlines-flight-mh17-airspace-before-tragedy.html here]. Eurocontrol's experts "spoke privately to their Ukrainian counterparts" about their concerns but Ukraine refused to close its airspace. "Ukraine intelligence sources said they had been made aware that several anti-aircraft systems had crossed from Russia into Ukraine at least a week before the MH17 incident. But they claimed the intelligence was not “100 per cent reliable” and could not have been used as grounds for 'drastic moves' such as shutting airspace". [[User:Pmr9|Pmr9]] ([[User talk:Pmr9|talk]])<br />
:::Okay, well there's a train headed this way then. Several units? The whole June convoy? We do have this alleged maybe-Buk launch just before on July 14, an associated loader seen later, etc. And Ukie intel somehow did point to this number "312" you can't see on the unit they tracked so quickly. Did they already have that obscure Russian video everyone missed until now? And more yet showing the "1" still there? That early on? (that's all very speculative, but interesting). It has to be snuck in, maybe, but then it helps that you can vouch for it - so they fudge and average this aspect. Main point then seems to be, whatever failures they mumble out on their own end, it has to implicate both Russia (provided weapon) and the rebels (held the space needing demonized).--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references /></div>Antidyatelhttps://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17/BUK_Tracking&diff=22579Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/BUK Tracking2015-06-06T13:31:52Z<p>Antidyatel: /* Kiev's Holdings */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:MH17]]<br />
==Who Has the BUK Launchers in Ukraine?==<br />
=== Kiev's Holdings ===<br />
<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3MomxNHnUA#t=288 Ukrainian Buk in ATO area], 16 July 2014. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 23:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CBQbFC9loc#t=350 Captured map] of 1 battalion of UAF 95 air-mobile brigade, dated beginning of July 2014, show location of 2 positions of Ukrainian Buks. Basurin points them on the map; but video resolution is insufficient to see those. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 05:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Maps can be faked, but still I'm curious what it shows. I imagine there might be a flat image of the map somewhere. Resup, could you maybe have a look? It's too slow for me to try an image search with translated words. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
::I have not seen the map in news reports mentioning the finding; and now I see it says explicitly that they are not going to make it public, [http://real-info.info/novorossiya/13429-vlasti-dnr-ne-budut-obnarodovat-karty-vsu-do-okonchaniya-rassledovaniya-krusheniya-mh17 until MH 17 investigation is completed]--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 23:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::Here is a press conference report--with video but not the map --[https://vk.com/strelkov_info?w=wall-57424472_57351 (Basurin press conference)]--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 23:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
It is possible to understand what it means when they say Ukr army controlled territory. But what is rebel controlled territory. Even if we take the maximum estimate for rebel numbers in July 2014 of 10,000 fighters, it gives a fraction of a rebel per square km, if we assume uniform distribution. In reality rebels very concentrated in Lughansk, Donetzk, Saur Mogila, 2 cauldrons. So everything else is free for all territory. When MSM declares rebel controlled territory, they just rely on Kiev's maps. Very reliable source. --[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 13:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)-- Antidyatel June 6<br />
:That's a good point that really came into play with the [[Mariupol Market Shelling]] incident - turns out all this eastern fire form rebel-held areas is from areas listed by Kiev as places they don't have full control over, that any crazy thing could happen from and it's prob'ly not them. Might even be a section on that here, if not, could be. There is an apparent pass right through a checkpoint, basically where the Pari Match "photo" was taken. That at least is a problem for a simple slip-in op, but it can be done and otherwise the theory could explain a lot (like, everything maybe) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC) <br />
<br />
<br />
==== BUK 312 and comrades ====<br />
[[File:Buk 312 sbu.jpg|thumb|left|BUK 312 on a trailer. Photo shown on SBU website and later removed. – ''[[:File:Buk 312 sbu.jpg|more...]]'']]<br />
Part of the material the Ukrainian SBU released to suggest that "rebels" shot down MH17 with a BUK, was photo material showing a BUK TELAR numbered 312 on a trailer, alleging it has been photographed on its way back to Russia. This was quickly shown to be extremely questionable as evidence surfaced showing number 312 in Ukrainian hands. The SBU then removed the photos from their website while other material like a suggestive photo showing a "plume" remained there. <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Buk 321.png|thumb|TELAR 321 as posted by @MOR2537 to illustrate what he alleges to have witnessed]]<br />
This was outlined (and a screenshot saved) in more detail [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/07/21/the-mh17-investigation-and-buk-312/ over at Human Rights Investigations]. A [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bj-VZB0ZdEA video embedded there] shows BUK 312 in Ukrainian hands back in March. The other two TELAR's seen in the video are numbers 323 and 321. BUK 321 [http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Ukrainian+government+forces+maneuver+antiaircraft+missile+launchers+they+transported+north+west+from+Slavyansk+eastern+Ukraine+Friday+July+2014+Photo+Dmitry+Lovetsky/10004193/story.html has been seen] in Ukrainian hands just two weeks before MH17 crashed, transported close to "liberated" Slavyansk. <br />
<br />
Interestingly enough, one of the tweets [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com/2014/07/reconstruction-of-whereabouts-of-buk.html spoon-fed by Ukrainian loyalists to imaginative Dutch blogger Ukraine@War] to suggest that there have been eyewitnesses for a "rebel" BUK, is then [https://twitter.com/MOR2537/status/489709431467171841 followed-up by the alleged eyewitness] with a picture of BUK 321 to illustrate what he has seen. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::yep, he is a conduit for Kiev but seems to have outside info, too. Like originals of photos he can get geolocations off (he says). But also has good collection of very early photos etc which have since become hard to find.Not sure I trust him though. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 15:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::I hadn't seen that before, thanks. I'll be considering... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 22:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: More photos: [http://www.armyrecognition.com/images/stories/east_europe/russia/missile_vehicle/sa-11_gadfly/pictures/sa-11_gadfly_anti-aircraft_missile_to_armoured_tracked_vehicle_Russian_army_russia_011.jpg 321] - [http://rt.com/files/news/2a/b1/40/00/640x480.jpg 312] - [http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1870560.1405614701!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_970/correction-ukraine.jpg 321] --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:Buk 312 in Lugansk.png|thumb|left|According to alleged former operator "A", this is BUK 312 after relocation sometime in Spring 2014 in Metallist settlement of Lugansk, with Yubileynaya mines in the background]]<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmI2KCOt_sA Anatolii Sharii] version of events, shows that Buk blamed on Russia has number 312 and was earlier photographed as part of Ukrainian convoy. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 20:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Sharii interviewed a Ukrainian soldier who served on Buk 312; this can be found on [http://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/1947657.html Cassad]. The guy does not know about MH17; but recalls SBU claiming it was this Buk 312 responsible. From this interview, meaning of 312: 3 is division number, 1 battery number, 2 unit number in a battery (there are loading and command vehicles, not just launchers). This UAF Buk is initially from Luhansk; than relocated to Kramatorsk; than places in a field. A serviceman took it on a ride with hand break on, leading to a small fire affecting electrics and requiring repairs. So it was traveling on a trailer at some point. It was than moved to Dnepropetrovsk, village of Novogrigorievka (apparently for repairs, and after trailer photo was taken, but exact date was not given). Buks from Luhansk which were not broken were moved by UAF elsewhere (and according to the soldier, were photographed in variaous places including Gorlovka; while 3 broken Buks remained in Luhansk) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: Interesting. I see that the "[http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Ukrainian+government+forces+maneuver+antiaircraft+missile+launchers+they+transported+north+west+from+Slavyansk+eastern+Ukraine+Friday+July+2014+Photo+Dmitry+Lovetsky/10004193/story.html has been seen]" link to the Montreal Gazette is dead by now. If anything I'm surprised that it lasted that long. Minitrue at work. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 04:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: [http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2014/12/17/shooting-down-mh-17-buk-312-story-false- Here] (and mirrored [http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2014/12/17/buk-312-crew-member-says-rebel-shoot-down-of-flight-mh17-story-is-false-transcript/ here]) is an English translation of the interview. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: And [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2rRCSNp33I here] is the video itself with English subtitles. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 20:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:What you said about the accident and the photo showing the damaged BUK on a trailer is about the very photo the SBU showed on their website as "evidence" and later removed. Also adding that he says friends in Lugansk saw "rebels" trying to repair the units they had left behind, but he knows that "whole equipment units" were lacking so the remaining stuff was "unusable". And that he says that he asked his ex-comrades still operating the BUK if they dunnit, and they said they didn't. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Good to see this section expand. Interesting additions from the alleged operator, and reasonable-sounding (the photo might show smoke stains to the back left side). But in the end, this issue might be not so relevant. I doubt it was Kiev's unit 312 that was used, and seeing how Kiev always was eyeing a supposedly Russian unit 3x2, maybe 312 ... In fact, if the middle number connotes unit number, and it's done the same, the launcher is always 1 and it would be 312 (or is that mixed-up?) So maybe all this really shows is how Kiev knew but didn't want to say all along, implausibly picking their own 312 to illustrate that knowledge with an embarrassing but harmless "error", while awaiting ... as it turns out, the independent Bellingcat investigation that finds 3x2 somehow in Russia... That tracked this ludicrous Buk field trip, as presented and followed on this page, which almost seems tailor-made for them, but Kiev wants us to know they they were secretly on the ball too from the start. (all thoughts in progress, a bit distracted too) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::::If SBU wanted to point out they knew the TELAR had number 312, why would they publish the photo in [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmI2KCOt_sA such a low resolution] that the number could not be read? -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 21:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: As Resup summarized, 1 is the battery number. The leading 3 means it's from the Lugansk division. If this is true, the fact that 312, 321 and 323 have been seen together on video in March perfectly fits with what the alleged operator said: That they were removing units in usable state from (all batteries of the division) Lugansk early on, leaving the crap behind. And the view that the SBU just published everything they could find to fit their tale that the "rebels" used a BUK to down the plane, including this photo, cut-together and taken out of context audio tapes and that ridiculous "plume" pic, and the 3x2 bellingcat nonsense from lately is meant to distract from these facts, is much simpler and straight forward than what you tried to come up with here on the fly. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::Ah, I see it now, not when I was typing, sorrys. Middle number could be anything, bust mostly we always see low numbers, so odds are good it was a "1". 3 means from Lugansk if that's true (presuming so) and it's Ukrainian. Diff. number paintjob though, as noted below. But I'm sure the Ukies just faked this exact 312 to a different style of 312 and then painted it out partly, and just let it slip with the one photo of how it looked before...? We'll have a hard time agreeing here, as the stuff you just dismiss as "nonsense" looks kind of like possible evidence with details I'm sort of trying to consider. I don't see how you can just ignore it as if it must be wrong somehow, and all made up to distract from ... this 312 disguised as 3x2 theory? Where it wasn't even at the end of that fake plume anyway and might be totally irrelevant or entirely fake? Or, what am I missing? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::Didn't you say that you haven't even watched the videos and checked the geolocation/origin yourself, if they really are from Russia etc.? Well, I certainly won't. Because I have no reason to believe that the sources are more truthful with the "evidence" than they have been before, and that track record is well established. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::::Yeah, which is why I'm neither in a good position to say they aren't wrong/fake, nor to go against my usual presumption it will be sound (has been so far, on this subject anyway) And by the supposed stills compare to supposed satellite imagery, it looked like a good match (I did skim the site once I could). I don't like the implication either, and I want it to be wrong. And it may well be, but I'll want to see how. And hey, there's a whole other section or two about this below... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
:::: I watched the video [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bj-VZB0ZdEA with the Ukie BUKs in March] again. There are actually more than the three I mentioned earlier. It starts with 323, which is not a TELAR. Followed by the two TELARs 321 and 312. Then comes what is also not a TELAR but what looks differently than 323: Number 301. Followed by two more TELARs, 331 and 332. So they could all be from the Lugansk division, parts of batteries 0 to 3. But one would suspect that the batteries are internal always numbered the same way. "A" says:<br />
::::: ''BUK is a complex of 4 specialized military vehicles: command post, mobile target detection and assignment station, loading and starting station, self-propelled fire installation.''<br />
::::So if 1 and 2 are TELARs, why are there two of them and why is 301 what could be the detection station with a radar? Is 323 a loading station? --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::::Too rusty, but good questions. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::: Ah, I think we can sort this out [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SA-11 thanks to wikipedia]:<br />
:::::''A standard Buk battalion consists of a command vehicle, target acquisition radar (TAR) vehicle, six transporter erector launcher and radar (TELAR) vehicles and three transporter erector launcher (TEL) vehicles. A Buk missile battery consists of two TELAR and one TEL vehicle.''<br />
:::: So our "A" didn't mean that a battery consists of 4 vehicles, but that the whole BUK consists of 4 different kinds of vehicles, some more than once. From this I deduce that "0" is for command and detection units (here our main radar 301) of the Lugansk division 3, and the batteries 1,2 and 3 each consist of two TELARs (numbered 1 and 2, here 312,321,331 and 332) and one TEL (numbered 3, the first vehicle in the video, 323). Makes sense? --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 13:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::Russia said Ukraine had 27 BUK launchers in the crash area, i.e. one brigade, or what ever comes in the hierarchy above battalion. If all units are numbered the same way, from 101 to 333, then one TELAR in 18 should be numbered 312. Maybe [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:9K37_Buk_of_the_Ukrainian_military,_Independence_Day_parade_in_Kiev.JPG not.] Russian numbers seem to reach higher. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 01:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::::Good find. The existence of 114 and 115 makes it more complicated. The [http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buk_M1 German Wikipedia article] says, contradicting the English one, that one battery consists of one command vehicle, one main radar, four TELARs and four TELs. But if that's true, there's no logical place for Radar 301, and why would one TEL be number 3 and the other three TELs numbers 6 to 8? --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 10:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
How to read BUK numbers<br />
This is how you decipher 312:<br />
<br />
3 stands for the third (Lugansk) division,<br />
1 stands for the battery number, ours was no. 1,<br />
2 stands for one of the 2. service units in each battery, ours was no.2<br />
<br />
according to a Ukrainian who explains it was "his" bUK (but not in his hands at the time)that shot down MH17. One of th many reports [http://www.opednews.com/articles/Shooting-Down-MH-17--BUK-by-Michael-Collins-Buk-312_False-Accusations-Of-Terrorism_False-Flag-Attacks_Mh17-Airline-Crash-141217-104.html about this interview] This claim is now superceded by the Capt Voloshin air-to-air claims. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 15:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
That solder knew nothing about who shot the Boeing. He was talking to Sharii, who previously made a video showing that Buk shown on SBU website is actually Ukrainian Buk 312. Later, the soldier emerged, saying that Buk 312 was his. (Claim of this one shooting Boeing is not his, it is SBU early claim) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 16:48, 26 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
While Voloshin story may be a play on destroyed by SBU evidence. There is supposed to be a log of flights, missiles fired, likely those logs no longer exist. Also before they claimed SU 25 were lost on 16 of July, but SBU denial of Voloshin story had SU 25 shot on 17 of July. And that Dnepropetrovsk airport traffic control lady vanished without a trace. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 16:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Supposed 321 belonging to KIEV<br />
::video shows three BUk sets [http://eurazya.today/2015/04/11/about-the-buk-312-who-allegedly-shot-down-mh17/ from 0.31 mark] but I can't really pick the number, they say it is 321. at Gorlovka in March. One on a white lowloader. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 12:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== Russian claims ====<br />
As part of their July 21 presentation of evidence, the Russian Ministry of Defense published satellite images allegedly showing Ukrainian BUK positions around Donetzk ([http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ RT report]). It's no secret the Ukrainian military maintains a base with anti-aircraft units. The facility shown in the Russian presentation (best seen [http://rt.com/files/news/2a/9a/00/00/4.jpg here]) I located - it's south of Avdeyevka, 3 km north of the airport, about 5 km north of Donetsk like they say. Visual match first, then noticed the label could have found it for me ... [http://wikimapia.org/#lat=48.0999781&lon=37.7578908&z=16&l=0&m=b&show=/16956839/ru/Зенитно-ракетный-дивизион-в-ч-А-1428&search=Donetsk on Wikimapia]. Labels, translated: Anti-aircraft missile battalion (in / h A-1428) One of the three anti-aircraft missile battalions ("Buk-M1"), located in Avdeyevka, Mariupol and Lugansk." BUK-type launcher photos included. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The counter-arguments to this at least sometimes fail. [http://www.interpretermag.com/mh17-and-moscows-magical-mystery-jets/ Interpreter rag] decided "the presence of Ukrainian government air defense systems is something of a red herring, not least given the clear evidence that the separatists had deployed at least one Buk system in the area." The side with a ''motive'' and clear, moving and likely operating units of the things on that day (see below) is irrelevant and shouldn't be considered because there's apparently also proof the presumed bad guys also had the units they needed to be so presumed. The very fact that separatists aren't ruled out means the other side should be free of any danger of being ruled in, and the separatists should ruled in just as automatically as they were ''before'' this social-media verification came in. This is clearly an irresponsible suggestion. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC) and --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Kiev's Buks Shuffled?===<br />
<br />
* From Russia's military press conference: [http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ RT, 10 Questions] - [http://www.ruaviation.com/docs/1/2014/7/22/83/ in more detail]<br />
:''3. Why was a large group of air defense systems deployed to the militia-held area if the self-defense forces have no planes?''<br />
:“As far as we know, the Ukrainian military had three or four air defense battalions equipped with Buk-M1 SAM systems deployed in the vicinity of Donetsk on the day of the crash. This system is capable of hitting targets within the range of 35 km at the altitude of up to 22 km.”'' <br />
:''4. Why did Kiev deploy BUK missile systems on the edge of militia-controlled zones directly before the tragedy?''<br />
:''“We have satellite photos of the places where Ukraine had its air defense units deployed in the southeastern parts of the country. The first three photos were made on July 14. The first photo shows Buk launchers 8 km northwest of Lugansk. You can clearly see a TELAR and two TELs. The second photo shows radars 5 km north of Donetsk. You can see two TARs along with other equipment and technical structures. The third photo shows air defense systems north of Donetsk. You can clearly see a TELAR launcher and about 60 military and auxiliary vehicles, tents for vehicles and other structures.''<br />
<br />
:''“Here’s a photo of the same area made on July 17. Please note that the launcher has disappeared. The fifth photo shows a battery of Buk missiles at the village of Zaroshchenskoye 50 km east of Donetsk and 8 km south of Shakhtyorsk on the morning of the same day. The sixth photo shows the same area on July 18. As you can see, the battery has left.”''<br />
<br />
Note: the <s>latter</s> fourth photo of July 17 has substantial cloud cover, but unless they happened to hide the launchers in those areas (or Russia's satellites waited until the area was covered) it appears the noted vehicles have left to go do something - on/by the 17th, where they say launchers appear and then disappear in a town closer to the crash on the 17th. Zaroshchenskoye [http://maps.yandex.com/?text=Ukraine%2C%20Donets'ka%20region%2C%20Shakhtars'kyi%20district%2C%20Zaroshchens'ke%20ville&sll=38.446008%2C47.98844&ll=38.517419%2C48.048098&spn=0.810242%2C0.300187&z=11&l=map on Yandex maps] - 13 miles SSW of the crash sitel, 9 miles W-SW of Torez..--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
On July 30, Vitalyi Naida, head of Ukrainian Security Service SBU’s counter-intelligence, came up with a series of slides ([http://euromaidanpress.com/2014/07/30/russia-fakes-mh17-crash-site-satellite-images-says-sbu/ short article], [http://www.sbu.gov.ua/sbu/control/en/publish/article?art_id=129610&cat_id=35317 announcement on SBU website] with link to [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ut1JExQKV-0 youtube-video showing the slides (presumably Ukrainian language)]) allegedly showing that the Russian material was "faked". He points to a patch of trees, claiming they had been cut down shortly before the 17th, while Russia's images show the trees intact. On August 1, the Russian Ministry of Defense published [http://eng.mil.ru/en/analytics.htm a rebuttal] advising that<br />
:''Instead of presenting hastily doctored evidence to the international community, the SBU could do with better control over all the mercenary units in the areas around Donetsk and Lugansk organized by Kolomoisky, Lyashko, Yarosh and others, who shell Ukrainian territory without any control from those in charge of the anti-terrorist operation.''<br />
<br />
The trees probably are cut down by now, but we'll have to wait for the true details of just when they were and when the image showing that was taken, or if the image shown is even of any one day and not a composite - "doctored" as Russia says. Other clues suggest launchers moving out of this area at that time: The [[#Paris Match Photo]] - ostensibly from the morning of the 17th - shows the infamous launcher-loaded truck seen in Lugansk, or one just like it, being carried on a truck belonging to a company just south of the missile base in northern Donetsk. That was seen carrying the launcher east out of town at 11:15 AM, purportedly on July 17 (and with the location completely fudged to say Snizhne, when it was only headed there).--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Zaro redeploy.png|left|600px]]The Russian military press conference said "The fifth photo shows a battery of Buk missiles at the village of Zaroshchenskoye 50 km east of Donetsk and 8 km south of Shakhtyorsk on the morning of the same day. The sixth photo shows the same area on July 18. As you can see, the battery has left." (#5 inset) The Ukraine@War blog's analysis decided this image as well was fake. That's mentioned [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com/2014/08/ukrainian-sbu-comes-with-conspiracy.html here] if not elsewhere. The reason: "the shadows of these BUKs have a different direction for all three of them. It means these were pasted into the image." I have to admit, it looks a bit like that. The trees have consistent shadows to the west, in a morning image. The furthest vehicle to the left has a visible shadow about like that. The other two don't seem to, and the one furthest right seems to have a shadow on the wrong side (looks like early PM). I wracked my brain just a little thinking of other explanations aside from just low resolution. Nothing much came up. Anyone else? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br /><br /><br />
<br />
<br />
: '''New video proves UKIE BUKS ACTIVE'''<br />
: video has surfaced, posted to Youtube on July 16, taken a few days before, showing a Ukie BUK radar [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3MomxNHnUA being rotated]. The reporter is taken somewhere in a helicopter and proudly shown the BUK. Segment starts around 4.17 in the chopper, BUK shown briefly at 4.45. Label does not say where exactly, just reads "Officers of Ukrainian Armed Forces patrolling in the ATO zone". <br />
: This ties in with claims that they were doing anti-aircraft exercises, probably in response to claims/fears the Antonovs were brought down not by the rebs but by aircraft from Russia. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 10:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::Thanks! We had this July 16 video [[Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17/BUK_Tracking#Kiev.27s_Holdings| elsewhere]], but here is a good place... The other video, from March, was not seen. There were few more early sightings of Ukrainian Buks, uncertain locations, with those 3** numbers; maybe should get a good place to keep them all --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::: Location of sighting is unclear. But according to some reports ([http://lifenews.ru/news/136731 LifeNews]), on July 16 UAF SU 25 was shot down from a height of 6 km by opolchenie MANPADs. That was near Russian border, --reports say the plane actually crossed into Russia, not far from Marinovka. It could be suspected by Ukraine that a Russian plane was involved, so it will be plausible to have Ukrainian coverage of the accident area by BUKS. On July 14, it was reported that [http://m.rosbalt.ru/ukraina/2014/07/16/1292690.html AN 26 was shot down in Luhansk] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
--Antidyatel <br />
There is strange twist of Logic in Bellingcat report about satellite photos. The photo with Buks in the field is claimed to be manipulated.They found that July 17 image was manipulated but only invite region of clouds. They don't say that BUK was removed by software (there are 4 more vehicles missing). But on all Google earth photos BUK never moved. So did it move ever or not? Manipulation of Google earth photos or likely their source is not new.[http://www.imediaethics.org/News/130/Exclusive__google_investigating_photoshopped_gogle_map_image_.php]<br />
<br />
Surprising Google earth have more updated photos on the BUK base location and nearly nothing for the location where Russians seen BUKS. There is something strange about RUSSIAN supposed fakery. Doesn't make sense.<br />
<br />
===Separatist Holdings===<br />
While much certainty has been shown it was a separatist BUK system responsible, everyone seems to acknowledge that ordinarily, they didn't have any, that were known of. Fresh sighting of them in the field, supposed admissions, and existing presumptions remain the strongest evidence. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;June 29 Seizure?<br />
The Open Newsroom team have latched onto a June 29 message from a Twitter account associated with the Donetsk People’s Republic, @DNRpress claiming separatist forces had conquered a base with anti-air BUK missiles. This is apparently the A-1402 base, as an Itar-Tass report specified. That report noted ... It seems to just cite the tweet which, it was found, used a dated photo online since mid-2013. In essence, there's no good evidence they ever did seize this place. But it was referred to by some as "Deleted DNR tweet confirming Russian rebels indeed have a BUK-M1." The crew at large seems a bit vague on the status of this base:<br />
:'' It appears that the A-1402 military unit was moved into the Donetsk region in 2007 from Odessa, and reports note that the unit was based near Donetsk airport. Local reports from June 29 cited ATO spokesman Alexei Dmitrashkivsky as stating that separatists had attacked the military unit.'' <ref name="Story1" /><br />
As we just found with geo-location, it's 3 km north of Donetsk airport, and it's the same place Russia believes is firmly government-held. It's the place they say at least one BUK-type launcher was removed from on July 17 for some reason, by Kiev's forces who run it. If [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Donetsk_Airport this basic Wikipedia article on the battle for the airport] is correct and/or in line with [[Attack on Donetsk Airport|our page on it]], the airport and anything military-related north of it would probably be government-held continuously to the present time. It's possible some launchers could have been lost during a brief seizure of the base, but this too seems doubtful. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
:Social media published many photos of the "liberated" Buk missiles. I searched for them on Google Image Search; all were old photos from more peaceful times. I have no idea what really happened. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 23:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Thanks. I hadn't looked into it myself, but recycled images made sense given the other clues that they never did take that base, or at least get anything out of it. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 00:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Something in English [https://www.facebook.com/TruthfromUkraine/photos/pb.1452285018328179.-2207520000.1409095455./1515506872005993/ on Facebook,] with links to Russian souces. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 23:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Your geolocation is wrong. The former [http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-SAM-Site-Configs-A.html SA-2 launch site] to the north of the runway is called A-1428, at least according to the [[:File:Donetsk Airport battles 5 Oct 2014.jpg|map by Komsomolskaya Pravda]]. The site was rebuilt sometime between 2002 and 2009 with new garages covering part of the SAM ring. Tactical maps say today it is still held by Ukraine, but may have been in NAF hands earlier. Base A-1402 is located south of the new terminal building along Stratonavtiv Street.<br />
<br />
When looking at the latest airport battles I noticed that Military Maps already shows structural damaged to the new terminal building. I did not expect Google to provide any relevant satelite data. In Libya we had almost daily satellite images of Tripoli, but in Syria we have seen no new photos of the battle-effected areas.<br />
<br />
I opened Google Earth to see what has changed during the war. It seems that the war has had no effect on either base. There is still a lot of military hardware parked on both bases. Most of the trucks and whatever are parked just where they were last year, or on many cases in 2007. I did not see anything that I could identify as a BUK launcher. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 02:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;Held by July 14?<br />
The US embassy in Kiev said in [http://ukraine.usembassy.gov/statements/asmt-07192014.html a press statement of July 19]:<br />
:''Intercepts of separatist communications posted on YouTube by the Ukrainian government indicate the separatists were in possession of a SA-11 system as early as Monday July 14th. In the intercepts, the separatists made repeated references to having and repositioning Buk (SA-11) systems.'' (also quoted [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/20/malaysia-airlines-mh17-videos-missile-launcher-torez-snizhne at the Guardian])<br />
As "Corporal Frisk" [http://corporalfrisk.wordpress.com/2014/07/21/comment-on-the-us-assessment-of-the-downing-of-flight-mh17/ aptly responded:]<br />
:''Having perhaps the world’s best intelligence network, and then using easily faked videos of separatist communications posted on YouTube as evidence sure has a degree of ridicule attached to it, but is also an inidcation that US intelligence believes at least some of these transcripts are real.''<br />
That's totally apt if one suspends the usual definition of "believe" (to include "wants to appear to believe," etc.) In the same piece, the author apparently gives more "credibility to the charges that the Buk-M1 is indeed Russian supplied (and possibly crewed), as opposed to stemming from captured Ukrainian stocks." As covered below, this I can agree with if we suspend the usual definition of "Russian" (to include "allegedly Russian villains," "the Ukrainian version of [http://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2011/07/african-mercenaries.html Libya's African Mercenaries] and [http://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/wiki/The_Shabiha:_Ghost_Stories%3F Syria's Shabiha]," etc.) this would be spot-on. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:54, 10 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
(more allegations to cover?)<br />
<br />
;The One That Matters<br />
Whatever the evidence rebels had Buk systems by the 14th, Kiev also has suggested, and many have accepted, that ''the one that mattered'' at least - the launcher unit that shot down MH17 on the 17th - wasn't theirs at all, but brought in and operated by Russians for the day only. If only for that reason, all the above is likely moot. See next section. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Russian Buk Field Trip? ===<br />
The Kiev regime's narrative also suggests separatists had no BUK systems of their own. Rather, someone else brought one in to their area, took it on some kind of tour through several towns thought accessible only to rebels and allies, and got it seen in each place. Then these people '''shot the airliner down themselves on the separatists' behalf.''' That party is the Russians, they say. This is perhaps best encapsulated by "counter-terrorism" chief Vitaly Nayda's early assessment. AP's July 25 report summarized it, saying "the account was based on information from intercepts, spies and resident tips."<br />
:''Nayda laid the blame fully on Russia: He said the missile launcher came from Russia and was operated by Russians. ... According to Nayda, at 1 a.m. on July 17 the launcher rolled into Ukraine across the Russian border aboard a flatbed truck. He cited communications intercepts that he would not share with the AP. By 9 a.m., he said, the launcher had reached Donetsk, the main rebel stronghold 125 miles (200 kilometers) from the border. In Donetsk it is presumed to have been off-loaded from the flatbed and started to move in a convoy on its own.''<br />
:''Nayda said the Buk turned back east toward Snizhne. Townspeople who spoke to the AP said it rolled into Snizhne around lunchtime.''<br />
:''...As for the Buk, Nayda said, intelligence suggests it went back on the move shortly after the attack. That very night, he said, it crossed the border, back into Russia.''<br />
<br />
This is full of details that don't line up with the emerging record, but the gist including a grand-circuit tour including both separatist stronghold/capitols Donestk and Lugansk plus the disaster zone, seems about right. But the evil they allowed came from and returned to Russia.<br />
<br />
This does however jibe with the Kiev allegation (I learned of through [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/07/25/snizhne-mh17-and-rebel-held-territory/ this excellent and relevant HRI article] that '''Russian jets''' violated Ukrainian airspace to '''bomb an apartment building in Snizneh on July 15th, killing 11 civilians.''' This all makes a bit of sense in context; that false flag attack was blamed by locals on Kiev'a noble Air Force - almost understandably! It "created the conditions" by which people ''might'' accept apparent a team of apparent Russians with a Buk launcher in their town two days later. The best guess for any single firing location is a field just southeast of that town (see [[#Possible Launch Sites|below]]). The locals might smile at, and later even cover for, this poisonous gift. But a trojan horse is a trojan horse, of course. They should have looked it in the mouth better, and been more aggressive with their questions. Because Russia has it in for the separatists, Kiev implies, using its skilled and well-documented team to murder 298 people in a horrific way on the separatists' behalf. This is not an accident, Kiev must know, but proof that Russia and its "inhuman" terrorists they must hate (and who do not seem to have any Buk launchers of their own, BTW) are the new global menace du jour. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Markings and the Mystery Launcher ===<br />
[[File:MH17 Buk 321 Parismatch comp.png|right]]A serial number on the launcher's side is apparently standard in Ukraine's arsenal (see [[#BUK 312 and comrades|above]]). Inset, an image comparing the side of the unit seen in [[#Paris Match Photo]], the one blamed for the shoot-down on the 17th, to TELAR unit 321. The side panels are easy enough to correlate and see the unit in the photo lacks a number, but does have a sliver of white paint (or similar) in one corner. Whoever was moving this painted it it out before this, so there is some attempt at concealment. Is this color of paint only available in Russia? The white sliver here could be part of the number, if it were painted higher up/larger than Ukraine usually does. I can't say yet how they do it. I did a Dogpile Photo search, lots of pictures, context unclear, different vehicles from different sides, mainly Vitaly Kuzmin photos so app. Russian military parades and such: --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
* Number shown, diff. vehicle: [http://military-vehicle-photos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/9881.jpg #1(loader?)] - [http://pix.avaxnews.com/avaxnews/8a/6f/00006f8a_medium.jpeg #2 same?] <br />
* Launchers with no visible numbers: [http://77rus.smugmug.com/Military/May-5th-Parade-rehearsal-2014/i-t7RjrzP/0/M/5may14-33-M.jpg #1] - [http://77rus.smugmug.com/Military/12-April-Parade-2013-rehearsal/i-KHVD3Tv/0/M/12aprilrehearsal_33-M.jpg #2] - [http://livedoor.blogimg.jp/gunzichannel/imgs/b/e/be60ae58.jpg #3] - [http://military-vehicle-photos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/9880.jpg #4] - [http://77rus.smugmug.com/Military/13th-April-rehearsal-Alabino/i-fKQdjW4/0/M/13April-Rehersal-Alabino-26-M.jpg #5] <br />
* Same vehicle, Buk TELAR launcher with numbers: not found. <br />
<br />
At the moment, the lack of a number almost makes it look Russian. The next panel over seems to have smaller numbers, or characters anyway. Nothing yet tells me the Russians add a smaller number on the panel behind that, with or without special stencils available only in Russia. Is that even a number, or does it say return to Putin? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== Bellingcat and 3x2 ====<br />
:''moved from [[#Paris Match Photo]]''<br />
<br />
Adam: somebody's favorite Bellingcat is now saying, I understand, that he is capable to read off the number of this Buk from this blurry low resolution Paris Match photo, using unspecified colored magic and some expertly fitted proprietary boxes. Well actually this is so proprietary that he can ONLY read the first number 3, and the last number 2, but is completely unable to read the middle one. Because, he does not want this to be this Ukrainian [http://uainforg.livejournal.com/1811500.html Buk 312] , nah, noway. He rather want it to be the Russian Buk 3 X 2, where X stand for Russian, and for secret, as somebody is said to unearth this dirty monster in Russia, as he says (I guess). This looks too much baloney as far as I am concerned; you can read any number you set in advance from this blurry photo, and fit there any other crap, boxed-shaped or wiggly, all essentially at will. Just recording this latest saga page in case somebody has more enthusiasm to chase it than myself. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 00:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
:No, you didn't quite understand, but thanks for the tip. An interesting twist I wish I'd caught sooner. First, this helps the West at large get in synch finally with Kiev - it was Russia, not the separatists, who owned and perhaps ran that unit. Second, it seems to me the match is at least as good as they say, but there's at least one aspect of it I think is hilarious and I wouldn't be surprised if they managed to miss it. I'll be back - this one deserves a quick blog post. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: I agree with Resup, this stinks of baloney designed to divert attention from the [[#BUK_312_and_comrades]] story. The worst thing about Brown Noses and cohorts is the amount of coordinated promo they get in pre$$titute media. SPIEGEL today [http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/jan-fleischhauer-ueber-wladimir-putin-und-mh17-abschuss-kolumne-a-1004898.html has a op-ed piece by a particularly douchebaggy example] on those independent genius investigators as well. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::I need to brush up on what that 312 story is... because it looks like this used to say 312. Ultimately I suspect its some kind of baloney, but just where it breaks down I don't know. It is amazing how they get such praise for investigating the right things (never did get back to the Houla Massacre) and finding the right truth... Daily Fail says "The authors said that 'our investigation was made possible by the examination of open source material overlooked by other organisations'." Oh goodness, that technique they must have invested ... maybe if we started doing that we'd get praises too! --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/11/08/origin-of-the-separatists-buk-a-bellingcat-investigation/<br />
The report and whole site was not coming up when I tried (might be a problem on my end), so I don't even know what's behind their pay-wall. In the interim I checked around. [http://thetruthserumblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/an-open-and-transparent-investigation.html Here's a critical blog article I like] that mentions another article praising the report. But what was useful was [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2827853/Russian-military-supplied-missiles-ahead-MH17-shooting-says-new-independent-report-evidence-points-Russian-separatists-responsible.html the Daily Mail's Australian promo article] with the cover and a few images from the report as well as a summary. The 3x2 ... This lets me quickly see what 3x2 refers to. And actually, it looks like a good description and even a good match. The number is not from Paris Match photo but from footage I haven't noticed, they say from inside Russia - presumably a Russian unit then - seen conspicuously moving towards Ukraine in late June. (the source of these images and details might be worth checking into) ... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 3x2 Comp.png|right]]Bottom is Paris Match, skewed to match. Top is the new (to me) Bellingcat June 23 image As I just put together [http://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2014/11/how-russians-covered-up-truth-partly.html here,] they seem to be onto something here. It's something silly. But it's something strongly suggested by real paint in recognizable patterns.<br />
<br />
Implied: Russians wanted to hide this thing's identity, maybe because they were about to do something secret with it. So first they painted out the number in the middle - I think it was a one. Except they left one little corner of white visible. Just got tired. It's identifiable (in both images). <br />
<br />
Then before it appeared in Ukraine, it was rendered totally unidentifiable: they boldly blacked out the 3, and perhaps at the same time even, the 2 - except for a larger identifiable sliver. Just got tired. It's next to the other dot. <br />
<br />
Haha, no way to connect these now! Also a light patch next to the small number (and the number, as far as we can see) matches, as does a light patch along the lip below that. My guess: this is the same suspect vehicle seen gettin' hauled all over on the "stolen" truck with the phone number left on. Was it actually in Russian territory as well as near so many rebel checkpoints around dawn? For how long was it there? Bellingcat cannot confirm that Russian unit 3x2 ever returned to its base in Russia ... nor, I guess, that it ever actually left, or was ever Russian, or didn't have its truncated paint job simulated and expanded on another vehicle... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
::He got some photos of an actual [http://www.kavicom.ru/news-view-12861.html convoy], almost certainly in Russia, fairly hi-res photos, no 3*2 there. Than out-of-a-blue-or-elsewhere, he gives photos from convoy made by 'local residents', now with discolored 3*2 photo(s) there; I could not spot details where this photo is now coming from. He claims it "shows on 8 out of 16 videos", but I do not know where is a single one. He also compares tank track and plate above profiles for these 2 photos; details are blurred (and also those profiles change from use), can't say how much they match each other by eye; don't trust his fitted lines, or his conclusion accepting those, but did not try matching myself (no tools to do it quickly; or enough photo resolution to feel strongly motivated). This is doable but doing it tool-free takes time; and not knowing that second photo is definitely in Russia, I am not convinced spending a lot of time is worthwhile. This is clearly a well-supported operation, so the burden of proving their own version is on them; and they did not bother even linking the videos, no clue where are those. His report downloads without problems at this time. <br />
::Also details such as dirty rear skirt and a bend there likely are common; dirt is because exhaust is through the opening above; skirt likely is bent when there is servicing, or example changing tracks or doing something else, like maybe servicing engine. Buk 321 above on this page has dirt and bend, for example. This bend is something which can be easily produced, same goes with the painting job, both things together can be done in well under 1/2 hour. If they had an example of how something in Russia looks like, not difficult to do it for a blurry photo. Clearly, with phone well-displayed, etc, the purpose of all this is a demo job. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Here is a publication [http://censor.net.ua/video_news/274823/ukraina_zaschischaet_donetsk_ot_napadeniya_rossii_zenitnoraketnye_kompleksy_buk_zanimayut_pozitsii_fotovideo Ukraine defends Donesk from Russiam attack, missile complex Buk takes positions], with photo, video of Ukrainian BUks, numbers 323, 321, 312, 301, 331,332. (Some of them have dirty skirts, e.g. 301 looks dirty and bent...). Ukrainian radio is playing on the video. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 21:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Thanks, and I get the lack of motivation, and the ambiguity. That #312 I'll compare later ... looks like a different number style (thinner) with vehicle color less clear ... I guess this could be innocent dirt instead of black paint, but it's some thick dirt, and by the end almost totally covering the numbers on this particular unit ... or two that can seem the same. (?) So it still seems most likely paint, that is deliberate obfuscation - that was also comically slow and incomplete (with clean edges to the white parts and no visible parts of gray half-covered numbers) . It must be a problem with my system (updating soon) but I still can't connect to the site or get the report. I'm not mad motivated myself, but will want to check the alleged video source and geolocation eventually. Before I was seeing this as a Kiev unit simply snuck across the internal line. So the big wrinkle of course is it being in Russia. Options if the geolocation of June 23 is right: <br />
* it wasn't there (faked match-up - As you say, all matching features ''could'' be faked, not just the paint) <br />
* or Ukraine snuck theirs across (with a whole convoy?) just to get it seen there <br />
* or they snuck over and stole this one while it was near the border <br />
* or Russia willingly sent it over, with or without a subsequent theft by people intent on misusing it on the separatists' behalf. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
There is actually a 3*2 Buk in Russia, he put links to videos on his [https://www.mapbox.com/labs/bellingcat/index.html map], I looked at 06/23 Troitskiy (Odnoklassniki) goroskop odnoklassniki ru/video/14723648043?fromTime=25 . But I doubt it can be concluded that Paris Match is a match (number itself can't be read, this is just bogus). For example, that dot in the Russian version appears to be a bit further to the right (60 % of total panel length) , while Paris Match is closer to 50 (I got 52 %). Also, in Russian version, it is almost level with protruding to the right part of number 2; in Donetsk photo, I'd say it's a bit lower (but blurriness creates problems to measure) . Panel to the left of number panel appear to look very different; in Russian case, clear horizontal line above the main bottom line; not so in Donetsk, a messy lower line. As for the skirt, it it dirty but actually does not look broken in the Russian version, just some frames create such impression. In Donetsk, hard to know (to blurry to tell crack from dirt) but there is serious change in angle there somehow; (could be the windshield playing some tricks). (Also, in Donetsk, it is dirty windshield, not actually certain what makes the dot; but it is roughly where expected, so I can go with this being paint assumption). <br />
:No point for the rebels to display it prominently in Donetsk (not far from UAF BUK base), than go towards Snizhne; this just has no point at all. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 00:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
:I'm the one, ironically, claiming to see things in that griny mess. I'd never do it unless I saw t spot well whiter than the others AND seen in another view ... didn't even notice until then. To note, your descriptions are of the first version of the graphic, now updated. Becuase of overall problems, I cut what seemed just the number panel (including shadowed edge) and put it on top of where it should be. Same proportions, within a pixel or two, "find edges" to mark the white patches, and it remains lining up. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 3x2 comp 2.png|right|420px]]At right: it can't be the embarrassingly misrepresented Ukrainian 312 they're hiding, unless that was painted over before this other one .... FWIW, the middle dot would still line up with the serif on that "1." As the updated blog article notes, if "the Russians" were smart, they would have painted this slender 312, or other recognizable number and style, on there. Instead, this nonsense.... <br />
<br />
I suppose that Ukraine ''might'' have known about this 3x2 video and match in advance (and never mentioned it?) and that's why they found a photo of ''a Buk 312''' (not checking what it actually showed, and just claimed they knew was en route to escape into Russia, after parking for yet another photo?) No, that doesn't make much sense. But I sense a link. Maybe that's because I'm seeing 312 when maybe it's 872, for all we really know. Maybe instead of partly painted out it was just left never fully painted in. Too many unknowns and now I'm unenthusiastic about it. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Whatever one thinks of this graphic comparison and interpretation, the strange and suspect thinking it implies is consistent with what else we know about how this "secret" operation was carried out. If true, it would fit this broader pattern (real or reported clues left by whoever, all open to interpretation, and here couched in the terms of allegations by Kiev and supporters):<br />
<br />
* Recalling that this whole weapon itself would have no normal business in the area and would be denied later, it should have been kept secret. Instead, it was driven around in broad daylight on the same day as the crime, just partly covered with a tarp but revealing all clues needed to identify it, its hidden ID number, and its full rack of missiles.<br />
* The truck it was so displayed on was stolen in Donetsk, and kept with the huge sign on its side with the apparent owner's phone number on it. When the media called that number, little surprise, the owner told them pro-Russian "fighters from Slaviansk" who took over his whole trucking company on July 8 (see [[#The Truck Owner's Story|here]]) Put lightly, this is a stupid way to secure a rig one intends to use for a secret operation like this was supposed to be.<br />
* They loaded the truck in Donetsk, likely at the commandeered site in the north of Donetsk, near the Ukrainian base with Buk launchers, in a coincidence. This truck then got seen leaving Donetsk on the 17th, parked pointing east at the east outskirts, then seen driving in convoy (a couple civilian cars with the operational crew moved with the truck) past Zuhres and then through Torez to the east. They were seen arriving in Snizhne around noon, then the Buk unit seen off the truck and driving in stand-alone, and it was then seen again driving south out of Snizneh, towards the apparent launch location.<br />
* The people running the convoy made sure AP journalists saw them in Snizhne just before the shoot-down from a bit south of there. The convoy stopped, and a man in unusual uniform "approached the journalists. The man wanted to make sure they had not recorded any images of the missile launcher. Satisfied that they hadn’t" filmed that secret missile launcher there, but had noticed it, and their intention to remain sooper seekrit "the convoy moved on." All this was made quite clear to the media and apparently published even before the news that MH17 was shot down. ([http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/what-happened-the-day-flight-17-was-downed/2014/07/25/716c36e4-142b-11e4-ac56-773e54a65906_story.html AP Via Washington Post]) <br />
* After the disastrous attempt to secretly provoke a Russian invasion, with utmost discretion the operators put the smoking gun, its rack of one-less missiles left uncovered, back on the same truck and drove it and the phone number back to Russia - by a strange detour on a long route towards the other easily-recognizable smoking gun rebel capitol, Lugansk ... when government ATO forces had just battled their way to the edge of Lugansk ... and got seen there passing at dawn on the main highway south, apparently having come from the center of town, and then presumably drove to Krasnodon (rebel-held) and to Russia....<br />
<br />
The fail delivery here is almost flawless, with no mistake left unmade and hardly any reasonable gaps to call for deduction. Letting multiple camera views on both sides of the porous border capture and track the gradual move to this stealth mode seems pretty consistent to me.--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Note: the implications of this contested finding, and the visual basis for it as well, is continued below under [[#If Buk 3x2 Was in Russia]] --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
I think one point is still not discussed here. Look at this video from 26 June 2014. You might have seen it before. But what is striking, all the Buks shown do not have numbers painted on them. Not only it will allow to paint new numbers or any clumsy painting on the side, using video of a known BUK, it also means that those BUKS were not accounted for when Ukrs presented evidence, if they ever presented, about the location of all the existing and operational BUKS <br />
[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BBEYZHOT0bQ]--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 13:29, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== General Observations === <br />
*It is clear that pro-Kiev side produced early and persistent stream of fakes, misrepresentations, or selective half-truths, all aimed to place the blame on Russia and/or "separatists" as a part of well organised and supported information warfare. This information warfare did not establish an objective to prove the blame of Russia or "separatists", as any of those media creations will not survive a rigorous scrutiny, and there is nothing to bring to court in particular. However it successfully altered Western perceptions in early days past the catastrophe, and helped to impose sanctions and other 'increased costs' on Russia, bringing the world on the brink of another cold war. It brought situation in Ukraine closer to perpetual chaos, and kept closely related people to continue killing each other every day. Although those fakes and misrepresentations were later realized to be such, those costs and calamities were not reversed. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*After moving equipment close to border, why would Russia send just a single TELAR to Ukraine in a highly visible manner as it was alleged? For meaningful operation of Buk, one would send at least 1 TELAR, 1 TEL (to be able to load missiles), and 1 command vehicle (as radar on TELAR gives only poor basic operation)? There are also lots of support vehicles seen, in case of something meaningful all that is needed. So moving single TELAR is all but pointless from military standpoint. Single TELAR is mostly for a show of sort. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Reported SIghtings == <br />
(consider along with the visual sightings below) <br />
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/what-happened-the-day-flight-17-was-downed/2014/07/25/716c36e4-142b-11e4-ac56-773e54a65906_story.html AP via Washington Post] <br />
shows the separatists strategy to not be seen as they rolled the murder weapon around:<br />
:''Even before the plane was downed, the AP had reported on the presence of the missile launcher in the town July 17. Here is what that dispatch said:''<br />
:''“An Associated Press reporter on Thursday saw seven rebel-owned tanks parked at a gas station outside the eastern Ukrainian town of Snizhne. In the town, he also observed a Buk missile system, which can fire missiles up to an altitude of 22,000 meters (72,000 feet).''<br />
:''AP journalists saw the Buk moving through town at 1:05 p.m. The vehicle, which carried four 18-foot (5.5-meter) missiles, was in a convoy with two civilian cars.''<br />
:''The convoy stopped. A man in sand-colored camouflage without identifying insignia — different from the green camouflage the rebels normally wear — approached the journalists. The man wanted to make sure they had not recorded any images of the missile launcher. Satisfied that they hadn’t, the convoy moved on.''<br />
<br />
That kind of pro-Russian sooper-seekrisy aimed at the media in front of the media should stop them being seen, right? No, oddly, it didn't. See below. The clumsy bastards could hardly have implicated themselves any more thoroughly than they did that day. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
One interesting post at the Ukraine@War blog mentions two tweets, both from July 17 and before the crash, mentioning this BUK launcher on a trailer at places consistent with the video record. [https://twitter.com/MOR2537/status/489702736766586880 One of them] (translated) sounds perhaps ''too'' informed, and says "Was driven missile system on the tractor cover + two cars after Thorez (Torez) in snowy (Sniznoyeh) in 12-10 (at 12:10? Too early...)." [https://twitter.com/_StradivariuS_/status/489704260045910016 The other one] says "(someone this) morning wrote that (the truck) stood (parked for some time) on b.Shahtostroiteley not intersection with Ilchicha, aside (heading towards) Makeevki. waiting to see (to be seen?) If that's an intersection named, it's a different parking spot identified as being [https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=48.002515,37.854917&spn=0.010222,0.02444&t=h&z=16 here on Google Maps,] one km west of the spot it was parked for the "Paris Match" photo. Otherwise, it refers only to the same place. The contributor noted "Another interesting detail in that tweet is that “it was standing” and “they were waiting”. My understanding of that phrasing is that the #Buk was actually parked there for some time. Meaning there might be witnesses." <ref name="UWD">[http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com/2014/07/reconstruction-of-whereabouts-of-buk.html CONFIRMED the BUK that shot down MH17 has indeed been in Donetsk] P. Martin, Ukraine@War, July 23, 2014</ref> There was a witness with a camera, and a photo sent to the Western media. That almost seems to have been the idea - to get witnessed like that. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== SBU Wiretap Clues ==<br />
I just had a look at the SBU wiretap transcripts, ones released July 19. In it is a segment tying in with the above stop or stops in Donetsk, the exact spot of the [[#Paris Match Photo]], and the general orders to drive east with the launcher. I'm not up on the wiretap stuff - if this is the same material said to be corroborated by the US as the real people talking. But briefly, know that parking spot in just past a roundabout, by a motel and a bus station, well short of a crossing Hornostaivska street halfway to Makiivka. Important clue to why it was here this thing had to get seen and talked about: one source claims this roundabout at the edge of town is "a big separatist checkpoint established on Jun 3 at the road circle." <ref name="UWD" /> This is supposed to all be pretty damning, and I must say it's at least looking like a pretty slick plan may be going on here, with pre-scripted parts that come into play later, etc. From Kiev mouthpiece UaToday, parts of a transcript they ran with the video and other allegations, on the 19th - How credible is this evidence?<br />
:''Khmuryi: Sergei Nikolaevich Petrovskiy, year of birth 1964, officer of Main Intelligence Directorate of Russian Federation, Deputy Chief of Ihor Girkin on Intelligence, at the time of the interception he was in Donetsk.''<br />
:''“Buryat” – militant of terrorist organization “DNR” (to be indentified).''<br />
:''Buryat: – Where should we load this beauty, Nikolaievich?''<br />
:''Khmuryi: Which one? This one?''<br />
:''B: Yes, the one I’ve brought. I’m already in Donetsk.''<br />
:''K: Is it the one I’m thinking about? “B…,”M” one?''<br />
:''B: Yes, yes, yes. “BUK”,”BUK”.''<br />
:''K: Is it on a tractor?''<br />
:''B: Yes, it’s on it. We need to unload it somewhere, '''in order to hide.'''''<br />
:''K: Is it with a crew?''<br />
:''B: Yes, with the crew.''<br />
:''K: '''Don’t hide it anywhere.''' She’ll go there now.''<br />
:...<br />
:''Khmuryi: – Tell me, have you brought me one or two?<br />
:''Buryat: One, one. Because they had a misunderstanding there. They didn’t give us a tug. We loaded it and went at their own pace.''<br />
:''K: Did it go on her own or on a tug?''<br />
:''B: It crossed the line (border).''<br />
:''H: And now have you brought it on a tug? Don’t put in anywhere… I’ll tell now where it should go, it will go together with “Vostok” tanks.''<br />
:...<br />
:''K: Sanych, the point is that my “BUK–M” (modified Russian SAM system) will go with yours, it is on a tug. Where should I drive it to put in a column?''<br />
:''Sanych: There, behind “Motel”, not reaching Hornostaevka.''<br />
:''K: Just after the Motel, right?''<br />
:''Khmuryi: Listen to me carefully, behind the circle near “Motel” there will be you know what. Call to “Bibliotekar” (Librarian).'' <br />
The next part, to me, suggests that as far back as the 19th or earlier, people talking on tape were seeding, or working by, the SBU-proposed Aeroloft plot with the town mix-up. In that light:<br />
:''...Bring inside only those, who just came back, only as much as you need for the convoy. Leave everyone else here. Not far away '''there is Pervomaiskoe, look at the map.'''''<br />
:''DNR militant: I got it.'' (Or did he not quite get it?) <br />
:''Khmuryi: Settle somewhere in that area, bring there those who are left. Your task is reserve, plus protection of this piece (BUK–M), which you will drive now. “Giyrza” will come there too. If anything, I’m on line.'' <ref name="Trans">[http://www.uatoday.info/?p=2579&lang=en SBU releases more conversations implicating Russia in shooting down Malaysia Airlines flight (VIDEO, TRANSCRIPT)] UAToday, July 19, 2014</ref><br />
--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The veracity of that recording needs challenged well now ... the day too early claim [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17#SBU wiretap video|did not pan out,]] so it won't be that easy. Has anyone really done a good analysis tearing it apart some other way? Could it even be half-legit, with some local rebels tricked by some undercover (wire-wearing, not wire-tapping) supposed defector delivering it "with a team" coming "from Russia" (meaning Parubiy et al.)? Who knows? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Imagery Mapping ==<br />
[[File:MH17 Storyful video mapping.png|right|330px]]There have been quite a number now of photos and videos showing BUK launchers ostensibly in separatist strongholds, on July 17. The geo-location of these in such towns by social media networks has been the subject of some recent media commentary. These purported placements are worth collecting and considering here. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
One somewhat comprehensive and updated/evolving page: [http://blog.storyful.com/2014/07/19/how-social-sleuthing-uncovered-evidence-of-anti-aircraft-missile-system-in-eastern-ukraine/#.U9oY_Ua3498 How Social Sleuthing Uncovered Evidence of Surface-to-Air Missile Systems in Eastern Ukraine] Inset is a small preview of the interactive map they made of all placed images (as it stands at the end of July - [https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=200399683004956931329.0004feca5d1fbab0a1d25&msa=0&ie=UTF8&t=h&source=embed&ll=48.206371,38.968506&spn=1.281328,2.334595&z=8 full-size presentation with links, on Google Maps]) <ref name="Story1" /> <s>Note that one of them is way up in Lugansk - which one is a little unclear at the moment - the site may be wrong</s>) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;List of Scenes, placed or not<br />
* Billboard Video: released by Interior Ministry, filmed in Krasnodon before dawn, the Interior Minister says. Russian military analysis places it in Krasnoarmeysk, and the Open Newsroom crew contradicts both and decided "collaborative geo-location was able to place the footage in southwestern Luhansk.'' <ref name="Story1">[http://blog.storyful.com/2014/07/19/how-social-sleuthing-uncovered-evidence-of-anti-aircraft-missile-system-in-eastern-ukraine/#.U9oY_Ua3498 How Social Sleuthing Uncovered Evidence of Surface-to-Air Missile Systems in Eastern Ukraine] Storyful blog, July 19, 2014 and onward (updated)</ref> <br />
* Surveillance Video: located to Snizhne by Eliot Higgins, date unclear. <ref name="Story1" /><br />
* Zuhres video: Pre-geo-located by the uploader [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=48%C2%B0+1'1.38%22N++38%C2%B018'6.04%22E&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=48.034019,38.391724&spn=0.629958,1.564178&gbv=2&hnear=H21,+Zuhres,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&gl=us&t=h&z=10 here in Zuhres.] Higgins confirms, 100% sure, and others concur. Driving east. <ref name="Story1" /><br />
* Torez square photo - located by an associate of Higgins - filmed app. 11:40 AM in central Torez. See below. <br />
* Another photo placed: Snizneh, nearest the shoot-down area (f/c)<br />
* [http://www.parismatch.com/Actu/International/EXCLU-MATCH-Un-camion-vole-pour-transporter-le-systeme-lance-missiles-577289 Paris Match photo] - allegedly Snizhne, reportedly placed '''in northern Donetsk city.''' See below. <br />
<br />
===Billboard Video===<br />
(to be condensed) <br />
A video released by the Ukrainian Interior Ministry is highly dubious and worth some analysis. It shows what seems to be a BUK launcher loaded on a truck driving some direction in some town at what seems to be early twilight (or pre-dawn, depending). The [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4HJmev5xg0 original posting] (with almost 2 million views already) gives no details: "Militants take out missile system "Buk" to the border with Russiam" the title translates. "No description available," it says below, and no comments allowed.<br />
From what I've seen no one knows where this is filmed. Daily Mail says it's a "separatist stronghold," unnamed, and headed south, back towards Russia. "Ukrainian spies reportedly filmed the launcher used in the attack being smuggled to Russia - with two missiles missing." Eliot Higgins was cited by [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/20/malaysia-airlines-mh17-videos-missile-launcher-torez-snizhne the Guardian] with his new team of fundraistigators as geolocating some video and photo but not, apparently, this one. As explained at [https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1278239551/bellingcat/posts/919158 the kickstarter link] they give, Higgins writes:<br />
:''In the above video, posted by the Ukranian Ministry for Interior claiming to show the Buk missile launcher being driven towards Russia it was possible to match the transporter in the video to the transporter in Torez, details of which... (you have to subsidize their operation to see)'' --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== Avakov's Placement: Krasnodon or Lugansk ====<br />
Interior Minister Arsen Avakov said in [https://www.facebook.com/arsen.avakov.1/posts/670837696339673 a Facebook post of July 18] Google-translated: <br />
:''Covert surveillance units of MIA of Ukraine today July 18 at 4.50 am was recorded caterpillar tractor loaded with missile complex, moving in the direction through Krasnodon, toward the border with the Russian Federation. The video can be seen uncovered missiles. Two missiles in place - the average is not visible. ''<br />
:''There is an analysis of this and other information gathered. Presumably this is the missile system "Buk" that made a last shot at a civilian plane from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur .. ''<br />
:''Criminals try to hide the traces of this heinous crime. Not succeed. Security Service and Interior Ministry of Ukraine has collected and collects more irrefutable facts and evidence, the author points out the tragedy of the terrorist organization DNI / LC and its Russian backers Putin.'' <br />
:''The investigation of events MIA issue a comprehensive report on the information. This fragment consider it necessary to publish immediately.''<br />
<br />
By the 22nd, "online sleuths" had placed it in Lugansk (see below). Avakov then confirmed this - he was wrong the first time. One article makes it sound like he wasn't just echoing the sleuths:<br />
:''On July 22, Ukraine's Minister of Internal Affairs, Arsen Avakov, gave the exact coordinates of the video’s location: separatist-held Luhansk, about a 45-minute drive from Krasnodon. Locals quickly verified this claim by photographing the scene, which perfectly matches the landmarks seen in the video.'' ([http://globalvoicesonline.org/2014/07/29/russia-ukraine-mh17-conspiracy-buk/# article by one of the sleuths])<br />
<br />
====Krasnoarmeysk====<br />
One source venturing a guess is [http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ the Russian government and RT witrh their 10 intriguing questions:]<br />
:''“For example, media circulated a video supposedly showing a Buk system being moved from Ukraine to Russia. This is clearly a fabrication. This video was made in the town of Krasnoarmeisk, as evidenced by the billboard you see in the background, advertising a car dealership at 34 Dnepropetrovsk Street. Krasnoarmeysk has been controlled by the Ukrainian military since May 11.”''<br />
[[File:MH17 Billboard Vid Russian Analysis.png|right|250px]]There is a sign, but I cannot make it out just yet, if ever. Can they really? Even if that's so, surrounding towns might be good places for a dealership in Krasnoarmeysk to advertise. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
At right now is a still from a video claiming to show this, I still don't see it. They seem to think the gray span says that, perhaps from seeing a clearer view of this ubiquitous sign elsewhere. Opps. There's no reason to say a dealership in one town can only have billboards in that town. This alone fails. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 14:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Krasnoarmiis'k,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&hl=en&ll=48.323387,37.919312&spn=1.252829,3.128357&sll=48.226502,37.386475&sspn=0.627601,1.564178&oq=Krasnoarm&t=h&doflg=ptk&hnear=Krasnoarmiis'k,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&z=9 on Google Maps as Krasnoarmiis'k] - ''not'' to be confused with the Krasnoarmeisk not far away in Russia. Distance: about 100 km almost due west of the crash site. Panorama, possiblt location, directions/implications forthcoming. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Dnepropetrovsk Street is the main street of Krasnoarmeisk, leading northwest to Dnepropetrovsk. It tried matching this to the street corner where the car dealership is located. Yandex Maps did not provide a street view. It could be there, but too few details to make a positive match. Whatever this is, it is not evidence for anything. The least the SBU could have done is provide the location and some corroborating photographs.<br />
:The same applies to all so called "evidence" provided by Ukraine and the US State Department. As far as I can tell it is only cut-and-paste of unrelated footage to ''illustrate'' the claims made. A perfect example of this illusion is the "satellite photos" of Russian artillery shelling Ukraine released on Sunday morning. A photo of Russian GRADs on some unidentifiable field was placed next to a satellite image with an arrow pointing "Here Be Monsters!" Purely illustrative and no proof. There is a difference between legerdemain Hocus Pocus and outright forgery. The Russian video presentation displayed screen capture recording from the ATC radar, usually stored for two weeks. For this to be a hoax, Russia would need to create a forged tape of the radar data. Highly unlikely, as the the claim of authenticity had support of the full authority and prestige of the Russian Armed Forces. If the US presentation turns out to be hoax, State Department will claim the photos were never meant to be evidence. Some internee was told to prepare a presentation using stock images for some facts they ''knew'' to be true – trust us! -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 14:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: You must have missed [https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BtZSVQrIMAARzKr.jpg:large this], Petri! ;oP --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 18:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
::: That is an awesomely perfect picture for this sorry episode so far. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 14:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
::It would be neat though if we could show where this is and thus which way its's headed. The Kiev authorities, I think, know what happened. They say it was this exact launcher missing two missiles. It could be. Where is it at filming time and where headed? If it's true this same one was in Torez (dubious but possible) we'd have a direction traveled until that point also, and a rough time, 8:30 or so. [http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jul/27/mh17-storyful-social-media-twitter-youtube The Guardian again] citing Storyful's open-source investigation: <br />
::::''“There are now four pieces of content – three pieces of video and one image – which, in the case of three, conclusively show a Buk [surface-to-air] missile within rebel-held territory and in the case of the fourth, almost definitely in their territory,” says Storyful executive editor David Clinch. “Of those four pieces, individual groups or companies probably verified in or around the same time one or another of them.”''<br />
:''Open Newsroom verified three pieces of content and is investigating the fourth, thanks to its 900-strong network of journalists and experts. ''''<br />
:The fourth is this video. Wouldn't it be a coup if we were the first to place it? Force that intern excuse and then laugh at it. That said, it's not the most likely to place but you, Petri, especially, might be able to. I think I might. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 22:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* [https://plus.google.com/118234537318646233652/posts/LZV1XZD854E James Miller Google + July 21] "Was a Buk sighted in Krasnoarmeysk or Krasnodon (continued analysis)? We've taken a new look at this video which has been debated since it was posted days ago. We're fairly confident, though not 100% confident, in this geoanalysis, but we're making significant progress. Any more information would be extremely helpful. " Cited: [http://www.interpretermag.com/russia-this-week-lurid-anti-ukraine-propaganda-broadcast-on-state-tv/#1753 Russia This Week: Defense Ministry Claim on Buk in Billboard Video Doesn’t Add Up]<br />
:''...As we reported on our Ukraine Liveblog, the Buk was spotted before the shoot-down of the Malaysian airplane and ultimately geolocated to the town of Torez, near the location of the crash in Grabovo. Then the video, taken early the next morning on 18 July, showed a scene in Krasnodon,... <br />
--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Google Earth has one photo [http://www.panoramio.com/photo/55329278 from ул. Днепропетровская.] The street has about the same width. The streetlights are not quite the same. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 14:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
::That image doesn't help a match, especially since by now it looks like Lugansk. For the record, there was a go by pro-rebel social media people at identifying a spot in town to explain the video scene, but it didn't do that either. [http://wikimapia.org/#lat=48.276196&lon=37.176087&z=18&l=0&m=b this spot on Wikimapia] is what they pointed to - filmed from the marked building, they say, looking southwest to the mall. No matching anything. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 02:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== Placed in Lugansk! ====<br />
[[File:MH17 Billboard Vid-Lugansk Match.png|right|800px]]Storyful's rundown states of this video:<br />
:''The footage is not the original, however we believe that the first instance of this footage was removed by the uploader and the version below is the earliest we can find. Ukrainian Interior Minister, Arsen Avakov, made early claims that the video was filmed in the Ukrainian town of Krasnodon near the Russian border, however collaborative geo-location was able to place the footage in southwestern Luhansk.'' <ref name="Story1" /> <br />
It links to "Bellingcat," which you have to pay to see much of. [https://plus.google.com/118234537318646233652/posts/bMdeBzY8yty James Miller] passes on that it's "Mystery SOLVED: Video released by Ukraine's Interior Ministry does in fact show a Buk, possibly missing several missiles, in Lugansk headed east from the MH17 crash site and in the direction of Russia." The spot they think matches the video (better panorama coming) is [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=48%C2%B032'44.7%22N+39%C2%B015'52.6%22E&ie=UTF8&ll=48.545926,39.265147&spn=0.002436,0.00611&t=h&cid=0&z=18 here on Google Maps]. Was that a highway? Where's the cross-street? I see elsewhere they have a high view showing the same basic billboard there, but that's going to be true of several spots in this area. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
My impression of the scene - based on the panoramic view below - is far from matching with this. That does not look like a highway, and it just seems like a small town. However, I finally saw some of the supporting images (see [http://news.bigmir.net/ukraine/827864-V-Lygansk-vehala-kolonna-voennoi-tehniki--SMI here] and [https://twitter.com/djp3tros/status/491651820188860416/photo/1 here] - source of the inset image.) It seems a likely match after all. I won't say I confirm it with any certainty, but I don't think I'll be challenging it like I was preparing to do. Note the different billboard in the right spot, and the matching one over there. There are other images, apparently more current, showing that that they moved the one sign over to the right spot They don't point to the pinkish roofed building beyond the red-roofed one, but that adds to the match (compare to below). Whenever this video was made and whatever it really means, it seems quite likely it was at this spot in Lugansk shortly before dawn. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
There is another video from June 2014 showing the same billboard with the same car ad:<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ez8cZ3nqjCs Луганск 02 07 14]<br />
The video shows a column of BMPs with one 9K35 Strela-10 short-range surface to air missile system passing the intersection in Lugansk. I suspect they came from Russia, as [https://www.facebook.com/groups/IOUCO/permalink/584402078339517/ I specifically asked] for Putin to send in the Russian tanks that morning. They passed exactly when I expected them to, at 6 minutes past 4 am. (I estimated it would take 2 hours 6 minutes from the border.) -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 17:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== ACLOS Review ====<br />
As noted above, my review agrees with the placement agreed by the others. For what it's worth, the huge panorama I made (the middle is full-resolution) and starting notes from before I realized no work was needed. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 03:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
[[File:MH17 Billboard Video Pan.png|center|880px]]<br />
It seems to be filmed near the edge of town, or edge of a hill anyway, with a clear view ahead, two vague homes/buildings seen down the slope. Otherwise, very non-descript. The angle of intersection will be one of the better clues - it looks to me not 90 degrees ( |- ), but with the road the truck is on either slanting or curving somewhat towards the camera ( /- ). One important observation: '''there's no logical reason he should have been just happening to film this area''' unless he knew something interesting would drive by at just this odd time. That's clarified by how he zooms in just before it enters frame - he was waiting for that truck. How did he know about it? Informants on the other side of town phoning ahead makes enough sense, I suppose. <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 launcher truck composite.png|left|480px]]Another issue: If this is dusk (sunset 8:20 PM local), isn't this facing roughly northwest? If so, this vehicle is driving roughly north, not south. And we might start looking on the west edge of town. There's a highway out to the northwest, back towards Kiev. This street is too narrow and unmarked to be the highway, obviously, but it might be driving that way, for example. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
:Or, alternately, he's facing towards the sun about to rise, early on the 18th, as alleged by the Interior Ministry) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
::That he happened to be filming just before dawn is even less likely than dusk. He clearly knew this was coming, whatever that means. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 03:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Above is the composite scene without truck. At left is the truck without background. Besides lightening the scene, it seemed worth getting the clearest details from different frames into a composite view of the truck and its load. This helps compare to the launchers seen in other areas and different times. So far, they all seem to look the same and perhaps be the same. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 03:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br /><br />
<br />
==== HRI ====<br />
Pretty good points [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/08/05/mh17-the-lugansk-buk-video/ from Human Rights Investigations]:<br />
:''To sum up, the statement of Avakov, the film and its location suggest the Ukrainian authorities had advance knowledge of this BUK and trailer’s movements or control over it. It is also extremely strange that this BUK, allegedly after shooting down MH17, is supposedly filmed by a Ukrainian surveillance team in ostensibly rebel territory, with its covering missing, as if to show the world a missile is missing.''<br />
--[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Paris Match Photo ===<br />
[[File:MH17 Paris Match.png|770px]]<br /><br />
* [http://www.parismatch.com/Actu/International/EXCLU-MATCH-Un-camion-vole-pour-transporter-le-systeme-lance-missiles-577289 Originally published by Paris Match] on July 25, with the claim the picture was taken by their own reporting team near Snizhne at mid-day on the 17th. Note the prominent, apparent, telephone number prominently centered in the picture - (050) 471-41-80. The truck and launcher, as far as can be seen, are quite similar to or the same as the one seen in the billboard video anyways. How many of its missiles the unit has at this moment is unclear. <br />
<br />
* [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/07/28/why-is-paris-match-on-the-location-of-a-buk/ Human Rights Investigations:] "it turns out to have been taken in Donetsk, 75km away" (citing someone else's geo-location - [https://www.google.com/maps/@48.004592,37.87265,3a,75y,63.38h,82.21t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sRGnHwZ5YZnuGO-n_VvruWg!2e0 site link given.] <br />
:''We know this because the phone number on the truck panel (050 471 4180) leads straight to this hire place (photo):<br />
:''According to Paris-Match, the proprietor of this establishment claimed “rebels” had stolen a number of his vehicles earlier in the month. If we go from here to towards Snizhne we find the location of the Paris-Match photo, near a car dealership on Makiivske Highway on the outskirts of Donetsk:''<br />
:''After informing Paris-Match of the mistake regarding the video location, the author of the article Alfred De Montesquiou has now got back and explained:''<br />
:''Hello, indeed, it appears there was a mixup in caption : the picture was taken leaving Donetsk on road to Snijne, not in actual Snijne'' <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Donestk Buk Map.png|thumb|right|480px|Map: this truck location, the company's apparent headquarters ([https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Molodykh+Shakhtariv+St,+19,+Donetsk,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&ll=48.044923,37.783184&spn=0.079187,0.195522&hnear=Molodykh+Shakhtariv+St,+19,+Donetsk,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&t=h&z=13 GM link]), and the A-1402 missile base relative to each other.]]<br />
<br />
'''Questions:''' Was it a caption mix-up, or did their team really not know where it was taken, and just believed the real source when he said Snizneh? Who is the true photographer who knew to catch this picture near the company's base, apparently at the outset of a rather epic journey? Why did the rebel thieves leave the prominent phone number on the stolen truck used for such an important task? It wound up leading to man who pointed right to the rebel thieves, and prove yet again separatists, not Kiev allies, were the ones driving BUKs around. Was that so hard to foresee? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''To Do:''' Verify the geo-location - set a time, presuming July 17, by sunlight and that location - establish which way it's traveling relative to the government-run anti-aircraft base just a few km north of here and relative to the other places and times this truck and others were spotted rolling around prominently and getting filmed a lot by the right kind of people, in areas presumed to be impenetrable to any such frame-up operation - look into this company, etc. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''Location:''' I can't confirm it with certainty, but it's extremely consistent. Two standard but distinct pole types that close together on the right with a pull-over lane ending at the blue one, and consistent-scale foliage behind. Proceding on the location as likely enough to warrant the work. The stretch of highway identified runs northeast, heading 33 degrees. The truck is most likely not driving at the moment, as it's in the pull-over lane. But it's pointed as if ready to leave Donetsk as soon as they finish doing something in theis spot. All we can see they're doing is getting filmed, and maybe that's just what they're waiting for. Ahead would be the an industrial area, the eastern suburb of Makiivka, then Khartsyzk, etc. and further east Torez and Snizhne (driving times unsure, date also unsure. Russia claims the one launcher left the northern base sometime between in August 14 and 17 images. <ref name="RT10">[http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ 10 more questions Russian military pose to Ukraine, US over MH17 crash] RT. July 21, 2014</ref><br />
<br />
'''Time:''' I'm not sure how exactly to set this up, but the shadows appear to stretch almost right across the highway, with only a slight northern shift. The azimuth thus appears to be fairly close to to 140˚ (reached at 11:09 AM). As for solar altitude, trying to line up the launcher's corner with its shadow gives a reading of app. 56˚ (= 10:50 AM, with azimuth 133˚) or perhaps 59˚ (= 11:18, az 143.5). The graphic shows both readings. Which is better? I used [http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/solcalc/ NOAA solar calculator], with coordinates: lat 48.017102 long:37.9037626 time=GMT+2, DST +1 --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
There is more to consider about this truck, its company, its owner, and his story. But other than this photo's extra-clear view of the phone number and apparent proximity to headquarters, those are better covered in the section below [[#The Truck Owner's Story]].<br />
<br />
==== Time? ====<br />
[[File:MH17 Paris Match elev.png|right|220px]]<br />
Bellingcat was originally claiming that photo was taken at 9 am. [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/09/08/images-show-the-buk-that-downed-flight-mh17-inside-russia-controlled-by-russian-troops/] [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/11/08/origin-of-the-separatists-buk-a-bellingcat-investigation/]<br />
<br />
Then they were claiming 11 am as an obvious time without retracting previous 9am claim. Seems like 9am was more comfortable for them to match to photos from Zuhres and Torez. <br />
<br />
Sorry, using smartphone. Not very easy to comment --[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 01:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:<small>Looks like you put the same link twice, -it says 11 a.m.--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)</small><br />
::Antidyatel, welcome! Resup, thanks! I'd like to see any 9 am citation. But otherwise they agree on it being around 11? Good. The significance below is if the Zuhres square photo was taken at 11:40 AM as they say, it's basically impossible these images are from the same day as alleged - 69 km, 1 hour 14 mins drive between the spots, when there's only 20-40 minutes between the images. However, fudging it - let's say this is 10:50 and the other is 12:00 as I read it - that's 1:10 between, almost a perfect match. So maybe this isn't a great lead (I was never convinced it was). But 9:00 is way off and suggests they were fudging it to fit at that point. Would be good to document. BTW, on talk pages you can sign with <nowiki>--~~~~</nowiki> or the sign/scribble button. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: [https://web.archive.org/web/20141109132514/https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/11/08/origin-of-the-separatists-buk-a-bellingcat-investigation/ First archive.org snapshot] from the day after publishing (edit: a good three months after you called it :o)) says 11 am already. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 10:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: Okay, the links were fixed once or twice and [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/11/08/origin-of-the-separatists-buk-a-bellingcat-investigation/ the November report] says 11 am, not citing an azimuth or anything, just Paris Match saying it was "about 11 am," which doesn't count much for verification. The [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/09/08/images-show-the-buk-that-downed-flight-mh17-inside-russia-controlled-by-russian-troops/ earlier report from Sptember] might be based on something else when it mentions "a well known image from Paris Match, which shows a Buk in Donetsk at 9am on July the 17th." Neither one sounds like a firm final version. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== Screenshot from dashcam video? ====<br />
It it possible to identify if the photo was made by dashboard camera, smartphone, or other type of camera. Paris Match claimed that they made the photo. There are no date markings on the photo, which is strange. Position of the camera is such that it was either dashboard camera or the driver was making a photo (front and left side of the car). Paris Match was also implying in their report that it was a group of people in the car. "A sytem BUK missile launcher is photopgraphie by the team of Paris-Match in the suburbs of Donetsk, on the road to Snizhne the morning of July 17, hours before the flight Malaysia Airlines MH17 crash."[http://m.parismatch.com/Actu/International/EXCLU-MATCH-Un-camion-vole-pour-transporter-le-systeme-lance-missiles-577289]<br />
<br />
Why would they ask driver to make a photo? Dangerous or uncomfortable - illogical. If it was a dashboard camera, why not to release a video? And most importantly it would have a time stamp. <br />
<br />
Also in this report [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/01/17/new-images-of-the-mh17-buk-missile-launcher-in-ukraine-and-russia/] gives a new, a bit extended photo. Surprisingly the back of the BUK is nicely in focus, same as the truck cabin. While middle of the BUK is defocused. No wonder Paris Match cropped it. Bellingcat, that likes being so strict about photos, totally ignores this part. <br />
-- [[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 23:55,, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Yes, I agree. The two photos are crops from screenshots from a dashcam video. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 00:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
::Those must be two different shots at close-by time --look at position of street lamppost with respect to the truck cabin, one has it over black pipe, and the other more to the right from there. Can't think of a natural way for camera to focus on two different distances (maybe dirty and curvy windshield can be blamed but on tricky side here)-- FWIW. Usually dashboards have short focal length so that anything appear to be in focus; don't know why not the case here --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
RESUP, you are right. Those are two different shots. There is cable reflection from the windshield. Probably the cable is another indication of the dashboard camera.--Antidyatel<br />
<br />
=== Torez Square Photo ===<br />
[[File:MH17 Torez Buk Analysis.png|left]]This is another image geo-located by the Brown Moses network (ally Aric Toller) to central Torez, [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Donetsk&hl=en&ll=48.023472,38.614014&spn=0.004923,0.01222&hnear=Donetsk,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&t=h&z=17 here on Google Maps.] Like others, it was initially stated as in another locale - Snizhne - and that had to be corrected. I can agree the location pointed to is either the photo's site or one strangely like it. [http://mashable.com/2014/07/23/citizen-journalists-mh17-spies/ Mashable noted] "Toler and Higgins were able to establish that the photograph was shot around 11:40 a.m. local time." I tried a quick azimuth measure, eyeballed relative only to the blue car, and got 165 degrees (yellow line, read backwards). This equates to a time of almost exactly 12:00 noon (about 30 minutes before solar noon, and 20 minutes later than their estimate). Seeing they're close to right, I'll presume they're closer than me and defer to 11:40. <br />
<br />
If this photo is taken at 11:40 AM, and it's the same truck seen leaving Donetsk around 11-11:20 AM, it's impossible these images are from the same day as alleged (Gmaps says it's 68.8 km, 1 hour 14 mins drive, when there's only 20-40 minutes between the images). That would mean multiple mobile launchers with multiple "Titan" trucks, or just one but with some date fudging. The company says a number of its trucks were stolen, so matching multiples are entirely likely. But so is date fudging, multiples or not. If that's so, I suspect the Donetsk photo was from July 15 or 16, and this one more likely from the day of the crime. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 04:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br /><br /><br /><br />
=== Zuhres Video ===<br />
[[File:Buk Zuhres Vid.png|right|480px]]Again, a truck of that same type loaded with the same apparent weapon is briefly seen driving east (detail at right). This one was never reported wrong and was in fact pre-geo-located by the uploader [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=48%C2%B0+1'1.38%22N++38%C2%B018'6.04%22E&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=48.034019,38.391724&spn=0.629958,1.564178&gbv=2&hnear=H21,+Zuhres,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&gl=us&t=h&z=10 here in Zuhres.] Higgins confirms, 100% sure, and others concur. <ref name="Story1" /> Zuhres location: on highway H21 halfway between Donetsk and the general disaster zone - 36 km east by road from the position of the truck in the Paris Match photo. I agree with the location, refined below as I lined up in the still used here - the blue line runs between the blue thing and the building corner (footprint, not roofline) to the front of the truck as it passes. <br />
<br />
The sky is fairly overcast, so solar angles can't be measured precisely; the differences in facet lighting are clear but not massive. A broad and inclusive azimuth range of 167˚ to 214˚ (rounded) is shown by the yellow arrows below. This yields a range (to the nearest minute) of 12:09 PM and 1:45 PM. The best middle is a bit early - 185 degrees. That would be 12:44 PM. Altitude, at solar noon, helps little. 12:09, 12:44, and all times between round off to 63˚. if that simply looks too high, we're forced to the later end of the time frame. - 57˚ at 1:45. My super broad-estimate: 12:45 +/- 50 minutes. Weather at this time on whatever day - as noted, it partly overcast, and it's windy. The clouds are moving fast, with slight lighting changes visible in just these few seconds. Winds by the swaying trees are from the southeast, perhaps, blowing northwest - at least at the building with a face running that way.<br />
[[File:Buk Zuhres analysis.png|center|680px]]<br />
<br />
==The Truck Owner's Story==<br />
The apparent owner of the white truck so important to the MH17 operation was of course tracked down via the giant phone number for his compant on its side. Interviewed at least twice now, first by Paris Match, then by Lithuanian agency Alfa, this businessman has been anonymized as Vassili (then Vasilijus). Thorough summary of the related, alleged facts, from each (translated) report:<br />
* [http://www.parismatch.com/Actu/International/EXCLU-MATCH-Un-camion-vole-pour-transporter-le-systeme-lance-missiles-577289 Paris Match, July 25:]<br />
:''Photographs of Paris Match showed that the rebels had failed to remove the billboard on the truck they had stolen. Thus we joined the owner of the vehicle. Vassili said the rebels occupied warehouses on the outskirts of Donetsk since July 8. "They are fighters Slaviansk. They landed and told me they loved my premises and we had to escape. They shipped me a dozen large vehicles, including the white truck. I do not know what happened to them, "admitted Vassili, distraught.'' (that was actually just what they published, aside from context material) <br />
<br />
* [http://www.alfa.lt/straipsnis/472203/alfa-lt-isskirtinis-interviu-su-raketas-buk-kuriomis-buvo-numustas-malaizijos-avialiniju-lektuvas-gabenusio-vilkiko-savininku?p=1#.U-GIxeOSyuZ Alfa.lt, July 29:]<br />
:''This person's testimony is crucial. After it becomes indisputably known that anti-missile system, which shot down a passenger plane was precisely the Kremlin-sponsored terrorist hands. ''<br />
Here, separatists are throughout called "terrorists" (Bezler is "the "People's Republic of Donetsk" terrorist gangs ringleader"). Vassili says these took over and occupied his company premises on July 8, taking the white truck - they said because it was needed He says they stayed in control of his facility for 8 days, apparently departing on the 9th day - July 17. Becuase of this, he and his staff - especially his drivers - were unable to do anything that whole time. He's entirely certain it's his truck in the videos (the phone number says so) as it's the only one of its type in that part of Donetsk (Žinoma, ji – vienintelė tokia Donecko srityje, tokios kitos nėra. Tokios „Volvo“ su tokia kabina). He says he still hasn't seen it since.<br />
:''...more and more irrefutable evidence that Russia supported the terrorists shot down over the temporary control of the territory in the east of Ukraine aboard passenger "Malaysia Airlines plane, and later sought to hide evidence.''<br />
But as Paris Match noted, they couldn't be bothered to detach the phone number to the guy with the whole dang story. <br />
:''Alfa.lt knowledge of the personal data, company name, knows his responsibilities and phone numbers (one is (050) 471-41-80), but because of '''the danger to his life''' that can not be published. "Stop saying my name, and I already have enough problems," said new horrific crime witness Vasilijus.'' <br />
This is valid; of course his best defense would have been to simply ''not'' implicate the separatists mostly running Donetsk, but it's too late now. DPR authorities might want him for questioning. And especially now that he's been publicized as a "crucial witness," others will want him to '''appear to have been brutally murdered by them''' (he will have served his main purpose by now, perhaps). I hope someone's able to arrange protective custody quickly enough, or that he can arrange his own vacation, or convince his friends (he'll know the ones) of his continuing usefulness to them alive. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Titan Gate blurry.png|left|380px]]Further bits on the business: Wikimapia has labels. One for the front building is generic. In English writing: [http://wikimapia.org/#lat=48.0399571&lon=37.794637&z=16&l=0&m=b&show=/24479492/Ochakivska-vulytsia-19 Ochakivska vulytsia, 19]. Beneath: Category: safety, '''private security company.''' Around this, a bigger labeled area including the back building and surrounding lot. Label: Территория службы охраны "Титан" Translated, it says "Territory protection service "Titan" (Donetsk)." Beneath it: "Category: '''Do not display name''', fenced area." (не отображать название, огороженная территория) Below, their gate area as it appears in Human Rights Investigation's still, and three versions I've seen randomly changing over the last day or so with different parts that could be the name blurred out (most recently back to not blurred). Is that unusual? I predict further twists in this, with the truck found somewhere bolstering the Kiev story, and with the company's "outing" being manipulated somehow. Feels a little spooky. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
;Assessing "Vassili's" Story<br />
<br />
There are a number of problems with and interesting questions about this witness' story and how it meshes with other allegation (details forthcoming).<br />
<br />
In Vassili's defense, I'll say the world needs to hear more. What happened in these eight days? Were Russian officers coming and going? Poring over air charts in the side room, before closing the door with an annoyed look? A lot could have happened - this could be a gold mine of direct evidence for war crimes trials of these terrorist gang's leaders (as understood). --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
[[File:MH17 Vassili's Truck August 1c.png|right|400px]]<br />
An apparent support: as HRI found, [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/08/07/new-sighting-of-volvo-linked-to-buk/ New sighting of Volvo linked to BUK?] August 7 - One of those provocatively deleted tweets, quite recent with a supposedly same-day (dawn or sunset) photo from somewhere in Donetsk - outskirtsy, like where <s>rebel</s> I mean Kiev junta forces proudly claim to almost be. this photo (saved by HRI) shows "a truck" carrying a tank, driving behind another tank. The posted thought it was for a new roadblack/barricade (concrete slabs were also being hauled). It appears to be the same truck Vassili says he lost, or one just like it. And this does look like the type of thing seaparatists would do if they had seized it, and still didn't realize how famous it had become. This thing likes to drive at dawn, doesn't it? How are checkpoints then, a little sleepy maybe? Hmmm... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::(added later: inset image - from the photo, color-corrected and cropped on just the truck - for full view see the article or below) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: FTR I took up HRI's challenge to identify the truck on that picture and did so with almost 100% certainty. It's a Volvo FH second generation (2001-2013) with low cabin. Like [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Volvo_LKW_Fahrerhaus.JPG this one] which has a higher cabin but other than that is quite a match. Also FTR, I noticed that the twitter account has "Donbass Bandera" as location, which can but must not mean anything. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: Bandera might mean something, in context, but no time to puzzle too much. Good ID work there. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Vassili's Truck August 1 Loc.png|left|380px]]The article passes on a geo-location I can confirm: [https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Makiivka,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine/@48.04073,37.967479,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m5!1e2!3m3!1s78165143!2e1!3e10!4m2!3m1!1s0x40e08e984a0db9a9:0xe4e52efde2e0641c Here on Google Maps,] photo taken, as described, from "opposite the Vostochno-evroppeyskiy restaurant & lounge “Atrium” in Makiivka on the H-21." A site photo of the "Atrium" is included. The graphic I made at left shows the approximate view, including the stairwell (to a subway station?), though the billboard is less clear. The view is roughly towards the rising sun northeast - a rough azimuth measure suggests the sun is shining from about <s>66</s> 71 degrees from north, for a time of around <s>5:24</s> 5:52 AM (elevation: <s>1.8</s> 6 degrees). --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC) and corrections --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
FWIW, I went over to militaryphotos.net and scanned [http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?236005-Situation-in-the-Ukraine-Crimea-*Photos-Videos*-ONLY/page200 the thread about Ukraine starting on page 200] in very early July, up until page 225 when all the known truck/BUK info and disinfo was posted. Watched countless military convoys, including a whole bunch from Donetsk in the time between. Not a sign of the truck in question. If it was in "rebel" hands since July 8 like the alleged owner claims, they used it only for "special ops", alone in the early morning or so, not in their larger relocation operations. Two things remotely interesting: in an operation [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0JdcC324Ek reactivating a WWII tank from a war museum in Donetsk], a similar trailer is used, but the truck is a different one. And in [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2eGNPJlkMo this video from July 5] but without given location, the Ukie army does some operations and two BUK TELARs are seen. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Possible Launch Sites ==<br />
*Launch site discussion here is based on a photo of disputed provenance, said to be made '''near [[Category_talk:Ukraine#Torez|Torez]]''', showing a plume of smoke (see on the right and below). Exact date is disputed, but it was posted shortly after the accident. A late update or second version of the photo emerged in December 2014; this is further discussed in the [[File_talk:MH17_Launch_Plume.png|talk page for the photo]]. A different launch location in '''Artemovsk''', based on Bezler account, is discussed elsewhere [[Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17#Bezler_Account|(link).]] . <br />
<br />
===What do we know? ===<br />
Questions about the photo, --if it is genuine-- include:<br />
<br />
*What is shown on the photo? (Likely a missile launch, but can be MANPAD, or some other launch; raising fire smoke not excluded though less likely) <br />
*When was the photo made? (Claimed to be couple of minutes after the MH 17 shootdown launch; but could be made on earlier days)<br />
*Where was the photographer, and where is than the 'launch site" Photograph claimed to be made in Torez (4 microdistrict?) . Claimed launch sites locations are [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/launch-location-detected-of-missile.html SE] or [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2107 NE] from the photographer. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
A site, or maybe a couple of locations, have now been forwarded, based on compelling evidence, as likely SAM launch sites of July 17 or thereabouts. This is worth careful consideration here. To start:<br />
<br />
* [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10984530/MH17-the-clues-which-may-lead-to-missile-launch-site.html UK Telegraph, July 22] This report with some detail and a photo visits a few areas where signs of possible BUK launcher movement and firing occurred recently. Caterpillar tracks, mostly light, signs of burning, various debris left behind, all or mostly "in the area of the town of Snizhnoye." These details might suggest whoever did this had multiple launchers set up in different areas that left as soon as the operation/accident was done. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
::So far, signs are saying it was just the one. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Below: The site shown on video, stitched panoramic view (with confusing curve). This helps get the fullest set of geo-location clues. I may even check if this is the same spot identified by Ukraine@War, below. It should be, or we might have two firing locations pretty near each other, which would be odd. The firing direction from here would be northwest, almost directly along MH17's flight path. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
[[File:MH17 Telegraph site.png|center|940px]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Launch Plume.png|right|340px]]Ukraine@War: [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/launch-location-detected-of-missile.html Launch location detected of missile that brought down MH17] The photo at right, cited by Kiev as proof of a BUK launch in the right area, July 17. The anlysis here looks good on first blush and lines the filming to northern Torez, plume on a line including a supposed patch of cat tracks just revelaed by fresh Google/GeoEye images of some fields [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Donetsk&hl=en&ll=47.989347,38.773155&spn=0.078813,0.195522&t=h&hnear=Donetsk,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&z=13 here] by Snizhne. As traced, the tracks look realistic to me. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: There is (a disappeared) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUvK5m2vxro BBC video ] suggesting that smoke is from a direction of Saur-Mogila (= constant fighting) and a coal mine. <br />
::Thus smoke may be unrelated to the launch. Also timing of photo is unclear. <br />
:: Buk trail from unrelated launch videos appears considerably [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDXScnEKaP0 more impressive than on the photo] , and traces well visible trajectory, likely attracting attention of many people . But there appears to be no witness reports. <br />
::Buk appears to use [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_navigation proportional navigation method], and if so, its navigation control will try to guide it on a straight path to impact.<br />
::Unless it was doing something else (but can it??? the answer requires expert knowledge), it was most likely on a straight line trajectory which can be deduced from the impact direction.<br />
--[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 00:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Yes, an odd video. I'm not certain they even picked the right view, but it looks about right - I think she and Oliphant (Telegraph) point to the same monument as a landmark - a place of fighting. Seems like they got close, but didn't have a specific spot like U@W picked, and didn't find anything. As for angle, I think it can maneuver around, but would prefer to fly straight (not an expert, don't know what "prefer" means here). And if it was hit head-on like the impact marks suggest, then it probably did fly just about straight into the jet. Obviously if it came over the wing, and was fired from here, it would have to curl around, but I don't think that's the case. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
<br />
The satellite images cited at Ukraine@War are available if you have Google Earth. As explained [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/satellite-images-reveal-how-buk-has.html here,] there's a .kmz package you can download [https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxEeOqcjSE5uQXlkWkxKeVhDaEk/edit here] that loads on Google Earth new, murky images from July 20 (but the display still says August, 2013). The tracks he highlights are visible, faintly. There are a couple sets perhaps connecting - some could be local paths - there's no recent enough images to say there weren't there July 16. One important missing thing is a patch of burnt grass it seems should show up up differently - it's not identified there, and not evident right around these tracks. From this, it's not a great fit, except that line of sight pointing here. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Plastic Debris 1.png|left|280px]]So is the Telegraph site and the Ukraine@War site the same thing? Well, the Telegraph article says they went to the spot identified on a blog, but found, as the image suggests: Two possible launch sites – a rundown collective farm and a nearby wheat field – showed some track marks but no sign of any rocket launch whatsoever." It was a farmer plowing his fields there who pointed them to ''a field nearby'' that burned the other day, and that 's the unclear site they show. "The location of the fire lies on the supposed flight path of the rocket, and track marks – though indistinct – are present. Some unidentifiable bits of green plastic littered the site of the fire." There were also discarded bottles (type unclear) and apparently this oddity, shown in a photo but not mentioned - soft bakelite-type plastic ... thing, with years in the 1980s and 1990s stamped in it. It's all near enough to the rebel town, the Russian border, and concealed rebel positions that they think only rebels could operate there. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
First, let's note that author "P. Martin" connects these possibly relevant tracks with the surveillance video showing the Buk launcher driving south The Telegraph spot, from the burnt grass, must the spot the exhaust pushed off from, and the burn line should probably be to the northwest. There's no sign of that alongside these track marks found on that visual line. That's a problem, as the exhaust never said a luncher was driving around thataway, but rather launching from thataway. <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Telegraph Spot Mapped.png|right|380px]][[File:MH17 Telegraph Spot Cleared.png|right|320px]]Rather, it's the nearby "Telegraph spot" - not quite on his line but close - that [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com/2014/07/exact-location-pinpointed-of-mh17.html Martin thinks is the EXACT location] That, he thinks, is in the next field south. It should be visible in the updated imagery, but it turns out this is just off the edge of the area they provided, so it can't be verified or ruled out based on that. The inset graphic shows this cut-off line, his previous possible firing locations (track-based, seemingly un-burnt, in yellow) The spot yields a best placement with coordinates already noted by Petri in a section [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Map#Buk locations and flight paths|here.]] (I picked out the spot myself, best guess, and got the same but 3 seconds east) It can't be checked like that for the telltale stripe to the northwest, but it looks pretty likely to me. The main view down the tracks (left half of the panorama above) would be looking south, and the near line of trees on the right running west. The pretty obvious tracks he identifies as likely launcher tracks, and they do seem to curve in where it stopped. Otherwise, to me, this has more the look of a pre-travelles semi-road on the line between fields. Either way, it probably drove that way, and fired from here, and not from the un-burnt spots north. All the tracks he notes, none certain in themselves, are supported in their possible relevance by this being what's at the end of the trail. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC) and [[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Added in November, the image below that. I noticed Google Maps had new post-crash imagery up, and re-checked the spot for burn marks, since it was just off the grid before. This replacement - overlayed with translucence - seems too late. The strip most likely to show the signs has apparently been harvested/cleared before this image Some will say that constitutes a coverup. And it might, but probably just out of stupid reflexive nervousness. I just wanted to measure its angle and stuff. There is a nice track right up to the spot, likely pre-existing and just unclear before, and what they used to get there. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Location Challenged ===<br />
<br />
The above stuff, as of now and as I've been running it mainly, seems to bear out the vaunted "social media sleuths" placing the launcher and probably the launch in "separatist-held territory." I agree with all locations provided, and times too. Everyone acknowledges date is less sure. There are compelling clues pointing to concrete firing spot, that seems to be lined up the hit the jet head-on, as it's starting to seem the airliner was hit. In this narrative, the questions people should be asking is who was really running that. But readings differ, and some differing views can be considered here. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* [https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByibNV3SiUoobnpCVDduaHVORHM/edit?usp=sharing MH17 Analysis] – CDN <br />
<br />
Petri posted this to the front page, a 25-page report with many graphics and explained reasoning. One of its conclusions, based on range to impact, mainly, meant that "the missile that downed MH17 was not fired from Snizhne." At the moment, I disagree. Petri, who is CDN, and are they soliciting feedback? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::The anonymous PDF was published via Saker's blog: [http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/08/detailed-expert-analysis-of-mh17-downing.html Detailed expert analysis of the MH17 downing] "CDN" has [http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/08/detailed-expert-analysis-of-mh17-downing.html?showComment=1407347983141#c8862773971299986141 responded] [http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/08/detailed-expert-analysis-of-mh17-downing.html?showComment=1407350196815#c7564049628743605813 twice] in the comments. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 00:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
I think these might be part of what threw the author(s) off:<br />
# the heading seems to be off, too southerly to trace back like that. At the end, maybe close enough<br />
# possibly too-wide debris field starting too early - final breakup likely E-NE of their spot (ie closer to in range)<br />
# Wrong presumed angle of impact <br />
# Lack of knowledge, specified on page 23, of this contrail image or, obviously, the supporting clues pointing to what might be "the Telegraph site" excluded here. "Why are there no images of the rebel missile and its impressive launch contrail?" Oops, there is and it point there. <br />
--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: I just skimmed it before coming here. It was posted [http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.de/2014/08/detailed-expert-analysis-of-mh17-downing.html over here] where you can join the discussion (which I haven't read yet just saw that Petri is there chiming in in comment 2 of currently 93). I think it's first valuable in presenting the known capabilities of the Buk etc. If your stuff above is true and it is one single truck with one single TELAR that was seen in the different locations, then it shows quite conclusively that the Telegraph position can not be the launching point, because even if the Ukie claim of disappearance from Radar 50km from the Russian border is not true, due to the position of the debris it could only be further away, not closer, which adds to the argument. My 2 cents for the moment. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
: Oh, not directly related to the critique, but driving around with a huge phone number that leads to a Titan security of all places is more than a bit suspicious, I'd say. ;o) --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: "the Telegraph position can not be the launching point" if my "stuff above is true and it is one single truck with one single TELAR that was seen in the different locations" - how? "because even if the Ukie claim of disappearance from Radar 50km from the Russian border is not true, due to the position of the debris it could only be further away, not closer, which adds to the argument." Huh? I think the field is placed really vaguely in that report, and that's what sets the impact point - it looks maybe kilometers off, to the west. Placed right, the implied impact point is further east, ie closer to the launcher. It is a valuable report, but that point should be re-checked more carefully before I could be convinced to write off all the other evidence pointing there. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::: Take a careful look at pages 9 and 10 of the PDF. Place the spot to where you think it's "right". Think how that would change the picture. The argument is based on the empirical location of the debris and unless I've missed some serious flaw in the numbers and basic calculations made on the pages leading to that, I think it's by rule of thumb a very sound argument. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 13:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::: I'll do my own soon - I can say it would end further east, relative to the border there, and probably start further east too, but maybe I'm unaware of some outlying debris - but first a though on the debris field I just had, even more relevant than size and placement - what does it actually say re: the plane? He presumes it would follow the trajectory east. Not much, really. With only so much momentum and breaking up, with five miles to fall, the main factor will be wind. Even a breeze has five miles to act on it. That was so with PA 103 - the wind was about perpendicular to the path, and that determined just where stuff scattered on a line across the borders area right to the north sea - only the cockpit and a few things were off much from that line. Here, if it blewa along the flight path, the reasoning would work fine. If it blew back, to the west, the plane was probably shot further east than the field suggests. Ie, closer yet to in range. The Zuhres video above shows wind apparently to the northwest, and pretty strong. Worth a review and re-think in that light. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 14:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::: With an initial speed of 907 km/h I see no reason to take wind into serious account. I see no reason at all for going into more detail in this rule of thumb argument, not on the debris, not on the alleged launching point. But I'm as always looking forward to what you can come up with. ;o) --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::: btw there's no exact calculation of the traveled distance of the falling pieces, it's just found plausible resulting from other data. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::::: There's good reason. [http://martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/PA103_debris.gif past precedent.] I did read it wrong - the blue oval is about right, I thought the scale by it, which is way off. That's the 20 km drift - if the wind was blowing due east at the right speed... to the near edge of the oval and 30 km to the far edge... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 15:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 four last points.png|center]]<br />
<br />
Debris fields as shown in MH17 WSJ data combined.jpg. The two tracks, 118 per Flightradar24 and other sources, and 111 from a Russian graphic (see label C), just in case. They cross at point E just to look cool - superimpose wherever to visualize a track-back on these or any line between. <br />
<br />
The four red "last points", eyeballed onto the map as shown in the various graphics used here (all pretty approximate): <br />
<br />
A: last return, flightradar 24 (erred, I think, way too far along - I suspect some inherent offset...)<br />
<br />
B: Russian ATC last return, '50 km' from the border (vague description, likely close to accurate)<br />
<br />
C: end of 111 track shown in MH17 radar 1.png (maybe arbitrary, lower resolution)<br />
<br />
D: report, deduced point of impact (presuming 20-30 km flight due east after impact, wind app. not considered at all)<br />
<br />
E: My guess for breakup point, where the damaged front came apart (should maybe be further east, right over the south part of the first orange blob). Actual impact point, an unclear distance back. probably not very far - downward flight could start anytime after that, decreasing the lateral distance traveled) . <br />
<br />
The cockpit, aerodynamic, shows the most like forward trajectory of this, relatively minimal wind complication. The heavy forward parts had more drag, wound up NW of there. A bit further NW, the light, high-drag, punctured upper fuselage. That these parts aren't spread further out suggests the jet managed to descend some ways before the front totally fell apart, and/or that the wind was fairly light. From there, most of the plane remained together, kept more momentum and little wind effect, and crashed kilometers east. The last part of this plummet, about one minute seen on video, it was nose-free and essentially nose-diving. A slight north trend, perhaps curtailed eastward progress, largely just down, leaves it all hitting together by Hrabove, scattering woth the fireball trajectory and wind deciding where these bits landed. That it only got so far from the forward parts again suggests this breakup was fairly low in the fall - maybe just before the start of the one video. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I'd say forget point D, it is way too far west, this plane was not going to fly 25km once hit. On debris, I'd put breakup where the "f" is in your word "forward" and impact not very far NW of that, lifting the whole 118 line a little northwards. You can't bring breakup below impact and count on wind pushing wreckage "uphill" because that first group of wreckage included 37 bodies, which would not "sail". The impact would be enough to knock the course slightly south, to drop the cockpit at Rozspyne, where it turned NE to end up at Grabovo. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 03:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Thanks. D is the presumed point used to rule out this launch location, the original point of this sub-section. That dot fails by a good margin. My E and your guess are both north of the flight path, along which all the red dots are (this graphic is confusing, needs updating, if I didn't flatten it). I was thinking a NNW wind did the north and west spreading, but the records say the wind was flat "east" (to the west). I'm left suspecting now the plane banked hard left just before it started breaking up. Actual impact, just before that. The "C" label is pretty arbitrary, but it keeps seeming about right. On the imagined red line 1t 117-118, I dunno, maybe 20-30 pixels back. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::Winds are described as 'from' not 'to. So a wind blowing to the NNW is reported as a SSE wind.<br />
::::A slip - I'm trying to say it that way now. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::Getting on to the wind. The actual breeze direction is usually a function of altitude - veering or backing from ground level observation. It can easily be 90 degrees out from ground level. You need to look at the vertical profile used in aeronautical soundings to see where debris will in the main blow to. --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 11:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::Sounds like a real headache to map. There's also changes over time, where east at 5:00 may change briefly ten minutes later, or 10,000 feet up. All that seems can be counted on is easterly winds in general - no exception to that. And generally, even if they measure it at the airport, it must extend up to the clouds, which can be seen swirling east over the area. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::No it doesn't extend to the clouds except by accident. Major direction change can happen in hundreds of metres altitude especially at night. Examples of wind shift between ground level and 700 millibars (9800 ft) in day time can show a direction change of 90 degrees - e.g. North to West. This is significant with MH17 where the breakups occurred between 33,000 feet and probably a few thousand feet for the final disintegrations. --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 11:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::FYI Here is all about [http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/48/ Veering and Backing] --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 11:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::As for the spread issue, I'm re-thinking it. As for the bodies, it depends on a few things but I take your point - bodies are dense. And I didn't know that detail - worth considering. Also a sad side-note: most bodies would be alive and aware, from what I learned looking at Lockerbie. Lack of O2 would black them all out at first, but gravity makes it so there's enough in that final stretch those not dead already (the lucky few) would probably "wake up" in time to both feel their injuries and their fall, and to see the "separatist-held" fields rushing up to kill them. :( ---[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::: My indications are they were all dead when they hit the ground. That's not to say some didn't suffer from the first blast up there. Using my (very long ago) rescue triage training, I examined all the body photos for type of injury. The main findings were (a) almost no blood (as the separatist intercepted call rightly claimed) (b)a lot of legs at angles suggesting hip/pelvic fracture (a very common injury in air crashes to people wearing seat belts) and (c) all the bodies appear swollen (in first-day photos). We are thinking of what happened as a decompression, a low-pressure event. But that was preceded by the blast detonation of the missile just outside... a high-pressure event. The very high pressure shock wave compresses the blood vessels and severely damages the lungs. Blood pressure and heart rate go sky high trying to compensate. In 1/2 a second the blast wave is gone and they are in decompression.The heart can't adjust fast enough. The lack of blood flow makes the brain and liver swell up, too, so normal blood circulation cannot be re-established even if the heart recovers. The Lockerbie bomb, and various exploding fuel tank cases, were lower pressure explosions; sadly many would have survived those until ground/water impact.[[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 20:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::So there is evidence of blast wave, not _just_ decompression alone? But no shrapnel wounds? --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 21:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::(cut my comment - I had misread - taken to [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Debunked topics#Bloodless bodies – fake Facebook profiles?|bloodless bodies spot]] FWIW - but I disagree with both the lack of blood and the validity of many "separatist" communications, but if we're not arguing a planeload of corpses being shot down, I won't argue it much.) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
More to the point, leaving the above graphic aside, would be this newer one I should finally add. Basic straight path, 118 and placed as agreed by most sources. Alleged launch location, measures app. My best guess is a 2 km range from 22.75 to 24.75, weighted to the center. Or most likely about 23.75 km out (irrespective of actual projectile flight path, that's where it made contact, but this helps visualize how the alleged launch site might line up with [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Forensics#Direction of projectiles?|the directional forensics]]). --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
[[File:MH17 missile intercept distances.png]]<br />
::Straight line from launch is okay. But impact has to be further north, ie before the most westerly debris. You've used the map which assumes that debris to be blown back by wind. That can't be right, as it included bodies (too dense to blow back) and witnesses saw them and plane sections falling straight down. This only makes about 1 mile difference to the missile range, so does nothing to exclude that launch location. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 01:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::The map of spread is only app., some orange area I made. The pink dot and lines are from a map, Russian analysis, as you say apparently presuming a SSE wind. Debris including people ''would'' be blown back to some degree, all of it, varyingly; trajectory can only do so much when you have five miles of falling, with the breezes acting the whole time, and the lightest parts will be back a bit, whatever direction and as mentioned above, a SSE winds at some time or altitude still isn't ruled out at all). Do we know just where in that area those passengers landed, and what types of things are its far end? ? <br />
(<br />
:::I mean, you could be right and it's a bit further back, maybe with a continuation due east from there and no real wind effect except slightly back. It was only 9-12 mph, and maybe it fell halfway before starting to fall apart, which means less spread. I'm thinking about a possible left turn to explain the north aspect, or it could be wind, or being further back (more north, as well as west), or a combination. The turn has to be a certain size, the wind direction is not certain aside from east prevailin, ... whatever point best explains whatever happened ... we're down to a shrinking agreed range, and as you say, it's all within range of the one spot, so it's not ruled out after all. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 04:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
At this stay of play, I feel it will be helpful to have displayed prominently an overall map reflecting best guess on impact location as well as already flagged suspected launch sites, that is the two launch sites we have been discussing (near Snezhny ; near Chernukhino) , PLUS launch locations flagged and TIMED by released satellite data (currently only Russian data is available). I would be generous with the range here, we can find range suggested by public sources but presumably actual range depends on a number of things (height, radar range, trajectory, wind), and may exceed the "official" range. Another useful graphics piece info would be indicating the front lines, if there is a way to have those known. '''I would be extremely cautious with displaying graphics reflecting just one way of thinking (whether "worst", "best", or "middle of the way"), for the reason that any graphics is easy for human brain to absorb, more than words spread out on all our numerous pages, and ''no graphics at all'' is better than displayed ''skewed'' graphics.''' One-sided graphics may be '''inviting''' even more noise releases "supporting" some already skewed scenarios, and I feel that was already happening way too often. I feel that most helpful stance at this point would be as neutral as it gets. (Regarding trajectories, a default guess is a straight line, anything else requires an explanation. Straight line is implied so no strong need to actually display it, especially if it ends up curling in suggestive funny ways on graphics). --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 09:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::I've been doing a lot of graphics, so not all fired up for more. But if you are, I wouldn't mind making another if it helps. Maybe this is best taken to [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Map#Interception Location]] (a lot of this is redundant, and I might move it, but at least I can say let's stop piling intercept stuff here as well as there). Up to picking a certain spot around Chernukino? Some outskirts area, on a major road, it'll be a guess. A couple guesses could be mapped. Also, if it seems worth it, I can do updates and upload the new version as needed. Any timed satellite launches, let me know. Front lines, not known and IMO misleading in this case. Those who would know would try - and maybe manage - to sneak this thing behind them... the caution about leading labels, I can leave to you - you could just tell me what to put. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
:::::Would take me forever, may try later on, but not immediately; some cleanup/re-arrangement seems the easiest option. (If there are tools for collaborative mapping, may be good to start using those; but not aware of any) --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 11:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The preliminary [[Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Dutch preliminary report|Dutch report]] says the flight recorders were suddenly lost at 13:20:04 UTC at a point that almost exactly matches the 22.6 km mark. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 22:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Plume Location Re-challenged ===<br />
There is another video, essentially giving a bellingcat in voice-altered Russian. We discussed all that essentially; but he seems at least to end up with a claim for geolocation for the plume photo. Seems to be a new one (or I forgot the old one already by now). The claim is based on [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2055 unrelated panoramic photo] somebody took nearby, and [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2025 claimed to be geolocated by presenter]. Here it is on <br />
[http://maps.yandex.ru/-/CVG0nLo~ yandex map] ; it is taken from a terricon located at Lutuginskii bugor(=hill). There is a cableway from there to TsOF (remember, Khuevyi Torez tells about cableway from Lutugino to TsOF, so here they are); [http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=48.012722&lon=38.665695&z=14&m=b&show=/10590043/ru/ЦОФ-им-Киселёва TsOF is central enrichment plant]; photos from TSOF do show a similar [http://photos.wikimapia.org/p/00/00/62/81/85_big.jpg cableway] . So based on that and an audio of locals of unknown provenance and authenticity, discussing a missile-looking trail in the direction of [http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=48.041767&lon=38.741055&z=14&m=b&show=/18687650/ru/Химмаш Khimmash], our presenter [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2107 ends up] with this [http://maps.yandex.ru/-/CVG0rMnO claimed plume location] , somewhere near this Mochalino village. And apart from this, his contribution to the topic is the claim of a white spot on the other side of 3'2 Buk which he claims to match on the way out. I do not believe all those Buk sightings were taken on the same day, and so do not believe in the overall glue-up of the story, but geolocating the plume, no matter what the plume is, remains legitimate. This author gives his answer to that question. Is this geolocation correct? I do not know, it is not tight, there are lots of cableways out there I presume, and some posts nearby are not too unusual. I do not see a tight fit between Lutuginski bugor photo and the plume photo--some elements do match, but those are obviously not identical places. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 02:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Excellent. Let's keep the title. But I guess you just forgot the previous location. This is the same view. The plume could be added, but I doubt it, and it's to that view at a consistent time on a consistent day. I'm not convinced ''all'' Buk sightings are same day, but most of them being so is a good fit with this plume that way, and a plane down with damage that seems consistent to me. (I hate this case) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::Are you sure it's the same? This new one is NNE from Torez, I thought it was placed SE from Torez by [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/launch-location-detected-of-missile.html U@W ]--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::Going back to check, this is a different filming location proposed. Line of sight isn't included, but it seems to be the same line over the same area to the same place. Even before he could see the distinctive mound, Petros (U@W) had [http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-cfSqhRb2dKo/U80x2OxK1XI/AAAAAAAATNk/r42WpH-Bf-Q/s1600/missile+trail+9.jpg this lineup], which includes this spot. Right where Petros pic says "trees" is what this guy decided were the foreground trees where it was filmed. I wondered when checking but decided on the further version. And seems to be the same result either way. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::I don't think this is accurate, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2107 video at this timestamp] gives 'место пуска ракеты' (launch location) near [http://maps.yandex.ru/-/CVGgVPJN Molchalino]. I have not seen this elsewhere, I only seen the one claimed to be SE of Torez. He does not discuss filming location, but shows it on video and assumes it is in Torez near the terricon, which is close to what other sources assume. He does show the line of site on the video; it is nearly perpendicular to U@W. Lots of terricons, coalmines (so likely cableways), and power lines leading there in this area, so location now seems uncertain. As I understand, no solid evidence for either of these two being the correct geolocation (those cableways seems to be quite common) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::::I am/was confused then. I thought it showed a SW view, just from closer to the mound. Now I see at 33:45 a view from right by it, looking NE? Can't explain the other one you see in the distance in the fuller view (right ?) That's kind of towards Molchalino, but that won't explain anything I suspect. (and what a bad fake or odd coincidence to have a plume up there and a the Buk tracking imagery lead to south of Snizhne, oops!) We'll see south and west faces of buildings if looking NE, so sun will be shining from well east of south, but also quite high, like mid-day in the early AM - or maybe just earlier mid-day, like 11 am. That would be another sloppy mistake. I doubt the details will line up. BUT a couple minor things didn't quite seem to the other way, so maybe worth a try (later). --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I will send this comment also to<br />
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/01/27/is-this-the-launch-site-of-the-missile-that-shot-down-flight-mh17<br />
The US map launch location can best best and almost exactly located from the last magnified picture:<br />
https://wp4553-flywheel.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/32.jpg<br />
That location is here:<br />
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.9571993,38.7466343,488m/data=!3m1!1e3<br />
The triangulation result in the last 3 pictures of the article introduces unnecessary error and clearly does not match the magnified picture.<br />
There is a structure that looks similar to an airfield and it is just south of Chervony Zhovten (=Oktyabr), matching with a witness observation in that place ("it was flying as if from Saurivka", though not matching 2 other witnesses in the zello audio, indicating it came from government held positions further south, [2:00] "Well, it appears everybody saw where the missile has flown from." [2:04] "Well, where you are, everybody saw it, but the Ukrainian media, as usual, will say, will say that that were us.")<br />
It would be outside the range of the plume picture geolocation bounds, which may be either an error given the long distance, or, the plume picture was taken the day before from the reported grad missile launch (as well as the burned field). (The photographer gave his camera to the SBU after twittering the first picture, so later pictures and dates can not be taken for sure).<br />
http://7mei.nl/not-buk-m1-new-video-proof/--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 19:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:(1) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkCcCmYlMZc That audio], as it turns out, was posted by Torezinfo on 24 July, and updated on 1 February. Torezinfo is a favorite posting place of Khuevyi Torez(=KT), who posted a very [https://twitter.com/WowihaY/status/489914266439671808 similar location map on 17 July already]. KT mentions zello recordings on 25 July in the follow-up, so shortly after it gets on torezinfo. With all that stuff linked to this KT poster, I would not put much trust that any of that is genuine. (Or that this KT poster is not acting as a medium for SBU). (2)[http://fr1.sidcdn.net/maps/nsdc/2014/07/large/map-nsdc-2014-07-17-uk-w3000.jpg Ukrainian map] does give us some Ukrainian held area somewhere to the South, but from that map it is hard to tell where exactly opolchenie ends and UAF begins--(I would not know) (3) Actually, going from there, not likely to hit on the left side--so having it from Artemovsk (as Bezler told, indeed) seems most probable --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 21:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:: Here is another map http://liveuamap.com/e/2014/16-of-july-saurivka-is-bombarded-over-and-over-by-rus-grad?ll=47.907137219641115;38.75392913818363&zoom=8<br />
::And here is an article which says that both Marinovka and Tarany were held by National guard. http://www.interpretermag.com/ukraine-liveblog-day-149-russian-tanks-and-artillery-reach-donetsk/#3353<br />
::I just opened bellingcat https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/01/27/is-this-the-launch-site-of-the-missile-that-shot-down-flight-mh17 and see that large parts of the article disappeared, I think they are working on it. That location given by the US photo does not really match well with the plume direction anymore, lets see what they come up with--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 21:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::I believe Marinovka was [http://lifenews.ru/news/136715 taken by opolchenie on 16 July] (lifenews report). Tarany--do not know, perhaps still Ukraine, but not totally sure. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 21:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::: other sources say attack was repelled and forced them to retreat to Stepanivka http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_in_Shakhtarsk_Raion http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/213817.html--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 22:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::: That US photo launch location differs by an angle of about 11 (?) degrees from the brown line in the bellingcat plot (measured from the photographer's location). https://wp4553-flywheel.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/101.jpg (launch location is just visible below the letter 'p' of 'the word 'suspected'). I think this a lot and puts the 'plume' into question. But then there is only the US photo, which itself could be a production based on social media (or worse).--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 22:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Well some believed this is for real, then they got a case to answer [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/22/mh17-us-intelligence-russia-separatists-report Guardian: Photograph: US intelligence community] [https://twitter.com/barbarastarrcnn/status/491559153559932928/photo/1 @barbarastarrcnn] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
In the following, I assume that most of the social media pieces and leaked audio tapes are correct and connect the dots in a different way:<br />
<br />
1. On July 14, an Ukrainian Antonow 26 airplane was shot down by a missile near the Russian border town of Donetsk.<br />
http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/what-weapon-was-used-to-shot-down-ukraine-air-force-antonov-26-at-july-14/<br />
The video in above link showed the missile flying for 39 seconds until it hit. Only a BUK can fly that long, a manpad or Pantsir, also claimed to have been used, not (see first comment in link).<br />
<br />
2. According to a recorded audio tape published by the Ukrainian Secret Service SBU, rebels possessed a BUK ('BUK3x2') in the Donetsk area at least since July 14 ('we already have BUK'). At that date it may have been either on Russian or already rebel held territory.<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVAOTWPmMM4<br />
<br />
3. A social media search discovered only one other system in the area, capable of shooting down AN26 - a Pantsir. However, a Pantsir can't fly for 39 seconds. Based on a max.speed of 780m/s and max range of 20km, it can only fly for about 25s.<br />
http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.co.nz/2014/11/unnoticed-video-of-26-downing-confirms.html<br />
Therefore and because of the crew's intent to engage in the civil war, it is likely that AN26 was shot down by BUK3x2. Afterwards BUK3x2 had only 3 missiles left.<br />
<br />
4. On July 16, Ukrainian and rebel statements both confirmed the shoot down of a SU-25 plane near the "Marinivka border crossing", which is only a few kilometers south-south east of Pervomaiske, the destination of BUK3x2. Ukraine's defence ministry said: "It is likely that [the hit] was carried out by air-to-air rockets from the Russian air force which were patrolling the border in a pair." <br />
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-28345039<br />
This may have been another reason to install a BUK system in this area on the next day, leaving room for an accidental Ukrainian shoot down, apart from an accidental rebel shoot down and a willful Ukrainian false flag shoot down.<br />
<br />
5. On July 16, rebels fired grad missiles from a location near Pervomaiske. The plume may have been photographed as well by an SBU informant in Torez and twittered on the next day, claiming to show the launch of the missile hitting MH17.<br />
http://7mei.nl/not-buk-m1-new-video-proof/<br />
<br />
6. On July 17, BUK3x2 was seen in rebel territory on its way to Pervomaiske, south of Torez. Ukrainian SBU knew about the arrival latest since July 14 and about its destination latest July 17 morning, allowing a false flag operation from positions held nearby.<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVAOTWPmMM4<br />
<br />
7. There was an ongoing battle in the region with "fluent" contact lines. Marinivka and Tarany, about 8 kilometers south-east and south of Pervomaiske, were controlled by Ukrainian National Guard as well as all of the border region. Marinivka would match well with the direction of the Torez plume photo.<br />
http://liveuamap.com/e/2014/16-of-july-saurivka-is-bombarded-over-and-over-by-rus-grad?ll=47.907137219641115;38.75392913818363&zoom=8<br />
http://www.interpretermag.com/ukraine-liveblog-day-149-russian-tanks-and-artillery-reach-donetsk/#3353<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_in_Shakhtarsk_Raion<br />
<br />
8. The Russian Defense ministry claimed in a news conference, that on July 17, Ukraine installed several BUK system near rebel held areas.<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bNPInuSqfs#t=1567<br />
<br />
9. In a popular 'zello' audio recording, witnesses in the area were talking about the launch of the missile hitting MH17. A witness from "Oktyabr" (Chervony Zhovten) claimed "it was flying as if from Saurivka". <br />
Two other witnesses said:<br />
[2:00] "Well, it appears everybody saw where the missile has flown from."<br />
[2:04] "Well, where you are, everybody saw it, but the Ukrainian media, as usual, will say, will say that that were us."<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkCcCmYlMZc<br />
<br />
10. A Reuter's witness also claimed that the missile was fired from Kiev held territory. Reuters, however, said, "off camera, he said that it was launched from a nearby rebel site. Asked why originally he said the opposite he said it was because he was afraid of the rebels."<br />
In a new interview this witness claims that "off camera comments were just made up by the [Reuters] journalist".<br />
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=497_1427729491<br />
<br />
11. BUK3x2 was again photographed in Lugansk with its 3 missiles, no missile fired since July 14.<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4HJmev5xg0<br />
<br />
12. The US presented a very low resolution satellite photo with the track of a missile added. The launch location does not match well with the direction geolocated with the Torez plume photo, it deviates by about 11 degrees in angle, hence either or both appear to be incorrect.<br />
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/01/27/is-this-the-launch-site-of-the-missile-that-shot-down-flight-mh17/#comment-12493<br />
<br />
13. Award winning investigative journalist Robert Parry reported about leaked US intelligence "that U.S. intelligence agencies do have detailed satellite images of the likely missile battery that launched the fateful missile, but the battery appears to have been under the control of Ukrainian government troops dressed in what look like Ukrainian uniforms."<br />
https://consortiumnews.com/2014/07/20/what-did-us-spy-satellites-see-in-ukraine/<br />
And later Parry wrote: "But I’m now told that U.S. intelligence analysts ... are concentrating on the scenario of a willful Ukrainian shoot-down of the plane, albeit possibly not knowing its actual identity."<br />
https://consortiumnews.com/2014/08/03/flight-17-shoot-down-scenario-shifts/<br />
<br />
14. During the coming months BUK shrapnel may have been collected from the AN26 wreckage and planted in the MH17 wreckage.--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 00:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Photographer Statement===<br />
[http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com.au/2014/12/interview-with-eyewitness-who-made.html Reported to say] : "That day did not foretell anything special would happen. In the morning I woke up and went to my work. At four ó clock in the afternoon I arrived home. And at 16:20 we heard an explosion. The first explosion was not very heavy. 15 seconds later, something like that, there was a second explosion, which was louder and it made the windows shake."<br />
: Did not foretell --an ass, --is this lawyer-written? 'We heard". --Took till December to polish up ? --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 16:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:: Agreed. 'I did not know in advance this would happen.' Uh, who said you might? And 15 seconds must be rocket travel. Did he hear the firing from there? Could be, not that far. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Time delay consideration ===<br />
Photographer reported two sound booms td=15 seconds apart; an interpretation may be launch and impact sounds arriving to him in Torez. If P=(0,0,0) is photographer cordinates, I=(d,0, h) is impact, with d ground distance between Torez and Rozypnoe, h is the height of flight at 10 km , and L =(x,y,0) is launch location, dist(A,B) is Euclidean distance between A and B, c is peed of sound, and n (about 2.5) is missile speed in Machs, then<br />
<br />
(1). dist (P,L) = dist(L,I)/n + dist (I,P) - td*c <br />
<br />
(2). dist (P,L) >= h/n + dist (I,P) - td*c <br />
<br />
(1) is a biquadratic equation for y given x (square enough times for square root to disappear); plotting that gives a closed 'ellipse-like' curve on (x,y) plane; once on that curve, time delay is exactly td seconds (doing this involves solving quadratic equations and removing spurious solutions not satisfying (1) ) . That curve is at distance about 13 km in NW direction from photographer in Torez, and about 22 km in SE direction from him on the Southern ( Saur Mogila side). <br />
<br />
(2) gives a simple estimate that distance between photographer and launcher is greater than the known right hand side; that distance is more than something like 13 km<br />
<br />
(3) Requiring launch withing the range, --launch is not more than 20 km horizontally from the impact-- selects a NW arc of the curve described in (1) ; that arc is to the NW from Torez, and goes slightly NW from the impact point (meaning its ground projection). <br />
<br />
Conclusion, based on the above, is that launch is too far from the photographer, to match the photo. <br />
<br />
(Knowing exact time delay can tighten the argument. With what's actually known, and objection can be raised that whatever actual time delay was, it appeared to be 15 seconds to the photographer. Graphics of the curve may be supplied if needed). --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Ooh. That kind of math could really come in handy with recorded audio cues, for example. But based on '15 seconds, something like that,' from memory months later, I wouldn't put any weight on it. If that turns out correct and pretty exact, there's a good point. Otherwise, the photo and other stuff is more solid, and says it's just about where it should be, as far as I've seen anyway. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Contrail ==<br />
This is what an "impressive launch contrail" of a big missile might look like.<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3lLwP1y0w8 АТО. Запуск двух ТРК Точка-У. Артемовск.] (ATO. The launch of two TRK Tochka-U. Artemivs'k.) – August 28, 2014<br />
-- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 22:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Something happens in the sky. This is the people's reaction:<br />
* ''20/09/2014 Over many parts of the DPR and LPR were seen circles in the sky.'' [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7310 1,] [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7311 2,] [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7312 3,] [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7313 4,] [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7314 5]<br />
-- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 03:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
Tochka U missile is single stage solid fuel, which is a mixture of ammonium perchlorate with rubber and aluminum powder (Russian [http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/tochka/9ch151.shtml "ДАП–15В" fuel] ).<br />
I could not find information on Buk with a comparable level of detail. Buk missile is single stage, solid fuel of some type, "dual-mode solid propellant (total work time - about 15 seconds)" [http://www.webcitation.org/67kZeZxeh] , [http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-9K37-Buk.html]<br />
Earlier "Куб" ("Cube") missile used [http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/kub/kub.shtml 'ballist' fuel,] [https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%85#.D0.91.D0.B0.D0.BB.D0.BB.D0.B8.D1.81.D1.82.D0.B8.D1.82.D0.BD.D1.8B.D0.B5 gunpowder] + plasticiser type (Russian "ВИК-2") at the start, followed by some sort of ramjet ("direct flow rocket engine") at final stage. It is not clear, but possible, that fuels and contrails of Tochka U and Buk are different. Here are some videos with Buk launch: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDXScnEKaP0] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EAtNpsXrgWs], and [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSXMhaFntrU a longer with stupid music version]. Those videos appear to be shot from a closer distance than Tochka U video; and a contrail on them does look quite impressive. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 10:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:The amount of smoke is highly dependant om Alumin(i)um loading. In general more aluminum is more 'oomph' and also more smoke.<br />
:On the other hand, it's common to alter the loading for other reasons. I refer to the Syrian Volcano (122mm variety) that started out as high Al-load and quite smokey but recent versions have low Al load but perhaps similar characteristics? --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 10:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Here is something that might be a BUK: Ukrainian AN-26 shot down from Russian border area on July 14th. Ukraine@war claims it as a BUK. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 10:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
* [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.fi/2014/11/unnoticed-video-of-26-downing-confirms.html Unnoticed video of AN-26 downing confirms shot down from Russian territory] – Ukraine@war, November 27, 2014<br />
** Video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoS4kgHxPnE Ukrainian Military Aircraft Su-25 Downed After Russian Attack Near Izvarino, July 16]<br />
:::Does not look like Buk, short contrail, --not all the way to the ground like on Buk video launches. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::It was a BUK. It flew 39 seconds in the video, a Pantsyr can't do this, see also first comment in this link http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/what-weapon-was-used-to-shot-down-ukraine-air-force-antonov-26-at-july-14/. Easy maths - at Mach 3 (1020m/s) it can fly for about 42 seconds (range 42 km, bit more because initially it is slower). According to the audio tape, BUK 3x2 was in the area on that day! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVAOTWPmMM4 Ukraine@war needed 5 months to find something else in the area, but the Pantsyr can't fly that long. This is how BUK 3x2 likely lost a missile.--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 21:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::::Well, yes, it does takes 42 seconds to fly 42 km at 1000 m/s , but that does not mean what we see '''must be''' a Buk. They start discussing that plane caught fire at 0:03 on the video already. We do not see what on hell is going on until some 30 s later. This plane likely was brought down by Igla or similar modern MANPAD. Possibly two hits, at 0:03 and another at around 0:30. Or it got on fire at the start of the video and than eventually went down (It is unlikely to have SU 25 pilot bailing out after Buk strike; or particularly likely catching fire as it's not aiming at the engine; contrail is weak for a Buk, too). Pantsir claims are much later from what I have seen,--- and no need for Pantsir to shoot SU 25. ---If something is there on SBU audio and some murky photo, does not mean it's all for real, and that what we do actually see all have to be linked to all that murky SBU stuff. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 22:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::::There may be some confusion here, just a recapture<br />
::::::First video https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xTT6BDRA8_k<br />
::::::0:03-0:11 buring object <br />
::::::0:17-0:33 contrail making a half looping<br />
::::::Second video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoS4kgHxPnE<br />
::::::0:29-0:39 contrail making a half looping + detonation.<br />
::::::ukraine@war http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/11/unnoticed-video-of-26-downing-confirms.html<br />
::::::says both videos show AN26 shoot down on July 14 (second video with wrong label SU-25)<br />
::::::says 2nd video impact at 0:39, claims missile has been burning for at least 39 seconds--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 06:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::::::After reconsideration, I would say ukraine@war is right, both videos show AN26 shoot down, but wrong, people were initially watching AN26 with engine burning and a second missile was fired. That missile was seen burning about 16 seconds in first video, and time has to be added to reach that altitude/location, so likely over 20 seconds. That would exclude man-pad, Pantsir (?), likely BUK, R73 air-to-air, ...--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 06:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Actually, it is interesting to know how contrail of Buk on a long haul launch looks like. It is said that it fires engine for some 15 seconds only (and unknown will it do less, if it can do away with less). That 15 seconds need to put it at a spot where it can reach the target with little, if any, engine work and doing turns only. It is not very clear how much targeting happens in the first 15 seconds, likely it does some; and it is self-guided and doing proportional navigation later on. Knowing details here allows to find exact trajectory, short of that thinking it goes straight to the collision point is a sensible idea. In any case, heavy contrail '''raising from the ground''', perhaps higher than the target is. Contrail is white, and stays put for a while. Seriously heavier than the stuff we see on social media. There are youtube videos of Buk launches giving an idea --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:These 15 seconds are wrong. Here is a video (start at 2:00) showing a SA-11 burn fuel for 35 seconds until its too far to distinguish. It is detonating at 42 seconds. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBlU2hHYJMg (I just copied the comment from here http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/what-weapon-was-used-to-shot-down-ukraine-air-force-antonov-26-at-july-14/ )--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 23:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::That video probably shows a modern version ('over horizon' capability was mentioned somewhere regarding modern developments; this one seems to be showing us something like that). 15 sec is coming from Russian sources [http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/buk/buk.shtml Зенитная ракета 9М38 выполнена с применением двухрежимного твердотопливного двигателя (общее время работы - около 15 секунд)]. Older versions also had shorter listed range. 22-25-35-42 km range, going through modifications. (Would be happier without 15 sec engine limit actually-easier to know trajectory) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::Actually what goes off is [https://digitalempire.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/9m38m1.jpg 9M38M1], the one supposed to have [http://pvo.guns.ru/buk/buk_02.htm 15 sec engine run], but the video lasts for 40 sec. This appears to be edited video, around 2:30 we got two tracks, than one slides right unreasonably for a natural recording. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 02:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::Since this is a point we haven't already covered around that I know of, I'll pop in for it. 42 seconds I gather is the time for the fuel to burn out and the thing to fall, like a grad rocket or the like can only do. But this is a missile with guidance, set to intercept a moving airliner. Therefore, app. 40-45 seconds is the longest, not the shortest, it can fly (or am I just confused?) But 15 seconds is plausible, depending. Still might be untrue, not trusting people saying stuff. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::::After the engine is off it is high up and and at high speed, still can fly until gravity acceleration brings it down, and is on guided flight -unlike Grad-because fins can move causing it to turn. Issues here are visuals (contrail all the way or only about 15 km in flight), and trajectory. With engine on for 40 +secs it will go straight to collision point doing proportional navigation all the way (exploding earlier if it needs to be). If it is only 15 sec, trajectory is less clear, it may for example use engine to climb high up, than do guided fall and proportional navigation to the target from a spot where engine delivered it (for low and close-by target, that may potentially end up with a hit from another side--some drawings from unclear sources were showing opposite side hits at under 1 km and direct hits at 10-15 km). Or it may use engine to end up on a ballistic trajectory hitting target (no side changing than). This is solid fuel engine so there is not much control on how quickly it burns off, that time is a set design feature. What we see on launch video is 40+ seconds of engine work-- will go direct to collision point in that case. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 12:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::::That's another clue that plume of smoke photo is not a Buk launch, that would give at least some 10-15 km worth of contrail, not a plume; with 40+seconds engine, contrail all the way to impact...(or else, launched from far away, over 40 km distance) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 12:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==About accents==<br />
<br />
[http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29109398 This report,] released one day before the preliminary official report, recycles visual imagery already discussed on this page, and attempts a new claim that a BUK crew spoke with Russian-'Muscovite' accent. The claim is made by (British-accent) actors representing 'eyewitness(es)', with a visual imagery of a car at unknown night-lighted location in the embedded video, and some text, provided in English. Regarding 'Muscovite' accent, first it is not easy to tell, for example [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBCfmlMkYMg this video] is Mr. Poroshenko speaking in Russian to a resident of Crimea, replying in Russian, and commented by a presenter, who is speaking 'Muscovite'. Although Mr. Poroshenko has a slight southern accent, there is little difference between the three speakers in practice. Moreover, actors and presenters can easily switch from Southern to Muscovite as required. <br />
<br />
Secondly, if somebody speaks 'Muscovite', this does not mean this person works for Russia or the rebels,--- he can work for any side (PS. No change of condition to the blue dumpster on Zuhres video was reported in this latest update). --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Thanks for bringing this. What a stupid report. "Three eyewitnesses, all civilians, separately told Panorama that they saw a missile-launcher in rebel-held territory a few hours before the Boeing jet was hit." Yeah, video shows the same. It was there. It probably shot down the plane. Accents, as you note, aren't the best indicator of anything, and even the reason sounds vague: the G thing, which even I know about (back to Olga/Olha). The "Russians" might even be Russian dissident mercenaries right from Moscow, for all we know. Who paid them? Their going up to the media and saying "you didn't see us" was not a good plan to stay secret. The witnesses: chosen at random? Directed to them? <br />
::''If correct, the Kremlin has to explain to the relatives of the 298 passengers and crew who died - including ten Britons - why Russian military personnel were allegedly seen in the area escorting a BUK shortly before MH17 was shot down.''<br />
:I think Russia could come up with a reason or two such allegations are made. Those ten Britons' tax dollars fund it. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: Hmm, this foreigner is confused by dat BBC talk: "If correct" ... doesn't that mean it ''wouldn't be'' merely "allegedly" but, well, correct? ;oP --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 23:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::It means "If {made up vague allegation) is correct....then "SHOCK HORROR CONCLUSION IS TRUE". this lets them be as wild or wide off the mark as they like and the magic "if correct" turns it true. Without any effort to check if it IS true in our understanding of that word.[[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 03:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::Another BBC weapon in its arsenal of innuendo and dissimulation is the quotation mark. Whenever they are dealing with something of dodgy provenance, or something of good provenance they want to weaken they put it in quotation marks. e.g. - ISIS beheaded 20 Syrians. becomes ISIS 'beheaded 20 Syrians' or 'ISIS' beheaded 20 Syrians or ISIS 'beheaded' 20 'Syrians' or ISIS beheaded '20' Syrians. No need for corrections later. Any version can be retrospectively justified or otherwise. --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 03:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== If Buk 3x2 Was in Russia ==<br />
Previously, it seemed quite likely the Buk launcher associated with the shoot-down was one of those owned and operated by the Kiev regime, simply snuck into separatist territory, maybe with some cover to make them even invite it in like a Trojan Horse. Then, I saw the November Bellingcat research on "Buk 3x2." As covered [[#Bellingcat and 3x2|above,]] this claims to match that unit with a distinct one seen three weeks earlier, driving in a military convoy well inside Russian territory. This is widely taken as clear proof the Russian military supplied the weapons, and it is strongly indicative of that. However, the general possibilities are worth laying out at this point.--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
All options below share these presumptions: <br />
* MH17 was brought down by the missing SA-11 missile AND/OR (in some cases) at least the launcher's appearance was coordinated to give that impression and is a clue to the plot <br />
* The videos and photos in question are genuine and not manipulated (my usual presumption, same here)<br />
* The Russia geolocations (many of them, making sense in context) are correct - Buk 3x2 as seen was seen in Russia, between Kurk, Stary Oskol, and a bit south of there (not verified but most likely correct) <br />
<br />
Presuming all that:<br />
* Buk 3x2 (seen in Russia) and the mystery one are not the same - this require paint job match and matching damage to the lip above the track to make a Kiev-owned unit look like that one. It's possible, but not the most compelling.<br />
* The two units are the same - it was in the convoy in Russia and also towed around Donetsk oblast July 17. <br />
<br />
If the unit is the same, there are a few possibilities for the nature of that connection, some of them silly or just there for logical fullness:<br />
* It was Kiev's unit and they snuck it over and into this convoy, and...<br />
** ... got it back later<br />
** ... the Russians kept it and used it for their own operation<br />
* It was Kiev's but some other way lost to the Russians <br />
* It was Russia's but Kiev managed to sneak over and steal it out of the convoy and then use it for the false-flag event<br />
* Same, but Donbass rebels then stole it from Kiev <br />
* It was Russian, and someone on the Russian side drove it over and then it was stolen by Kiev forces <br />
* Someone on the Russian side drove it over and it stayed in their control or handed over to their chosen parties, or transferred at the border - that is, no Kiev interference.<br />
<br />
So far, I'm inclined to call Bellingcat's reading (the last option, the widely accepted one) the single most reasonable one, though maybe outweighed by the ''combined'' alternatives. It's not fun to feel almost swayed to a view so close to Kiev's problematic narrative, but this is what I see, pretty basic. Some combined maybes go against the straightforward reading. As for other thoughts I might be missing, well, that's partly why it's here. Let me know, I'm all ears. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Starting from that reasonable if unproven last option, not one but three final types of possibility remain. If it was freely moving in convoy inside Russia, it probably belongs to Russia at the time. Presumed. However, it could be that...<br />
* '''A rogue officer''' at Kursk - maybe a closet Nazi who sympathizes with Kiev, hates Putin, or just took a bribe - provided this unit to Kiev. He would set up this convoy to anchor the thing in Russia, then send the shady unit on, with his own guys or to hand off to Kiev's, who took it from there as I've speculated. The strangely obvious manner it was displayed - on both sides of the border, with its number slowly fading away - is consistent with this motive + intelligence. <br />
* '''It happened as reported''' (one way or another) Putin's military signed off on the loan, apparently with a sent crew or maybe given to local handlers, who for their own purposes did fire that shot. The strangely obvious manner it was displayed is consistent with this + stupidity/sloppiness, providing proof that probably wasn't even needed, just helpful, to start the punishment. At that point, it would be a real problem about as trumpeted, and still I would suggest we consider what the real crime is under the circumstances, if the solutions pursued are fair, or if this is all just geo-politics and warfare by other means cloaked in a cynical disguise of concern for justice. ^ <br />
* '''Koo-koo (?):''' "as reported plus" - a mega conspiracy theory: it goes all the way to the top, and Putin is that rogue general selling the nation out, to demonize himself and Russia and be sure to get caught, in an elaborate staged play - Putin (or whoever's running things presumed to be run by HIM) is somehow controlled, his opposition scripted and ultimately geared towards provoking and achieving an expansion of "The West" into "The North." (I've always considered this possible, and one that's occurred to me more lately, and seems worth listing ... but I don't buy it. I'm going with "rogue officer" with a second bet on one of the other divergence points listed before that - unspecified. Third choice is "as reported.")--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::^ Not to apologize for egregious behavior if it really is that, but let's please compare this to the shoot-down of Iran Air 655 by the USS Vincennes in 1988. A US Naval ship illegally in Iranian waters shot down an Iranian passenger plane with 290 people aboard, despite all the safeguards and sensors working correctly (the consistent clues the ship's computers gave them saying "do not shoot" can only be overridden so totally by choice). But it was deemed by the US to be no crime, just accident and Iran's fault for being provocative, and useful in the effort to compel them to quit the war with Iraq they were just starting to win. In Ukraine, repeated Air Force attacks on rebel-held cities, often hiding their jets behind civilian airliners, might both justify arming the rebels with such defensive weaponry, and invite an honest mistake from a team running this machine in stand-alone mode. The SBU version however overrides this all: it was an accident, but the Russians' intent was never defensive, always planning to kill an airliner, just meaning it to be a different one. That would clearly be criminal in all regards, and it's a sub-set of "as reported" - not a very good one. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Sorry, I can't help you here as I don't share your presumptions. I consider it a waste of time and energy to connect dots that are laid out by "sources" like the SBU and Brown Noses - proven liars and at least in case of the former producers of fraud "evidence" - and therefore I didn't even read your logical chains based on them. Just saying to not make it appear that I agree. ;o) --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 10:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:Poking at specific presumptions could be helpful, but it all could go on and on and remain inconclusive anyway. And I take back what I say about leaning this way or that - I keep leaning different ways and on balance I'm feeling sort of weightless here. I think that comes through in the text... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I don't see the numbers matching, getting close is not good enough, and I quit it there. Yes, it is weird that they are close, and that this murky business is covered by Spiegel, but can't really help with any of that. There is lots of murky weird stuff going on all the time, can't change the whole world to stop it. (Also: the Russian Government would be fully capable of doing a painting job properly if deciding to starting painting at all, their food trucks are all nicely painted, etc; just too sloppy for them to be behind) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:The paint being what it is, between that and the bend and light patch below all lining up, I think we're down to the same unit, or faked to match, and the possibilities branching off those two. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::As discussed earlier, the dot is shifted off the middle, more on Russian video than in PM photo; in Russian video, number 2 has well-curved semi-circle; in PM, it is almost straight segment. Bad photos for comparison but it's off, as far as it's possible to tell. As for the skirt bend, too blurry and distorted on PM to tell; Russian video, I think it is actually dirt, not a bend. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Also, looks like two squares , a bit darker than background, over first digit in PM photo. Unclear is it paint or digital camera effect. Any sane person hiding something will paint over everything, not paint just specifically over the first digit. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::I think I got everything linesd up - it has to be de-skewed the same, and all ines up. You might be scraping bottom on this one. The curve is there, at its elongated part, at an angle. The dent/dirt looks the same, same place, relative to the light patch and all else. It's too much for coincidence by a couple of degrees. BUT I just shifted back to option ... should have numbered them. ... the middle starting option - image authenticity. I hardly ever call digital image fakery, and not calling it here, but... I still haven't checked the new (to us) June videos, so I'll stay presuming it might be okay - video's harder to fake than a photo. But on the other end, it all comes down to the one photo. That I noticed, no other views are close enough to say if these matching clues are present. (the bend, maybe). The squares you noticed, maybe a paint clue or just artifacting. It may too pixelly. I cannot really analyze the technicals properly to say. It looks okay, but possibly fishy too. Maybe the dirty windshield helps hid the painted in pixels to make this thing - just once - or maybe again in other images - look like that Russian 3x2 unit, exaggerated and going into rebel hands... Some kind of coincidences setting that up to work, but it's possible, and an expert should look closer at this picture. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC) <br />
::::I, --at the very start of discussion,-- zoomed picture on screen (by a lot), and measured length ratios (to the dot/ total panel length), parallel to the 2 sides of the panel, using ruler (millimeters one) over screen. I ended up with ratios in horizontal side of panel directions were off, by more than blurring; in vertical, could not tell-within blurring. This is not sensitive to skewing or zooming. So I don't think it's the same. May double-check measurement when have time; or somebody else can. Did not have time to try doing digital version of the same/similar method. Did not look carefully at comparison the 2 after de-skewing , but have an impression this is different; not that much skewing there; it looks essentially straight line on PM, skewing will not make circle into a line. May look at 2's some other time. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::::Finally took a closer look and PM was still off a bit on rotation and vertical-to-horizontal - in line with your observations. Still working out the adjusted graphic. The white is shifted a bit left of lining up perfectly... I think it's still close enough it's the same or is supposed to be, and not far enough off I'd call a bad fake - probably just pixel shift. Will see tonight. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 00:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Okay, I don't have a comprehensible graphic handy yet, but Maybe Resup is seeing what I am now. I was having a hard time aligning it all, so focused just one the one rectangle panel with the number. Still, on the PM photo I trace apparent edges, best line of dark pixels ... it lines up, proportion-wise, with the white spots on or a hair to apparent left. But when the whole image is placed by lining up that center, the rest of it doesn't line up - both sides seem shifted right, or the middle shifted left. (also the track areas appear far to the left, but they stick out a bit, and from the back angle flattened like this, that's why. Each difference in relief from "true flat" plane of the side will cause this... maybe I'm just not correlating it right, and maybe it's a clue the photo is messed with. possible offsets in both white patches as well, but maybe too in the natural fuzz zone. ?? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
If the launcher was driven over the Russian border, fired once then driven back again after it had carried out its mission, the part of the story that doesn't make sense is the sighting on a stolen flatbed truck outside Donetsk. If the Russians were prepared to supply a launcher but not a truck, the stolen truck would have had to be driven to the border to be loaded and there'd be no reason to risk a journey back to Donetsk. The west to east journey is more consistent with CL's original suggestion of a launcher from the Ukrainian base north of Donetsk. If this was a false flag, there would have had to be a paint job to give it Russian markings (maybe to match one in a recent video). Otherwise the videos would point to separatists with a captured Ukrainian BUK, leaving the Ukrainian government liable for failing to close its airspace when it knew that a BUK had gone missing. [[User:Pmr9|Pmr9]] ([[User talk:Pmr9|talk]]) 16:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:Now this sounds engaged, thanks P. Yes, why drive it to Donetsk? (Other than to be seen in the smoking-gun rebel capitol, before getting seen in Lugansk too) And I never thought of that why it had to be Russian. Indeed, for liability reasons, it had to be a snuck-in surprise, not captured (unless they could come up with a reason why they didn't learn about it, and I suppose they could). The suggestion has problems and was slow to gain adherents, but maybe this kind of thought has swayed people to realize Kiev "must be right" about that... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Sunday Times story: original is behind paywall but reprint [http://malaysiandigest.com/news/531506-ukraine-ignored-warning-to-close-malaysia-airlines-flight-mh17-airspace-before-tragedy.html here]. Eurocontrol's experts "spoke privately to their Ukrainian counterparts" about their concerns but Ukraine refused to close its airspace. "Ukraine intelligence sources said they had been made aware that several anti-aircraft systems had crossed from Russia into Ukraine at least a week before the MH17 incident. But they claimed the intelligence was not “100 per cent reliable” and could not have been used as grounds for 'drastic moves' such as shutting airspace". [[User:Pmr9|Pmr9]] ([[User talk:Pmr9|talk]])<br />
:::Okay, well there's a train headed this way then. Several units? The whole June convoy? We do have this alleged maybe-Buk launch just before on July 14, an associated loader seen later, etc. And Ukie intel somehow did point to this number "312" you can't see on the unit they tracked so quickly. Did they already have that obscure Russian video everyone missed until now? And more yet showing the "1" still there? That early on? (that's all very speculative, but interesting). It has to be snuck in, maybe, but then it helps that you can vouch for it - so they fudge and average this aspect. Main point then seems to be, whatever failures they mumble out on their own end, it has to implicate both Russia (provided weapon) and the rebels (held the space needing demonized).--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references /></div>Antidyatelhttps://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17/BUK_Tracking&diff=22578Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/BUK Tracking2015-06-06T13:29:31Z<p>Antidyatel: /* Bellingcat and 3x2 */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:MH17]]<br />
==Who Has the BUK Launchers in Ukraine?==<br />
=== Kiev's Holdings ===<br />
<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3MomxNHnUA#t=288 Ukrainian Buk in ATO area], 16 July 2014. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 23:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CBQbFC9loc#t=350 Captured map] of 1 battalion of UAF 95 air-mobile brigade, dated beginning of July 2014, show location of 2 positions of Ukrainian Buks. Basurin points them on the map; but video resolution is insufficient to see those. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 05:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Maps can be faked, but still I'm curious what it shows. I imagine there might be a flat image of the map somewhere. Resup, could you maybe have a look? It's too slow for me to try an image search with translated words. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
::I have not seen the map in news reports mentioning the finding; and now I see it says explicitly that they are not going to make it public, [http://real-info.info/novorossiya/13429-vlasti-dnr-ne-budut-obnarodovat-karty-vsu-do-okonchaniya-rassledovaniya-krusheniya-mh17 until MH 17 investigation is completed]--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 23:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::Here is a press conference report--with video but not the map --[https://vk.com/strelkov_info?w=wall-57424472_57351 (Basurin press conference)]--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 23:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
It is possible to understand what it means when they say Ukr army controlled territory. But what is rebel controlled territory. Even if we take the maximum estimate for rebel numbers in July 2014 of 10,000 fighters, it gives a fraction of a rebel per square km, if we assume uniform distribution. In reality rebels very concentrated in Lughansk, Donetzk, Saur Mogila, 2 cauldrons. So everything else is free for all territory. When MSM declares rebel controlled territory, they just rely on Kiev's maps. Very reliable source. -- Antidyatel June 6<br />
:That's a good point that really came into play with the [[Mariupol Market Shelling]] incident - turns out all this eastern fire form rebel-held areas is from areas listed by Kiev as places they don't have full control over, that any crazy thing could happen from and it's prob'ly not them. Might even be a section on that here, if not, could be. There is an apparent pass right through a checkpoint, basically where the Pari Match "photo" was taken. That at least is a problem for a simple slip-in op, but it can be done and otherwise the theory could explain a lot (like, everything maybe) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC) <br />
<br />
<br />
==== BUK 312 and comrades ====<br />
[[File:Buk 312 sbu.jpg|thumb|left|BUK 312 on a trailer. Photo shown on SBU website and later removed. – ''[[:File:Buk 312 sbu.jpg|more...]]'']]<br />
Part of the material the Ukrainian SBU released to suggest that "rebels" shot down MH17 with a BUK, was photo material showing a BUK TELAR numbered 312 on a trailer, alleging it has been photographed on its way back to Russia. This was quickly shown to be extremely questionable as evidence surfaced showing number 312 in Ukrainian hands. The SBU then removed the photos from their website while other material like a suggestive photo showing a "plume" remained there. <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Buk 321.png|thumb|TELAR 321 as posted by @MOR2537 to illustrate what he alleges to have witnessed]]<br />
This was outlined (and a screenshot saved) in more detail [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/07/21/the-mh17-investigation-and-buk-312/ over at Human Rights Investigations]. A [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bj-VZB0ZdEA video embedded there] shows BUK 312 in Ukrainian hands back in March. The other two TELAR's seen in the video are numbers 323 and 321. BUK 321 [http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Ukrainian+government+forces+maneuver+antiaircraft+missile+launchers+they+transported+north+west+from+Slavyansk+eastern+Ukraine+Friday+July+2014+Photo+Dmitry+Lovetsky/10004193/story.html has been seen] in Ukrainian hands just two weeks before MH17 crashed, transported close to "liberated" Slavyansk. <br />
<br />
Interestingly enough, one of the tweets [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com/2014/07/reconstruction-of-whereabouts-of-buk.html spoon-fed by Ukrainian loyalists to imaginative Dutch blogger Ukraine@War] to suggest that there have been eyewitnesses for a "rebel" BUK, is then [https://twitter.com/MOR2537/status/489709431467171841 followed-up by the alleged eyewitness] with a picture of BUK 321 to illustrate what he has seen. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::yep, he is a conduit for Kiev but seems to have outside info, too. Like originals of photos he can get geolocations off (he says). But also has good collection of very early photos etc which have since become hard to find.Not sure I trust him though. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 15:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::I hadn't seen that before, thanks. I'll be considering... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 22:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: More photos: [http://www.armyrecognition.com/images/stories/east_europe/russia/missile_vehicle/sa-11_gadfly/pictures/sa-11_gadfly_anti-aircraft_missile_to_armoured_tracked_vehicle_Russian_army_russia_011.jpg 321] - [http://rt.com/files/news/2a/b1/40/00/640x480.jpg 312] - [http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1870560.1405614701!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_970/correction-ukraine.jpg 321] --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:Buk 312 in Lugansk.png|thumb|left|According to alleged former operator "A", this is BUK 312 after relocation sometime in Spring 2014 in Metallist settlement of Lugansk, with Yubileynaya mines in the background]]<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmI2KCOt_sA Anatolii Sharii] version of events, shows that Buk blamed on Russia has number 312 and was earlier photographed as part of Ukrainian convoy. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 20:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Sharii interviewed a Ukrainian soldier who served on Buk 312; this can be found on [http://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/1947657.html Cassad]. The guy does not know about MH17; but recalls SBU claiming it was this Buk 312 responsible. From this interview, meaning of 312: 3 is division number, 1 battery number, 2 unit number in a battery (there are loading and command vehicles, not just launchers). This UAF Buk is initially from Luhansk; than relocated to Kramatorsk; than places in a field. A serviceman took it on a ride with hand break on, leading to a small fire affecting electrics and requiring repairs. So it was traveling on a trailer at some point. It was than moved to Dnepropetrovsk, village of Novogrigorievka (apparently for repairs, and after trailer photo was taken, but exact date was not given). Buks from Luhansk which were not broken were moved by UAF elsewhere (and according to the soldier, were photographed in variaous places including Gorlovka; while 3 broken Buks remained in Luhansk) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: Interesting. I see that the "[http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Ukrainian+government+forces+maneuver+antiaircraft+missile+launchers+they+transported+north+west+from+Slavyansk+eastern+Ukraine+Friday+July+2014+Photo+Dmitry+Lovetsky/10004193/story.html has been seen]" link to the Montreal Gazette is dead by now. If anything I'm surprised that it lasted that long. Minitrue at work. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 04:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: [http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2014/12/17/shooting-down-mh-17-buk-312-story-false- Here] (and mirrored [http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2014/12/17/buk-312-crew-member-says-rebel-shoot-down-of-flight-mh17-story-is-false-transcript/ here]) is an English translation of the interview. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: And [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2rRCSNp33I here] is the video itself with English subtitles. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 20:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:What you said about the accident and the photo showing the damaged BUK on a trailer is about the very photo the SBU showed on their website as "evidence" and later removed. Also adding that he says friends in Lugansk saw "rebels" trying to repair the units they had left behind, but he knows that "whole equipment units" were lacking so the remaining stuff was "unusable". And that he says that he asked his ex-comrades still operating the BUK if they dunnit, and they said they didn't. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Good to see this section expand. Interesting additions from the alleged operator, and reasonable-sounding (the photo might show smoke stains to the back left side). But in the end, this issue might be not so relevant. I doubt it was Kiev's unit 312 that was used, and seeing how Kiev always was eyeing a supposedly Russian unit 3x2, maybe 312 ... In fact, if the middle number connotes unit number, and it's done the same, the launcher is always 1 and it would be 312 (or is that mixed-up?) So maybe all this really shows is how Kiev knew but didn't want to say all along, implausibly picking their own 312 to illustrate that knowledge with an embarrassing but harmless "error", while awaiting ... as it turns out, the independent Bellingcat investigation that finds 3x2 somehow in Russia... That tracked this ludicrous Buk field trip, as presented and followed on this page, which almost seems tailor-made for them, but Kiev wants us to know they they were secretly on the ball too from the start. (all thoughts in progress, a bit distracted too) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::::If SBU wanted to point out they knew the TELAR had number 312, why would they publish the photo in [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmI2KCOt_sA such a low resolution] that the number could not be read? -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 21:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: As Resup summarized, 1 is the battery number. The leading 3 means it's from the Lugansk division. If this is true, the fact that 312, 321 and 323 have been seen together on video in March perfectly fits with what the alleged operator said: That they were removing units in usable state from (all batteries of the division) Lugansk early on, leaving the crap behind. And the view that the SBU just published everything they could find to fit their tale that the "rebels" used a BUK to down the plane, including this photo, cut-together and taken out of context audio tapes and that ridiculous "plume" pic, and the 3x2 bellingcat nonsense from lately is meant to distract from these facts, is much simpler and straight forward than what you tried to come up with here on the fly. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::Ah, I see it now, not when I was typing, sorrys. Middle number could be anything, bust mostly we always see low numbers, so odds are good it was a "1". 3 means from Lugansk if that's true (presuming so) and it's Ukrainian. Diff. number paintjob though, as noted below. But I'm sure the Ukies just faked this exact 312 to a different style of 312 and then painted it out partly, and just let it slip with the one photo of how it looked before...? We'll have a hard time agreeing here, as the stuff you just dismiss as "nonsense" looks kind of like possible evidence with details I'm sort of trying to consider. I don't see how you can just ignore it as if it must be wrong somehow, and all made up to distract from ... this 312 disguised as 3x2 theory? Where it wasn't even at the end of that fake plume anyway and might be totally irrelevant or entirely fake? Or, what am I missing? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::Didn't you say that you haven't even watched the videos and checked the geolocation/origin yourself, if they really are from Russia etc.? Well, I certainly won't. Because I have no reason to believe that the sources are more truthful with the "evidence" than they have been before, and that track record is well established. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::::Yeah, which is why I'm neither in a good position to say they aren't wrong/fake, nor to go against my usual presumption it will be sound (has been so far, on this subject anyway) And by the supposed stills compare to supposed satellite imagery, it looked like a good match (I did skim the site once I could). I don't like the implication either, and I want it to be wrong. And it may well be, but I'll want to see how. And hey, there's a whole other section or two about this below... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
:::: I watched the video [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bj-VZB0ZdEA with the Ukie BUKs in March] again. There are actually more than the three I mentioned earlier. It starts with 323, which is not a TELAR. Followed by the two TELARs 321 and 312. Then comes what is also not a TELAR but what looks differently than 323: Number 301. Followed by two more TELARs, 331 and 332. So they could all be from the Lugansk division, parts of batteries 0 to 3. But one would suspect that the batteries are internal always numbered the same way. "A" says:<br />
::::: ''BUK is a complex of 4 specialized military vehicles: command post, mobile target detection and assignment station, loading and starting station, self-propelled fire installation.''<br />
::::So if 1 and 2 are TELARs, why are there two of them and why is 301 what could be the detection station with a radar? Is 323 a loading station? --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::::Too rusty, but good questions. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::: Ah, I think we can sort this out [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SA-11 thanks to wikipedia]:<br />
:::::''A standard Buk battalion consists of a command vehicle, target acquisition radar (TAR) vehicle, six transporter erector launcher and radar (TELAR) vehicles and three transporter erector launcher (TEL) vehicles. A Buk missile battery consists of two TELAR and one TEL vehicle.''<br />
:::: So our "A" didn't mean that a battery consists of 4 vehicles, but that the whole BUK consists of 4 different kinds of vehicles, some more than once. From this I deduce that "0" is for command and detection units (here our main radar 301) of the Lugansk division 3, and the batteries 1,2 and 3 each consist of two TELARs (numbered 1 and 2, here 312,321,331 and 332) and one TEL (numbered 3, the first vehicle in the video, 323). Makes sense? --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 13:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::Russia said Ukraine had 27 BUK launchers in the crash area, i.e. one brigade, or what ever comes in the hierarchy above battalion. If all units are numbered the same way, from 101 to 333, then one TELAR in 18 should be numbered 312. Maybe [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:9K37_Buk_of_the_Ukrainian_military,_Independence_Day_parade_in_Kiev.JPG not.] Russian numbers seem to reach higher. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 01:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::::Good find. The existence of 114 and 115 makes it more complicated. The [http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buk_M1 German Wikipedia article] says, contradicting the English one, that one battery consists of one command vehicle, one main radar, four TELARs and four TELs. But if that's true, there's no logical place for Radar 301, and why would one TEL be number 3 and the other three TELs numbers 6 to 8? --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 10:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
How to read BUK numbers<br />
This is how you decipher 312:<br />
<br />
3 stands for the third (Lugansk) division,<br />
1 stands for the battery number, ours was no. 1,<br />
2 stands for one of the 2. service units in each battery, ours was no.2<br />
<br />
according to a Ukrainian who explains it was "his" bUK (but not in his hands at the time)that shot down MH17. One of th many reports [http://www.opednews.com/articles/Shooting-Down-MH-17--BUK-by-Michael-Collins-Buk-312_False-Accusations-Of-Terrorism_False-Flag-Attacks_Mh17-Airline-Crash-141217-104.html about this interview] This claim is now superceded by the Capt Voloshin air-to-air claims. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 15:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
That solder knew nothing about who shot the Boeing. He was talking to Sharii, who previously made a video showing that Buk shown on SBU website is actually Ukrainian Buk 312. Later, the soldier emerged, saying that Buk 312 was his. (Claim of this one shooting Boeing is not his, it is SBU early claim) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 16:48, 26 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
While Voloshin story may be a play on destroyed by SBU evidence. There is supposed to be a log of flights, missiles fired, likely those logs no longer exist. Also before they claimed SU 25 were lost on 16 of July, but SBU denial of Voloshin story had SU 25 shot on 17 of July. And that Dnepropetrovsk airport traffic control lady vanished without a trace. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 16:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Supposed 321 belonging to KIEV<br />
::video shows three BUk sets [http://eurazya.today/2015/04/11/about-the-buk-312-who-allegedly-shot-down-mh17/ from 0.31 mark] but I can't really pick the number, they say it is 321. at Gorlovka in March. One on a white lowloader. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 12:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== Russian claims ====<br />
As part of their July 21 presentation of evidence, the Russian Ministry of Defense published satellite images allegedly showing Ukrainian BUK positions around Donetzk ([http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ RT report]). It's no secret the Ukrainian military maintains a base with anti-aircraft units. The facility shown in the Russian presentation (best seen [http://rt.com/files/news/2a/9a/00/00/4.jpg here]) I located - it's south of Avdeyevka, 3 km north of the airport, about 5 km north of Donetsk like they say. Visual match first, then noticed the label could have found it for me ... [http://wikimapia.org/#lat=48.0999781&lon=37.7578908&z=16&l=0&m=b&show=/16956839/ru/Зенитно-ракетный-дивизион-в-ч-А-1428&search=Donetsk on Wikimapia]. Labels, translated: Anti-aircraft missile battalion (in / h A-1428) One of the three anti-aircraft missile battalions ("Buk-M1"), located in Avdeyevka, Mariupol and Lugansk." BUK-type launcher photos included. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The counter-arguments to this at least sometimes fail. [http://www.interpretermag.com/mh17-and-moscows-magical-mystery-jets/ Interpreter rag] decided "the presence of Ukrainian government air defense systems is something of a red herring, not least given the clear evidence that the separatists had deployed at least one Buk system in the area." The side with a ''motive'' and clear, moving and likely operating units of the things on that day (see below) is irrelevant and shouldn't be considered because there's apparently also proof the presumed bad guys also had the units they needed to be so presumed. The very fact that separatists aren't ruled out means the other side should be free of any danger of being ruled in, and the separatists should ruled in just as automatically as they were ''before'' this social-media verification came in. This is clearly an irresponsible suggestion. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC) and --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Kiev's Buks Shuffled?===<br />
<br />
* From Russia's military press conference: [http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ RT, 10 Questions] - [http://www.ruaviation.com/docs/1/2014/7/22/83/ in more detail]<br />
:''3. Why was a large group of air defense systems deployed to the militia-held area if the self-defense forces have no planes?''<br />
:“As far as we know, the Ukrainian military had three or four air defense battalions equipped with Buk-M1 SAM systems deployed in the vicinity of Donetsk on the day of the crash. This system is capable of hitting targets within the range of 35 km at the altitude of up to 22 km.”'' <br />
:''4. Why did Kiev deploy BUK missile systems on the edge of militia-controlled zones directly before the tragedy?''<br />
:''“We have satellite photos of the places where Ukraine had its air defense units deployed in the southeastern parts of the country. The first three photos were made on July 14. The first photo shows Buk launchers 8 km northwest of Lugansk. You can clearly see a TELAR and two TELs. The second photo shows radars 5 km north of Donetsk. You can see two TARs along with other equipment and technical structures. The third photo shows air defense systems north of Donetsk. You can clearly see a TELAR launcher and about 60 military and auxiliary vehicles, tents for vehicles and other structures.''<br />
<br />
:''“Here’s a photo of the same area made on July 17. Please note that the launcher has disappeared. The fifth photo shows a battery of Buk missiles at the village of Zaroshchenskoye 50 km east of Donetsk and 8 km south of Shakhtyorsk on the morning of the same day. The sixth photo shows the same area on July 18. As you can see, the battery has left.”''<br />
<br />
Note: the <s>latter</s> fourth photo of July 17 has substantial cloud cover, but unless they happened to hide the launchers in those areas (or Russia's satellites waited until the area was covered) it appears the noted vehicles have left to go do something - on/by the 17th, where they say launchers appear and then disappear in a town closer to the crash on the 17th. Zaroshchenskoye [http://maps.yandex.com/?text=Ukraine%2C%20Donets'ka%20region%2C%20Shakhtars'kyi%20district%2C%20Zaroshchens'ke%20ville&sll=38.446008%2C47.98844&ll=38.517419%2C48.048098&spn=0.810242%2C0.300187&z=11&l=map on Yandex maps] - 13 miles SSW of the crash sitel, 9 miles W-SW of Torez..--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
On July 30, Vitalyi Naida, head of Ukrainian Security Service SBU’s counter-intelligence, came up with a series of slides ([http://euromaidanpress.com/2014/07/30/russia-fakes-mh17-crash-site-satellite-images-says-sbu/ short article], [http://www.sbu.gov.ua/sbu/control/en/publish/article?art_id=129610&cat_id=35317 announcement on SBU website] with link to [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ut1JExQKV-0 youtube-video showing the slides (presumably Ukrainian language)]) allegedly showing that the Russian material was "faked". He points to a patch of trees, claiming they had been cut down shortly before the 17th, while Russia's images show the trees intact. On August 1, the Russian Ministry of Defense published [http://eng.mil.ru/en/analytics.htm a rebuttal] advising that<br />
:''Instead of presenting hastily doctored evidence to the international community, the SBU could do with better control over all the mercenary units in the areas around Donetsk and Lugansk organized by Kolomoisky, Lyashko, Yarosh and others, who shell Ukrainian territory without any control from those in charge of the anti-terrorist operation.''<br />
<br />
The trees probably are cut down by now, but we'll have to wait for the true details of just when they were and when the image showing that was taken, or if the image shown is even of any one day and not a composite - "doctored" as Russia says. Other clues suggest launchers moving out of this area at that time: The [[#Paris Match Photo]] - ostensibly from the morning of the 17th - shows the infamous launcher-loaded truck seen in Lugansk, or one just like it, being carried on a truck belonging to a company just south of the missile base in northern Donetsk. That was seen carrying the launcher east out of town at 11:15 AM, purportedly on July 17 (and with the location completely fudged to say Snizhne, when it was only headed there).--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Zaro redeploy.png|left|600px]]The Russian military press conference said "The fifth photo shows a battery of Buk missiles at the village of Zaroshchenskoye 50 km east of Donetsk and 8 km south of Shakhtyorsk on the morning of the same day. The sixth photo shows the same area on July 18. As you can see, the battery has left." (#5 inset) The Ukraine@War blog's analysis decided this image as well was fake. That's mentioned [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com/2014/08/ukrainian-sbu-comes-with-conspiracy.html here] if not elsewhere. The reason: "the shadows of these BUKs have a different direction for all three of them. It means these were pasted into the image." I have to admit, it looks a bit like that. The trees have consistent shadows to the west, in a morning image. The furthest vehicle to the left has a visible shadow about like that. The other two don't seem to, and the one furthest right seems to have a shadow on the wrong side (looks like early PM). I wracked my brain just a little thinking of other explanations aside from just low resolution. Nothing much came up. Anyone else? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br /><br /><br />
<br />
<br />
: '''New video proves UKIE BUKS ACTIVE'''<br />
: video has surfaced, posted to Youtube on July 16, taken a few days before, showing a Ukie BUK radar [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3MomxNHnUA being rotated]. The reporter is taken somewhere in a helicopter and proudly shown the BUK. Segment starts around 4.17 in the chopper, BUK shown briefly at 4.45. Label does not say where exactly, just reads "Officers of Ukrainian Armed Forces patrolling in the ATO zone". <br />
: This ties in with claims that they were doing anti-aircraft exercises, probably in response to claims/fears the Antonovs were brought down not by the rebs but by aircraft from Russia. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 10:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::Thanks! We had this July 16 video [[Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17/BUK_Tracking#Kiev.27s_Holdings| elsewhere]], but here is a good place... The other video, from March, was not seen. There were few more early sightings of Ukrainian Buks, uncertain locations, with those 3** numbers; maybe should get a good place to keep them all --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::: Location of sighting is unclear. But according to some reports ([http://lifenews.ru/news/136731 LifeNews]), on July 16 UAF SU 25 was shot down from a height of 6 km by opolchenie MANPADs. That was near Russian border, --reports say the plane actually crossed into Russia, not far from Marinovka. It could be suspected by Ukraine that a Russian plane was involved, so it will be plausible to have Ukrainian coverage of the accident area by BUKS. On July 14, it was reported that [http://m.rosbalt.ru/ukraina/2014/07/16/1292690.html AN 26 was shot down in Luhansk] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
--Antidyatel <br />
There is strange twist of Logic in Bellingcat report about satellite photos. The photo with Buks in the field is claimed to be manipulated.They found that July 17 image was manipulated but only invite region of clouds. They don't say that BUK was removed by software (there are 4 more vehicles missing). But on all Google earth photos BUK never moved. So did it move ever or not? Manipulation of Google earth photos or likely their source is not new.[http://www.imediaethics.org/News/130/Exclusive__google_investigating_photoshopped_gogle_map_image_.php]<br />
<br />
Surprising Google earth have more updated photos on the BUK base location and nearly nothing for the location where Russians seen BUKS. There is something strange about RUSSIAN supposed fakery. Doesn't make sense.<br />
<br />
===Separatist Holdings===<br />
While much certainty has been shown it was a separatist BUK system responsible, everyone seems to acknowledge that ordinarily, they didn't have any, that were known of. Fresh sighting of them in the field, supposed admissions, and existing presumptions remain the strongest evidence. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;June 29 Seizure?<br />
The Open Newsroom team have latched onto a June 29 message from a Twitter account associated with the Donetsk People’s Republic, @DNRpress claiming separatist forces had conquered a base with anti-air BUK missiles. This is apparently the A-1402 base, as an Itar-Tass report specified. That report noted ... It seems to just cite the tweet which, it was found, used a dated photo online since mid-2013. In essence, there's no good evidence they ever did seize this place. But it was referred to by some as "Deleted DNR tweet confirming Russian rebels indeed have a BUK-M1." The crew at large seems a bit vague on the status of this base:<br />
:'' It appears that the A-1402 military unit was moved into the Donetsk region in 2007 from Odessa, and reports note that the unit was based near Donetsk airport. Local reports from June 29 cited ATO spokesman Alexei Dmitrashkivsky as stating that separatists had attacked the military unit.'' <ref name="Story1" /><br />
As we just found with geo-location, it's 3 km north of Donetsk airport, and it's the same place Russia believes is firmly government-held. It's the place they say at least one BUK-type launcher was removed from on July 17 for some reason, by Kiev's forces who run it. If [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Donetsk_Airport this basic Wikipedia article on the battle for the airport] is correct and/or in line with [[Attack on Donetsk Airport|our page on it]], the airport and anything military-related north of it would probably be government-held continuously to the present time. It's possible some launchers could have been lost during a brief seizure of the base, but this too seems doubtful. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
:Social media published many photos of the "liberated" Buk missiles. I searched for them on Google Image Search; all were old photos from more peaceful times. I have no idea what really happened. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 23:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Thanks. I hadn't looked into it myself, but recycled images made sense given the other clues that they never did take that base, or at least get anything out of it. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 00:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Something in English [https://www.facebook.com/TruthfromUkraine/photos/pb.1452285018328179.-2207520000.1409095455./1515506872005993/ on Facebook,] with links to Russian souces. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 23:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Your geolocation is wrong. The former [http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-SAM-Site-Configs-A.html SA-2 launch site] to the north of the runway is called A-1428, at least according to the [[:File:Donetsk Airport battles 5 Oct 2014.jpg|map by Komsomolskaya Pravda]]. The site was rebuilt sometime between 2002 and 2009 with new garages covering part of the SAM ring. Tactical maps say today it is still held by Ukraine, but may have been in NAF hands earlier. Base A-1402 is located south of the new terminal building along Stratonavtiv Street.<br />
<br />
When looking at the latest airport battles I noticed that Military Maps already shows structural damaged to the new terminal building. I did not expect Google to provide any relevant satelite data. In Libya we had almost daily satellite images of Tripoli, but in Syria we have seen no new photos of the battle-effected areas.<br />
<br />
I opened Google Earth to see what has changed during the war. It seems that the war has had no effect on either base. There is still a lot of military hardware parked on both bases. Most of the trucks and whatever are parked just where they were last year, or on many cases in 2007. I did not see anything that I could identify as a BUK launcher. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 02:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;Held by July 14?<br />
The US embassy in Kiev said in [http://ukraine.usembassy.gov/statements/asmt-07192014.html a press statement of July 19]:<br />
:''Intercepts of separatist communications posted on YouTube by the Ukrainian government indicate the separatists were in possession of a SA-11 system as early as Monday July 14th. In the intercepts, the separatists made repeated references to having and repositioning Buk (SA-11) systems.'' (also quoted [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/20/malaysia-airlines-mh17-videos-missile-launcher-torez-snizhne at the Guardian])<br />
As "Corporal Frisk" [http://corporalfrisk.wordpress.com/2014/07/21/comment-on-the-us-assessment-of-the-downing-of-flight-mh17/ aptly responded:]<br />
:''Having perhaps the world’s best intelligence network, and then using easily faked videos of separatist communications posted on YouTube as evidence sure has a degree of ridicule attached to it, but is also an inidcation that US intelligence believes at least some of these transcripts are real.''<br />
That's totally apt if one suspends the usual definition of "believe" (to include "wants to appear to believe," etc.) In the same piece, the author apparently gives more "credibility to the charges that the Buk-M1 is indeed Russian supplied (and possibly crewed), as opposed to stemming from captured Ukrainian stocks." As covered below, this I can agree with if we suspend the usual definition of "Russian" (to include "allegedly Russian villains," "the Ukrainian version of [http://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2011/07/african-mercenaries.html Libya's African Mercenaries] and [http://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/wiki/The_Shabiha:_Ghost_Stories%3F Syria's Shabiha]," etc.) this would be spot-on. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:54, 10 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
(more allegations to cover?)<br />
<br />
;The One That Matters<br />
Whatever the evidence rebels had Buk systems by the 14th, Kiev also has suggested, and many have accepted, that ''the one that mattered'' at least - the launcher unit that shot down MH17 on the 17th - wasn't theirs at all, but brought in and operated by Russians for the day only. If only for that reason, all the above is likely moot. See next section. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Russian Buk Field Trip? ===<br />
The Kiev regime's narrative also suggests separatists had no BUK systems of their own. Rather, someone else brought one in to their area, took it on some kind of tour through several towns thought accessible only to rebels and allies, and got it seen in each place. Then these people '''shot the airliner down themselves on the separatists' behalf.''' That party is the Russians, they say. This is perhaps best encapsulated by "counter-terrorism" chief Vitaly Nayda's early assessment. AP's July 25 report summarized it, saying "the account was based on information from intercepts, spies and resident tips."<br />
:''Nayda laid the blame fully on Russia: He said the missile launcher came from Russia and was operated by Russians. ... According to Nayda, at 1 a.m. on July 17 the launcher rolled into Ukraine across the Russian border aboard a flatbed truck. He cited communications intercepts that he would not share with the AP. By 9 a.m., he said, the launcher had reached Donetsk, the main rebel stronghold 125 miles (200 kilometers) from the border. In Donetsk it is presumed to have been off-loaded from the flatbed and started to move in a convoy on its own.''<br />
:''Nayda said the Buk turned back east toward Snizhne. Townspeople who spoke to the AP said it rolled into Snizhne around lunchtime.''<br />
:''...As for the Buk, Nayda said, intelligence suggests it went back on the move shortly after the attack. That very night, he said, it crossed the border, back into Russia.''<br />
<br />
This is full of details that don't line up with the emerging record, but the gist including a grand-circuit tour including both separatist stronghold/capitols Donestk and Lugansk plus the disaster zone, seems about right. But the evil they allowed came from and returned to Russia.<br />
<br />
This does however jibe with the Kiev allegation (I learned of through [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/07/25/snizhne-mh17-and-rebel-held-territory/ this excellent and relevant HRI article] that '''Russian jets''' violated Ukrainian airspace to '''bomb an apartment building in Snizneh on July 15th, killing 11 civilians.''' This all makes a bit of sense in context; that false flag attack was blamed by locals on Kiev'a noble Air Force - almost understandably! It "created the conditions" by which people ''might'' accept apparent a team of apparent Russians with a Buk launcher in their town two days later. The best guess for any single firing location is a field just southeast of that town (see [[#Possible Launch Sites|below]]). The locals might smile at, and later even cover for, this poisonous gift. But a trojan horse is a trojan horse, of course. They should have looked it in the mouth better, and been more aggressive with their questions. Because Russia has it in for the separatists, Kiev implies, using its skilled and well-documented team to murder 298 people in a horrific way on the separatists' behalf. This is not an accident, Kiev must know, but proof that Russia and its "inhuman" terrorists they must hate (and who do not seem to have any Buk launchers of their own, BTW) are the new global menace du jour. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Markings and the Mystery Launcher ===<br />
[[File:MH17 Buk 321 Parismatch comp.png|right]]A serial number on the launcher's side is apparently standard in Ukraine's arsenal (see [[#BUK 312 and comrades|above]]). Inset, an image comparing the side of the unit seen in [[#Paris Match Photo]], the one blamed for the shoot-down on the 17th, to TELAR unit 321. The side panels are easy enough to correlate and see the unit in the photo lacks a number, but does have a sliver of white paint (or similar) in one corner. Whoever was moving this painted it it out before this, so there is some attempt at concealment. Is this color of paint only available in Russia? The white sliver here could be part of the number, if it were painted higher up/larger than Ukraine usually does. I can't say yet how they do it. I did a Dogpile Photo search, lots of pictures, context unclear, different vehicles from different sides, mainly Vitaly Kuzmin photos so app. Russian military parades and such: --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
* Number shown, diff. vehicle: [http://military-vehicle-photos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/9881.jpg #1(loader?)] - [http://pix.avaxnews.com/avaxnews/8a/6f/00006f8a_medium.jpeg #2 same?] <br />
* Launchers with no visible numbers: [http://77rus.smugmug.com/Military/May-5th-Parade-rehearsal-2014/i-t7RjrzP/0/M/5may14-33-M.jpg #1] - [http://77rus.smugmug.com/Military/12-April-Parade-2013-rehearsal/i-KHVD3Tv/0/M/12aprilrehearsal_33-M.jpg #2] - [http://livedoor.blogimg.jp/gunzichannel/imgs/b/e/be60ae58.jpg #3] - [http://military-vehicle-photos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/9880.jpg #4] - [http://77rus.smugmug.com/Military/13th-April-rehearsal-Alabino/i-fKQdjW4/0/M/13April-Rehersal-Alabino-26-M.jpg #5] <br />
* Same vehicle, Buk TELAR launcher with numbers: not found. <br />
<br />
At the moment, the lack of a number almost makes it look Russian. The next panel over seems to have smaller numbers, or characters anyway. Nothing yet tells me the Russians add a smaller number on the panel behind that, with or without special stencils available only in Russia. Is that even a number, or does it say return to Putin? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== Bellingcat and 3x2 ====<br />
:''moved from [[#Paris Match Photo]]''<br />
<br />
Adam: somebody's favorite Bellingcat is now saying, I understand, that he is capable to read off the number of this Buk from this blurry low resolution Paris Match photo, using unspecified colored magic and some expertly fitted proprietary boxes. Well actually this is so proprietary that he can ONLY read the first number 3, and the last number 2, but is completely unable to read the middle one. Because, he does not want this to be this Ukrainian [http://uainforg.livejournal.com/1811500.html Buk 312] , nah, noway. He rather want it to be the Russian Buk 3 X 2, where X stand for Russian, and for secret, as somebody is said to unearth this dirty monster in Russia, as he says (I guess). This looks too much baloney as far as I am concerned; you can read any number you set in advance from this blurry photo, and fit there any other crap, boxed-shaped or wiggly, all essentially at will. Just recording this latest saga page in case somebody has more enthusiasm to chase it than myself. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 00:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
:No, you didn't quite understand, but thanks for the tip. An interesting twist I wish I'd caught sooner. First, this helps the West at large get in synch finally with Kiev - it was Russia, not the separatists, who owned and perhaps ran that unit. Second, it seems to me the match is at least as good as they say, but there's at least one aspect of it I think is hilarious and I wouldn't be surprised if they managed to miss it. I'll be back - this one deserves a quick blog post. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: I agree with Resup, this stinks of baloney designed to divert attention from the [[#BUK_312_and_comrades]] story. The worst thing about Brown Noses and cohorts is the amount of coordinated promo they get in pre$$titute media. SPIEGEL today [http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/jan-fleischhauer-ueber-wladimir-putin-und-mh17-abschuss-kolumne-a-1004898.html has a op-ed piece by a particularly douchebaggy example] on those independent genius investigators as well. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::I need to brush up on what that 312 story is... because it looks like this used to say 312. Ultimately I suspect its some kind of baloney, but just where it breaks down I don't know. It is amazing how they get such praise for investigating the right things (never did get back to the Houla Massacre) and finding the right truth... Daily Fail says "The authors said that 'our investigation was made possible by the examination of open source material overlooked by other organisations'." Oh goodness, that technique they must have invested ... maybe if we started doing that we'd get praises too! --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/11/08/origin-of-the-separatists-buk-a-bellingcat-investigation/<br />
The report and whole site was not coming up when I tried (might be a problem on my end), so I don't even know what's behind their pay-wall. In the interim I checked around. [http://thetruthserumblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/an-open-and-transparent-investigation.html Here's a critical blog article I like] that mentions another article praising the report. But what was useful was [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2827853/Russian-military-supplied-missiles-ahead-MH17-shooting-says-new-independent-report-evidence-points-Russian-separatists-responsible.html the Daily Mail's Australian promo article] with the cover and a few images from the report as well as a summary. The 3x2 ... This lets me quickly see what 3x2 refers to. And actually, it looks like a good description and even a good match. The number is not from Paris Match photo but from footage I haven't noticed, they say from inside Russia - presumably a Russian unit then - seen conspicuously moving towards Ukraine in late June. (the source of these images and details might be worth checking into) ... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 3x2 Comp.png|right]]Bottom is Paris Match, skewed to match. Top is the new (to me) Bellingcat June 23 image As I just put together [http://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2014/11/how-russians-covered-up-truth-partly.html here,] they seem to be onto something here. It's something silly. But it's something strongly suggested by real paint in recognizable patterns.<br />
<br />
Implied: Russians wanted to hide this thing's identity, maybe because they were about to do something secret with it. So first they painted out the number in the middle - I think it was a one. Except they left one little corner of white visible. Just got tired. It's identifiable (in both images). <br />
<br />
Then before it appeared in Ukraine, it was rendered totally unidentifiable: they boldly blacked out the 3, and perhaps at the same time even, the 2 - except for a larger identifiable sliver. Just got tired. It's next to the other dot. <br />
<br />
Haha, no way to connect these now! Also a light patch next to the small number (and the number, as far as we can see) matches, as does a light patch along the lip below that. My guess: this is the same suspect vehicle seen gettin' hauled all over on the "stolen" truck with the phone number left on. Was it actually in Russian territory as well as near so many rebel checkpoints around dawn? For how long was it there? Bellingcat cannot confirm that Russian unit 3x2 ever returned to its base in Russia ... nor, I guess, that it ever actually left, or was ever Russian, or didn't have its truncated paint job simulated and expanded on another vehicle... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
::He got some photos of an actual [http://www.kavicom.ru/news-view-12861.html convoy], almost certainly in Russia, fairly hi-res photos, no 3*2 there. Than out-of-a-blue-or-elsewhere, he gives photos from convoy made by 'local residents', now with discolored 3*2 photo(s) there; I could not spot details where this photo is now coming from. He claims it "shows on 8 out of 16 videos", but I do not know where is a single one. He also compares tank track and plate above profiles for these 2 photos; details are blurred (and also those profiles change from use), can't say how much they match each other by eye; don't trust his fitted lines, or his conclusion accepting those, but did not try matching myself (no tools to do it quickly; or enough photo resolution to feel strongly motivated). This is doable but doing it tool-free takes time; and not knowing that second photo is definitely in Russia, I am not convinced spending a lot of time is worthwhile. This is clearly a well-supported operation, so the burden of proving their own version is on them; and they did not bother even linking the videos, no clue where are those. His report downloads without problems at this time. <br />
::Also details such as dirty rear skirt and a bend there likely are common; dirt is because exhaust is through the opening above; skirt likely is bent when there is servicing, or example changing tracks or doing something else, like maybe servicing engine. Buk 321 above on this page has dirt and bend, for example. This bend is something which can be easily produced, same goes with the painting job, both things together can be done in well under 1/2 hour. If they had an example of how something in Russia looks like, not difficult to do it for a blurry photo. Clearly, with phone well-displayed, etc, the purpose of all this is a demo job. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Here is a publication [http://censor.net.ua/video_news/274823/ukraina_zaschischaet_donetsk_ot_napadeniya_rossii_zenitnoraketnye_kompleksy_buk_zanimayut_pozitsii_fotovideo Ukraine defends Donesk from Russiam attack, missile complex Buk takes positions], with photo, video of Ukrainian BUks, numbers 323, 321, 312, 301, 331,332. (Some of them have dirty skirts, e.g. 301 looks dirty and bent...). Ukrainian radio is playing on the video. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 21:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Thanks, and I get the lack of motivation, and the ambiguity. That #312 I'll compare later ... looks like a different number style (thinner) with vehicle color less clear ... I guess this could be innocent dirt instead of black paint, but it's some thick dirt, and by the end almost totally covering the numbers on this particular unit ... or two that can seem the same. (?) So it still seems most likely paint, that is deliberate obfuscation - that was also comically slow and incomplete (with clean edges to the white parts and no visible parts of gray half-covered numbers) . It must be a problem with my system (updating soon) but I still can't connect to the site or get the report. I'm not mad motivated myself, but will want to check the alleged video source and geolocation eventually. Before I was seeing this as a Kiev unit simply snuck across the internal line. So the big wrinkle of course is it being in Russia. Options if the geolocation of June 23 is right: <br />
* it wasn't there (faked match-up - As you say, all matching features ''could'' be faked, not just the paint) <br />
* or Ukraine snuck theirs across (with a whole convoy?) just to get it seen there <br />
* or they snuck over and stole this one while it was near the border <br />
* or Russia willingly sent it over, with or without a subsequent theft by people intent on misusing it on the separatists' behalf. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
There is actually a 3*2 Buk in Russia, he put links to videos on his [https://www.mapbox.com/labs/bellingcat/index.html map], I looked at 06/23 Troitskiy (Odnoklassniki) goroskop odnoklassniki ru/video/14723648043?fromTime=25 . But I doubt it can be concluded that Paris Match is a match (number itself can't be read, this is just bogus). For example, that dot in the Russian version appears to be a bit further to the right (60 % of total panel length) , while Paris Match is closer to 50 (I got 52 %). Also, in Russian version, it is almost level with protruding to the right part of number 2; in Donetsk photo, I'd say it's a bit lower (but blurriness creates problems to measure) . Panel to the left of number panel appear to look very different; in Russian case, clear horizontal line above the main bottom line; not so in Donetsk, a messy lower line. As for the skirt, it it dirty but actually does not look broken in the Russian version, just some frames create such impression. In Donetsk, hard to know (to blurry to tell crack from dirt) but there is serious change in angle there somehow; (could be the windshield playing some tricks). (Also, in Donetsk, it is dirty windshield, not actually certain what makes the dot; but it is roughly where expected, so I can go with this being paint assumption). <br />
:No point for the rebels to display it prominently in Donetsk (not far from UAF BUK base), than go towards Snizhne; this just has no point at all. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 00:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
:I'm the one, ironically, claiming to see things in that griny mess. I'd never do it unless I saw t spot well whiter than the others AND seen in another view ... didn't even notice until then. To note, your descriptions are of the first version of the graphic, now updated. Becuase of overall problems, I cut what seemed just the number panel (including shadowed edge) and put it on top of where it should be. Same proportions, within a pixel or two, "find edges" to mark the white patches, and it remains lining up. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 3x2 comp 2.png|right|420px]]At right: it can't be the embarrassingly misrepresented Ukrainian 312 they're hiding, unless that was painted over before this other one .... FWIW, the middle dot would still line up with the serif on that "1." As the updated blog article notes, if "the Russians" were smart, they would have painted this slender 312, or other recognizable number and style, on there. Instead, this nonsense.... <br />
<br />
I suppose that Ukraine ''might'' have known about this 3x2 video and match in advance (and never mentioned it?) and that's why they found a photo of ''a Buk 312''' (not checking what it actually showed, and just claimed they knew was en route to escape into Russia, after parking for yet another photo?) No, that doesn't make much sense. But I sense a link. Maybe that's because I'm seeing 312 when maybe it's 872, for all we really know. Maybe instead of partly painted out it was just left never fully painted in. Too many unknowns and now I'm unenthusiastic about it. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Whatever one thinks of this graphic comparison and interpretation, the strange and suspect thinking it implies is consistent with what else we know about how this "secret" operation was carried out. If true, it would fit this broader pattern (real or reported clues left by whoever, all open to interpretation, and here couched in the terms of allegations by Kiev and supporters):<br />
<br />
* Recalling that this whole weapon itself would have no normal business in the area and would be denied later, it should have been kept secret. Instead, it was driven around in broad daylight on the same day as the crime, just partly covered with a tarp but revealing all clues needed to identify it, its hidden ID number, and its full rack of missiles.<br />
* The truck it was so displayed on was stolen in Donetsk, and kept with the huge sign on its side with the apparent owner's phone number on it. When the media called that number, little surprise, the owner told them pro-Russian "fighters from Slaviansk" who took over his whole trucking company on July 8 (see [[#The Truck Owner's Story|here]]) Put lightly, this is a stupid way to secure a rig one intends to use for a secret operation like this was supposed to be.<br />
* They loaded the truck in Donetsk, likely at the commandeered site in the north of Donetsk, near the Ukrainian base with Buk launchers, in a coincidence. This truck then got seen leaving Donetsk on the 17th, parked pointing east at the east outskirts, then seen driving in convoy (a couple civilian cars with the operational crew moved with the truck) past Zuhres and then through Torez to the east. They were seen arriving in Snizhne around noon, then the Buk unit seen off the truck and driving in stand-alone, and it was then seen again driving south out of Snizneh, towards the apparent launch location.<br />
* The people running the convoy made sure AP journalists saw them in Snizhne just before the shoot-down from a bit south of there. The convoy stopped, and a man in unusual uniform "approached the journalists. The man wanted to make sure they had not recorded any images of the missile launcher. Satisfied that they hadn’t" filmed that secret missile launcher there, but had noticed it, and their intention to remain sooper seekrit "the convoy moved on." All this was made quite clear to the media and apparently published even before the news that MH17 was shot down. ([http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/what-happened-the-day-flight-17-was-downed/2014/07/25/716c36e4-142b-11e4-ac56-773e54a65906_story.html AP Via Washington Post]) <br />
* After the disastrous attempt to secretly provoke a Russian invasion, with utmost discretion the operators put the smoking gun, its rack of one-less missiles left uncovered, back on the same truck and drove it and the phone number back to Russia - by a strange detour on a long route towards the other easily-recognizable smoking gun rebel capitol, Lugansk ... when government ATO forces had just battled their way to the edge of Lugansk ... and got seen there passing at dawn on the main highway south, apparently having come from the center of town, and then presumably drove to Krasnodon (rebel-held) and to Russia....<br />
<br />
The fail delivery here is almost flawless, with no mistake left unmade and hardly any reasonable gaps to call for deduction. Letting multiple camera views on both sides of the porous border capture and track the gradual move to this stealth mode seems pretty consistent to me.--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Note: the implications of this contested finding, and the visual basis for it as well, is continued below under [[#If Buk 3x2 Was in Russia]] --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
I think one point is still not discussed here. Look at this video from 26 June 2014. You might have seen it before. But what is striking, all the Buks shown do not have numbers painted on them. Not only it will allow to paint new numbers or any clumsy painting on the side, using video of a known BUK, it also means that those BUKS were not accounted for when Ukrs presented evidence, if they ever presented, about the location of all the existing and operational BUKS <br />
[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BBEYZHOT0bQ]--[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 13:29, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== General Observations === <br />
*It is clear that pro-Kiev side produced early and persistent stream of fakes, misrepresentations, or selective half-truths, all aimed to place the blame on Russia and/or "separatists" as a part of well organised and supported information warfare. This information warfare did not establish an objective to prove the blame of Russia or "separatists", as any of those media creations will not survive a rigorous scrutiny, and there is nothing to bring to court in particular. However it successfully altered Western perceptions in early days past the catastrophe, and helped to impose sanctions and other 'increased costs' on Russia, bringing the world on the brink of another cold war. It brought situation in Ukraine closer to perpetual chaos, and kept closely related people to continue killing each other every day. Although those fakes and misrepresentations were later realized to be such, those costs and calamities were not reversed. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*After moving equipment close to border, why would Russia send just a single TELAR to Ukraine in a highly visible manner as it was alleged? For meaningful operation of Buk, one would send at least 1 TELAR, 1 TEL (to be able to load missiles), and 1 command vehicle (as radar on TELAR gives only poor basic operation)? There are also lots of support vehicles seen, in case of something meaningful all that is needed. So moving single TELAR is all but pointless from military standpoint. Single TELAR is mostly for a show of sort. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Reported SIghtings == <br />
(consider along with the visual sightings below) <br />
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/what-happened-the-day-flight-17-was-downed/2014/07/25/716c36e4-142b-11e4-ac56-773e54a65906_story.html AP via Washington Post] <br />
shows the separatists strategy to not be seen as they rolled the murder weapon around:<br />
:''Even before the plane was downed, the AP had reported on the presence of the missile launcher in the town July 17. Here is what that dispatch said:''<br />
:''“An Associated Press reporter on Thursday saw seven rebel-owned tanks parked at a gas station outside the eastern Ukrainian town of Snizhne. In the town, he also observed a Buk missile system, which can fire missiles up to an altitude of 22,000 meters (72,000 feet).''<br />
:''AP journalists saw the Buk moving through town at 1:05 p.m. The vehicle, which carried four 18-foot (5.5-meter) missiles, was in a convoy with two civilian cars.''<br />
:''The convoy stopped. A man in sand-colored camouflage without identifying insignia — different from the green camouflage the rebels normally wear — approached the journalists. The man wanted to make sure they had not recorded any images of the missile launcher. Satisfied that they hadn’t, the convoy moved on.''<br />
<br />
That kind of pro-Russian sooper-seekrisy aimed at the media in front of the media should stop them being seen, right? No, oddly, it didn't. See below. The clumsy bastards could hardly have implicated themselves any more thoroughly than they did that day. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
One interesting post at the Ukraine@War blog mentions two tweets, both from July 17 and before the crash, mentioning this BUK launcher on a trailer at places consistent with the video record. [https://twitter.com/MOR2537/status/489702736766586880 One of them] (translated) sounds perhaps ''too'' informed, and says "Was driven missile system on the tractor cover + two cars after Thorez (Torez) in snowy (Sniznoyeh) in 12-10 (at 12:10? Too early...)." [https://twitter.com/_StradivariuS_/status/489704260045910016 The other one] says "(someone this) morning wrote that (the truck) stood (parked for some time) on b.Shahtostroiteley not intersection with Ilchicha, aside (heading towards) Makeevki. waiting to see (to be seen?) If that's an intersection named, it's a different parking spot identified as being [https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=48.002515,37.854917&spn=0.010222,0.02444&t=h&z=16 here on Google Maps,] one km west of the spot it was parked for the "Paris Match" photo. Otherwise, it refers only to the same place. The contributor noted "Another interesting detail in that tweet is that “it was standing” and “they were waiting”. My understanding of that phrasing is that the #Buk was actually parked there for some time. Meaning there might be witnesses." <ref name="UWD">[http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com/2014/07/reconstruction-of-whereabouts-of-buk.html CONFIRMED the BUK that shot down MH17 has indeed been in Donetsk] P. Martin, Ukraine@War, July 23, 2014</ref> There was a witness with a camera, and a photo sent to the Western media. That almost seems to have been the idea - to get witnessed like that. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== SBU Wiretap Clues ==<br />
I just had a look at the SBU wiretap transcripts, ones released July 19. In it is a segment tying in with the above stop or stops in Donetsk, the exact spot of the [[#Paris Match Photo]], and the general orders to drive east with the launcher. I'm not up on the wiretap stuff - if this is the same material said to be corroborated by the US as the real people talking. But briefly, know that parking spot in just past a roundabout, by a motel and a bus station, well short of a crossing Hornostaivska street halfway to Makiivka. Important clue to why it was here this thing had to get seen and talked about: one source claims this roundabout at the edge of town is "a big separatist checkpoint established on Jun 3 at the road circle." <ref name="UWD" /> This is supposed to all be pretty damning, and I must say it's at least looking like a pretty slick plan may be going on here, with pre-scripted parts that come into play later, etc. From Kiev mouthpiece UaToday, parts of a transcript they ran with the video and other allegations, on the 19th - How credible is this evidence?<br />
:''Khmuryi: Sergei Nikolaevich Petrovskiy, year of birth 1964, officer of Main Intelligence Directorate of Russian Federation, Deputy Chief of Ihor Girkin on Intelligence, at the time of the interception he was in Donetsk.''<br />
:''“Buryat” – militant of terrorist organization “DNR” (to be indentified).''<br />
:''Buryat: – Where should we load this beauty, Nikolaievich?''<br />
:''Khmuryi: Which one? This one?''<br />
:''B: Yes, the one I’ve brought. I’m already in Donetsk.''<br />
:''K: Is it the one I’m thinking about? “B…,”M” one?''<br />
:''B: Yes, yes, yes. “BUK”,”BUK”.''<br />
:''K: Is it on a tractor?''<br />
:''B: Yes, it’s on it. We need to unload it somewhere, '''in order to hide.'''''<br />
:''K: Is it with a crew?''<br />
:''B: Yes, with the crew.''<br />
:''K: '''Don’t hide it anywhere.''' She’ll go there now.''<br />
:...<br />
:''Khmuryi: – Tell me, have you brought me one or two?<br />
:''Buryat: One, one. Because they had a misunderstanding there. They didn’t give us a tug. We loaded it and went at their own pace.''<br />
:''K: Did it go on her own or on a tug?''<br />
:''B: It crossed the line (border).''<br />
:''H: And now have you brought it on a tug? Don’t put in anywhere… I’ll tell now where it should go, it will go together with “Vostok” tanks.''<br />
:...<br />
:''K: Sanych, the point is that my “BUK–M” (modified Russian SAM system) will go with yours, it is on a tug. Where should I drive it to put in a column?''<br />
:''Sanych: There, behind “Motel”, not reaching Hornostaevka.''<br />
:''K: Just after the Motel, right?''<br />
:''Khmuryi: Listen to me carefully, behind the circle near “Motel” there will be you know what. Call to “Bibliotekar” (Librarian).'' <br />
The next part, to me, suggests that as far back as the 19th or earlier, people talking on tape were seeding, or working by, the SBU-proposed Aeroloft plot with the town mix-up. In that light:<br />
:''...Bring inside only those, who just came back, only as much as you need for the convoy. Leave everyone else here. Not far away '''there is Pervomaiskoe, look at the map.'''''<br />
:''DNR militant: I got it.'' (Or did he not quite get it?) <br />
:''Khmuryi: Settle somewhere in that area, bring there those who are left. Your task is reserve, plus protection of this piece (BUK–M), which you will drive now. “Giyrza” will come there too. If anything, I’m on line.'' <ref name="Trans">[http://www.uatoday.info/?p=2579&lang=en SBU releases more conversations implicating Russia in shooting down Malaysia Airlines flight (VIDEO, TRANSCRIPT)] UAToday, July 19, 2014</ref><br />
--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The veracity of that recording needs challenged well now ... the day too early claim [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17#SBU wiretap video|did not pan out,]] so it won't be that easy. Has anyone really done a good analysis tearing it apart some other way? Could it even be half-legit, with some local rebels tricked by some undercover (wire-wearing, not wire-tapping) supposed defector delivering it "with a team" coming "from Russia" (meaning Parubiy et al.)? Who knows? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Imagery Mapping ==<br />
[[File:MH17 Storyful video mapping.png|right|330px]]There have been quite a number now of photos and videos showing BUK launchers ostensibly in separatist strongholds, on July 17. The geo-location of these in such towns by social media networks has been the subject of some recent media commentary. These purported placements are worth collecting and considering here. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
One somewhat comprehensive and updated/evolving page: [http://blog.storyful.com/2014/07/19/how-social-sleuthing-uncovered-evidence-of-anti-aircraft-missile-system-in-eastern-ukraine/#.U9oY_Ua3498 How Social Sleuthing Uncovered Evidence of Surface-to-Air Missile Systems in Eastern Ukraine] Inset is a small preview of the interactive map they made of all placed images (as it stands at the end of July - [https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=200399683004956931329.0004feca5d1fbab0a1d25&msa=0&ie=UTF8&t=h&source=embed&ll=48.206371,38.968506&spn=1.281328,2.334595&z=8 full-size presentation with links, on Google Maps]) <ref name="Story1" /> <s>Note that one of them is way up in Lugansk - which one is a little unclear at the moment - the site may be wrong</s>) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;List of Scenes, placed or not<br />
* Billboard Video: released by Interior Ministry, filmed in Krasnodon before dawn, the Interior Minister says. Russian military analysis places it in Krasnoarmeysk, and the Open Newsroom crew contradicts both and decided "collaborative geo-location was able to place the footage in southwestern Luhansk.'' <ref name="Story1">[http://blog.storyful.com/2014/07/19/how-social-sleuthing-uncovered-evidence-of-anti-aircraft-missile-system-in-eastern-ukraine/#.U9oY_Ua3498 How Social Sleuthing Uncovered Evidence of Surface-to-Air Missile Systems in Eastern Ukraine] Storyful blog, July 19, 2014 and onward (updated)</ref> <br />
* Surveillance Video: located to Snizhne by Eliot Higgins, date unclear. <ref name="Story1" /><br />
* Zuhres video: Pre-geo-located by the uploader [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=48%C2%B0+1'1.38%22N++38%C2%B018'6.04%22E&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=48.034019,38.391724&spn=0.629958,1.564178&gbv=2&hnear=H21,+Zuhres,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&gl=us&t=h&z=10 here in Zuhres.] Higgins confirms, 100% sure, and others concur. Driving east. <ref name="Story1" /><br />
* Torez square photo - located by an associate of Higgins - filmed app. 11:40 AM in central Torez. See below. <br />
* Another photo placed: Snizneh, nearest the shoot-down area (f/c)<br />
* [http://www.parismatch.com/Actu/International/EXCLU-MATCH-Un-camion-vole-pour-transporter-le-systeme-lance-missiles-577289 Paris Match photo] - allegedly Snizhne, reportedly placed '''in northern Donetsk city.''' See below. <br />
<br />
===Billboard Video===<br />
(to be condensed) <br />
A video released by the Ukrainian Interior Ministry is highly dubious and worth some analysis. It shows what seems to be a BUK launcher loaded on a truck driving some direction in some town at what seems to be early twilight (or pre-dawn, depending). The [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4HJmev5xg0 original posting] (with almost 2 million views already) gives no details: "Militants take out missile system "Buk" to the border with Russiam" the title translates. "No description available," it says below, and no comments allowed.<br />
From what I've seen no one knows where this is filmed. Daily Mail says it's a "separatist stronghold," unnamed, and headed south, back towards Russia. "Ukrainian spies reportedly filmed the launcher used in the attack being smuggled to Russia - with two missiles missing." Eliot Higgins was cited by [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/20/malaysia-airlines-mh17-videos-missile-launcher-torez-snizhne the Guardian] with his new team of fundraistigators as geolocating some video and photo but not, apparently, this one. As explained at [https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1278239551/bellingcat/posts/919158 the kickstarter link] they give, Higgins writes:<br />
:''In the above video, posted by the Ukranian Ministry for Interior claiming to show the Buk missile launcher being driven towards Russia it was possible to match the transporter in the video to the transporter in Torez, details of which... (you have to subsidize their operation to see)'' --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== Avakov's Placement: Krasnodon or Lugansk ====<br />
Interior Minister Arsen Avakov said in [https://www.facebook.com/arsen.avakov.1/posts/670837696339673 a Facebook post of July 18] Google-translated: <br />
:''Covert surveillance units of MIA of Ukraine today July 18 at 4.50 am was recorded caterpillar tractor loaded with missile complex, moving in the direction through Krasnodon, toward the border with the Russian Federation. The video can be seen uncovered missiles. Two missiles in place - the average is not visible. ''<br />
:''There is an analysis of this and other information gathered. Presumably this is the missile system "Buk" that made a last shot at a civilian plane from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur .. ''<br />
:''Criminals try to hide the traces of this heinous crime. Not succeed. Security Service and Interior Ministry of Ukraine has collected and collects more irrefutable facts and evidence, the author points out the tragedy of the terrorist organization DNI / LC and its Russian backers Putin.'' <br />
:''The investigation of events MIA issue a comprehensive report on the information. This fragment consider it necessary to publish immediately.''<br />
<br />
By the 22nd, "online sleuths" had placed it in Lugansk (see below). Avakov then confirmed this - he was wrong the first time. One article makes it sound like he wasn't just echoing the sleuths:<br />
:''On July 22, Ukraine's Minister of Internal Affairs, Arsen Avakov, gave the exact coordinates of the video’s location: separatist-held Luhansk, about a 45-minute drive from Krasnodon. Locals quickly verified this claim by photographing the scene, which perfectly matches the landmarks seen in the video.'' ([http://globalvoicesonline.org/2014/07/29/russia-ukraine-mh17-conspiracy-buk/# article by one of the sleuths])<br />
<br />
====Krasnoarmeysk====<br />
One source venturing a guess is [http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ the Russian government and RT witrh their 10 intriguing questions:]<br />
:''“For example, media circulated a video supposedly showing a Buk system being moved from Ukraine to Russia. This is clearly a fabrication. This video was made in the town of Krasnoarmeisk, as evidenced by the billboard you see in the background, advertising a car dealership at 34 Dnepropetrovsk Street. Krasnoarmeysk has been controlled by the Ukrainian military since May 11.”''<br />
[[File:MH17 Billboard Vid Russian Analysis.png|right|250px]]There is a sign, but I cannot make it out just yet, if ever. Can they really? Even if that's so, surrounding towns might be good places for a dealership in Krasnoarmeysk to advertise. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
At right now is a still from a video claiming to show this, I still don't see it. They seem to think the gray span says that, perhaps from seeing a clearer view of this ubiquitous sign elsewhere. Opps. There's no reason to say a dealership in one town can only have billboards in that town. This alone fails. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 14:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Krasnoarmiis'k,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&hl=en&ll=48.323387,37.919312&spn=1.252829,3.128357&sll=48.226502,37.386475&sspn=0.627601,1.564178&oq=Krasnoarm&t=h&doflg=ptk&hnear=Krasnoarmiis'k,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&z=9 on Google Maps as Krasnoarmiis'k] - ''not'' to be confused with the Krasnoarmeisk not far away in Russia. Distance: about 100 km almost due west of the crash site. Panorama, possiblt location, directions/implications forthcoming. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Dnepropetrovsk Street is the main street of Krasnoarmeisk, leading northwest to Dnepropetrovsk. It tried matching this to the street corner where the car dealership is located. Yandex Maps did not provide a street view. It could be there, but too few details to make a positive match. Whatever this is, it is not evidence for anything. The least the SBU could have done is provide the location and some corroborating photographs.<br />
:The same applies to all so called "evidence" provided by Ukraine and the US State Department. As far as I can tell it is only cut-and-paste of unrelated footage to ''illustrate'' the claims made. A perfect example of this illusion is the "satellite photos" of Russian artillery shelling Ukraine released on Sunday morning. A photo of Russian GRADs on some unidentifiable field was placed next to a satellite image with an arrow pointing "Here Be Monsters!" Purely illustrative and no proof. There is a difference between legerdemain Hocus Pocus and outright forgery. The Russian video presentation displayed screen capture recording from the ATC radar, usually stored for two weeks. For this to be a hoax, Russia would need to create a forged tape of the radar data. Highly unlikely, as the the claim of authenticity had support of the full authority and prestige of the Russian Armed Forces. If the US presentation turns out to be hoax, State Department will claim the photos were never meant to be evidence. Some internee was told to prepare a presentation using stock images for some facts they ''knew'' to be true – trust us! -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 14:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: You must have missed [https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BtZSVQrIMAARzKr.jpg:large this], Petri! ;oP --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 18:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
::: That is an awesomely perfect picture for this sorry episode so far. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 14:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
::It would be neat though if we could show where this is and thus which way its's headed. The Kiev authorities, I think, know what happened. They say it was this exact launcher missing two missiles. It could be. Where is it at filming time and where headed? If it's true this same one was in Torez (dubious but possible) we'd have a direction traveled until that point also, and a rough time, 8:30 or so. [http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jul/27/mh17-storyful-social-media-twitter-youtube The Guardian again] citing Storyful's open-source investigation: <br />
::::''“There are now four pieces of content – three pieces of video and one image – which, in the case of three, conclusively show a Buk [surface-to-air] missile within rebel-held territory and in the case of the fourth, almost definitely in their territory,” says Storyful executive editor David Clinch. “Of those four pieces, individual groups or companies probably verified in or around the same time one or another of them.”''<br />
:''Open Newsroom verified three pieces of content and is investigating the fourth, thanks to its 900-strong network of journalists and experts. ''''<br />
:The fourth is this video. Wouldn't it be a coup if we were the first to place it? Force that intern excuse and then laugh at it. That said, it's not the most likely to place but you, Petri, especially, might be able to. I think I might. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 22:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* [https://plus.google.com/118234537318646233652/posts/LZV1XZD854E James Miller Google + July 21] "Was a Buk sighted in Krasnoarmeysk or Krasnodon (continued analysis)? We've taken a new look at this video which has been debated since it was posted days ago. We're fairly confident, though not 100% confident, in this geoanalysis, but we're making significant progress. Any more information would be extremely helpful. " Cited: [http://www.interpretermag.com/russia-this-week-lurid-anti-ukraine-propaganda-broadcast-on-state-tv/#1753 Russia This Week: Defense Ministry Claim on Buk in Billboard Video Doesn’t Add Up]<br />
:''...As we reported on our Ukraine Liveblog, the Buk was spotted before the shoot-down of the Malaysian airplane and ultimately geolocated to the town of Torez, near the location of the crash in Grabovo. Then the video, taken early the next morning on 18 July, showed a scene in Krasnodon,... <br />
--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Google Earth has one photo [http://www.panoramio.com/photo/55329278 from ул. Днепропетровская.] The street has about the same width. The streetlights are not quite the same. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 14:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
::That image doesn't help a match, especially since by now it looks like Lugansk. For the record, there was a go by pro-rebel social media people at identifying a spot in town to explain the video scene, but it didn't do that either. [http://wikimapia.org/#lat=48.276196&lon=37.176087&z=18&l=0&m=b this spot on Wikimapia] is what they pointed to - filmed from the marked building, they say, looking southwest to the mall. No matching anything. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 02:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== Placed in Lugansk! ====<br />
[[File:MH17 Billboard Vid-Lugansk Match.png|right|800px]]Storyful's rundown states of this video:<br />
:''The footage is not the original, however we believe that the first instance of this footage was removed by the uploader and the version below is the earliest we can find. Ukrainian Interior Minister, Arsen Avakov, made early claims that the video was filmed in the Ukrainian town of Krasnodon near the Russian border, however collaborative geo-location was able to place the footage in southwestern Luhansk.'' <ref name="Story1" /> <br />
It links to "Bellingcat," which you have to pay to see much of. [https://plus.google.com/118234537318646233652/posts/bMdeBzY8yty James Miller] passes on that it's "Mystery SOLVED: Video released by Ukraine's Interior Ministry does in fact show a Buk, possibly missing several missiles, in Lugansk headed east from the MH17 crash site and in the direction of Russia." The spot they think matches the video (better panorama coming) is [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=48%C2%B032'44.7%22N+39%C2%B015'52.6%22E&ie=UTF8&ll=48.545926,39.265147&spn=0.002436,0.00611&t=h&cid=0&z=18 here on Google Maps]. Was that a highway? Where's the cross-street? I see elsewhere they have a high view showing the same basic billboard there, but that's going to be true of several spots in this area. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
My impression of the scene - based on the panoramic view below - is far from matching with this. That does not look like a highway, and it just seems like a small town. However, I finally saw some of the supporting images (see [http://news.bigmir.net/ukraine/827864-V-Lygansk-vehala-kolonna-voennoi-tehniki--SMI here] and [https://twitter.com/djp3tros/status/491651820188860416/photo/1 here] - source of the inset image.) It seems a likely match after all. I won't say I confirm it with any certainty, but I don't think I'll be challenging it like I was preparing to do. Note the different billboard in the right spot, and the matching one over there. There are other images, apparently more current, showing that that they moved the one sign over to the right spot They don't point to the pinkish roofed building beyond the red-roofed one, but that adds to the match (compare to below). Whenever this video was made and whatever it really means, it seems quite likely it was at this spot in Lugansk shortly before dawn. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
There is another video from June 2014 showing the same billboard with the same car ad:<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ez8cZ3nqjCs Луганск 02 07 14]<br />
The video shows a column of BMPs with one 9K35 Strela-10 short-range surface to air missile system passing the intersection in Lugansk. I suspect they came from Russia, as [https://www.facebook.com/groups/IOUCO/permalink/584402078339517/ I specifically asked] for Putin to send in the Russian tanks that morning. They passed exactly when I expected them to, at 6 minutes past 4 am. (I estimated it would take 2 hours 6 minutes from the border.) -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 17:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== ACLOS Review ====<br />
As noted above, my review agrees with the placement agreed by the others. For what it's worth, the huge panorama I made (the middle is full-resolution) and starting notes from before I realized no work was needed. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 03:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
[[File:MH17 Billboard Video Pan.png|center|880px]]<br />
It seems to be filmed near the edge of town, or edge of a hill anyway, with a clear view ahead, two vague homes/buildings seen down the slope. Otherwise, very non-descript. The angle of intersection will be one of the better clues - it looks to me not 90 degrees ( |- ), but with the road the truck is on either slanting or curving somewhat towards the camera ( /- ). One important observation: '''there's no logical reason he should have been just happening to film this area''' unless he knew something interesting would drive by at just this odd time. That's clarified by how he zooms in just before it enters frame - he was waiting for that truck. How did he know about it? Informants on the other side of town phoning ahead makes enough sense, I suppose. <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 launcher truck composite.png|left|480px]]Another issue: If this is dusk (sunset 8:20 PM local), isn't this facing roughly northwest? If so, this vehicle is driving roughly north, not south. And we might start looking on the west edge of town. There's a highway out to the northwest, back towards Kiev. This street is too narrow and unmarked to be the highway, obviously, but it might be driving that way, for example. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
:Or, alternately, he's facing towards the sun about to rise, early on the 18th, as alleged by the Interior Ministry) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
::That he happened to be filming just before dawn is even less likely than dusk. He clearly knew this was coming, whatever that means. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 03:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Above is the composite scene without truck. At left is the truck without background. Besides lightening the scene, it seemed worth getting the clearest details from different frames into a composite view of the truck and its load. This helps compare to the launchers seen in other areas and different times. So far, they all seem to look the same and perhaps be the same. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 03:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br /><br />
<br />
==== HRI ====<br />
Pretty good points [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/08/05/mh17-the-lugansk-buk-video/ from Human Rights Investigations]:<br />
:''To sum up, the statement of Avakov, the film and its location suggest the Ukrainian authorities had advance knowledge of this BUK and trailer’s movements or control over it. It is also extremely strange that this BUK, allegedly after shooting down MH17, is supposedly filmed by a Ukrainian surveillance team in ostensibly rebel territory, with its covering missing, as if to show the world a missile is missing.''<br />
--[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Paris Match Photo ===<br />
[[File:MH17 Paris Match.png|770px]]<br /><br />
* [http://www.parismatch.com/Actu/International/EXCLU-MATCH-Un-camion-vole-pour-transporter-le-systeme-lance-missiles-577289 Originally published by Paris Match] on July 25, with the claim the picture was taken by their own reporting team near Snizhne at mid-day on the 17th. Note the prominent, apparent, telephone number prominently centered in the picture - (050) 471-41-80. The truck and launcher, as far as can be seen, are quite similar to or the same as the one seen in the billboard video anyways. How many of its missiles the unit has at this moment is unclear. <br />
<br />
* [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/07/28/why-is-paris-match-on-the-location-of-a-buk/ Human Rights Investigations:] "it turns out to have been taken in Donetsk, 75km away" (citing someone else's geo-location - [https://www.google.com/maps/@48.004592,37.87265,3a,75y,63.38h,82.21t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sRGnHwZ5YZnuGO-n_VvruWg!2e0 site link given.] <br />
:''We know this because the phone number on the truck panel (050 471 4180) leads straight to this hire place (photo):<br />
:''According to Paris-Match, the proprietor of this establishment claimed “rebels” had stolen a number of his vehicles earlier in the month. If we go from here to towards Snizhne we find the location of the Paris-Match photo, near a car dealership on Makiivske Highway on the outskirts of Donetsk:''<br />
:''After informing Paris-Match of the mistake regarding the video location, the author of the article Alfred De Montesquiou has now got back and explained:''<br />
:''Hello, indeed, it appears there was a mixup in caption : the picture was taken leaving Donetsk on road to Snijne, not in actual Snijne'' <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Donestk Buk Map.png|thumb|right|480px|Map: this truck location, the company's apparent headquarters ([https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Molodykh+Shakhtariv+St,+19,+Donetsk,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&ll=48.044923,37.783184&spn=0.079187,0.195522&hnear=Molodykh+Shakhtariv+St,+19,+Donetsk,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&t=h&z=13 GM link]), and the A-1402 missile base relative to each other.]]<br />
<br />
'''Questions:''' Was it a caption mix-up, or did their team really not know where it was taken, and just believed the real source when he said Snizneh? Who is the true photographer who knew to catch this picture near the company's base, apparently at the outset of a rather epic journey? Why did the rebel thieves leave the prominent phone number on the stolen truck used for such an important task? It wound up leading to man who pointed right to the rebel thieves, and prove yet again separatists, not Kiev allies, were the ones driving BUKs around. Was that so hard to foresee? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''To Do:''' Verify the geo-location - set a time, presuming July 17, by sunlight and that location - establish which way it's traveling relative to the government-run anti-aircraft base just a few km north of here and relative to the other places and times this truck and others were spotted rolling around prominently and getting filmed a lot by the right kind of people, in areas presumed to be impenetrable to any such frame-up operation - look into this company, etc. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''Location:''' I can't confirm it with certainty, but it's extremely consistent. Two standard but distinct pole types that close together on the right with a pull-over lane ending at the blue one, and consistent-scale foliage behind. Proceding on the location as likely enough to warrant the work. The stretch of highway identified runs northeast, heading 33 degrees. The truck is most likely not driving at the moment, as it's in the pull-over lane. But it's pointed as if ready to leave Donetsk as soon as they finish doing something in theis spot. All we can see they're doing is getting filmed, and maybe that's just what they're waiting for. Ahead would be the an industrial area, the eastern suburb of Makiivka, then Khartsyzk, etc. and further east Torez and Snizhne (driving times unsure, date also unsure. Russia claims the one launcher left the northern base sometime between in August 14 and 17 images. <ref name="RT10">[http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ 10 more questions Russian military pose to Ukraine, US over MH17 crash] RT. July 21, 2014</ref><br />
<br />
'''Time:''' I'm not sure how exactly to set this up, but the shadows appear to stretch almost right across the highway, with only a slight northern shift. The azimuth thus appears to be fairly close to to 140˚ (reached at 11:09 AM). As for solar altitude, trying to line up the launcher's corner with its shadow gives a reading of app. 56˚ (= 10:50 AM, with azimuth 133˚) or perhaps 59˚ (= 11:18, az 143.5). The graphic shows both readings. Which is better? I used [http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/solcalc/ NOAA solar calculator], with coordinates: lat 48.017102 long:37.9037626 time=GMT+2, DST +1 --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
There is more to consider about this truck, its company, its owner, and his story. But other than this photo's extra-clear view of the phone number and apparent proximity to headquarters, those are better covered in the section below [[#The Truck Owner's Story]].<br />
<br />
==== Time? ====<br />
[[File:MH17 Paris Match elev.png|right|220px]]<br />
Bellingcat was originally claiming that photo was taken at 9 am. [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/09/08/images-show-the-buk-that-downed-flight-mh17-inside-russia-controlled-by-russian-troops/] [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/11/08/origin-of-the-separatists-buk-a-bellingcat-investigation/]<br />
<br />
Then they were claiming 11 am as an obvious time without retracting previous 9am claim. Seems like 9am was more comfortable for them to match to photos from Zuhres and Torez. <br />
<br />
Sorry, using smartphone. Not very easy to comment --[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 01:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:<small>Looks like you put the same link twice, -it says 11 a.m.--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)</small><br />
::Antidyatel, welcome! Resup, thanks! I'd like to see any 9 am citation. But otherwise they agree on it being around 11? Good. The significance below is if the Zuhres square photo was taken at 11:40 AM as they say, it's basically impossible these images are from the same day as alleged - 69 km, 1 hour 14 mins drive between the spots, when there's only 20-40 minutes between the images. However, fudging it - let's say this is 10:50 and the other is 12:00 as I read it - that's 1:10 between, almost a perfect match. So maybe this isn't a great lead (I was never convinced it was). But 9:00 is way off and suggests they were fudging it to fit at that point. Would be good to document. BTW, on talk pages you can sign with <nowiki>--~~~~</nowiki> or the sign/scribble button. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: [https://web.archive.org/web/20141109132514/https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/11/08/origin-of-the-separatists-buk-a-bellingcat-investigation/ First archive.org snapshot] from the day after publishing (edit: a good three months after you called it :o)) says 11 am already. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 10:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: Okay, the links were fixed once or twice and [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/11/08/origin-of-the-separatists-buk-a-bellingcat-investigation/ the November report] says 11 am, not citing an azimuth or anything, just Paris Match saying it was "about 11 am," which doesn't count much for verification. The [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/09/08/images-show-the-buk-that-downed-flight-mh17-inside-russia-controlled-by-russian-troops/ earlier report from Sptember] might be based on something else when it mentions "a well known image from Paris Match, which shows a Buk in Donetsk at 9am on July the 17th." Neither one sounds like a firm final version. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== Screenshot from dashcam video? ====<br />
It it possible to identify if the photo was made by dashboard camera, smartphone, or other type of camera. Paris Match claimed that they made the photo. There are no date markings on the photo, which is strange. Position of the camera is such that it was either dashboard camera or the driver was making a photo (front and left side of the car). Paris Match was also implying in their report that it was a group of people in the car. "A sytem BUK missile launcher is photopgraphie by the team of Paris-Match in the suburbs of Donetsk, on the road to Snizhne the morning of July 17, hours before the flight Malaysia Airlines MH17 crash."[http://m.parismatch.com/Actu/International/EXCLU-MATCH-Un-camion-vole-pour-transporter-le-systeme-lance-missiles-577289]<br />
<br />
Why would they ask driver to make a photo? Dangerous or uncomfortable - illogical. If it was a dashboard camera, why not to release a video? And most importantly it would have a time stamp. <br />
<br />
Also in this report [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/01/17/new-images-of-the-mh17-buk-missile-launcher-in-ukraine-and-russia/] gives a new, a bit extended photo. Surprisingly the back of the BUK is nicely in focus, same as the truck cabin. While middle of the BUK is defocused. No wonder Paris Match cropped it. Bellingcat, that likes being so strict about photos, totally ignores this part. <br />
-- [[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 23:55,, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Yes, I agree. The two photos are crops from screenshots from a dashcam video. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 00:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
::Those must be two different shots at close-by time --look at position of street lamppost with respect to the truck cabin, one has it over black pipe, and the other more to the right from there. Can't think of a natural way for camera to focus on two different distances (maybe dirty and curvy windshield can be blamed but on tricky side here)-- FWIW. Usually dashboards have short focal length so that anything appear to be in focus; don't know why not the case here --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
RESUP, you are right. Those are two different shots. There is cable reflection from the windshield. Probably the cable is another indication of the dashboard camera.--Antidyatel<br />
<br />
=== Torez Square Photo ===<br />
[[File:MH17 Torez Buk Analysis.png|left]]This is another image geo-located by the Brown Moses network (ally Aric Toller) to central Torez, [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Donetsk&hl=en&ll=48.023472,38.614014&spn=0.004923,0.01222&hnear=Donetsk,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&t=h&z=17 here on Google Maps.] Like others, it was initially stated as in another locale - Snizhne - and that had to be corrected. I can agree the location pointed to is either the photo's site or one strangely like it. [http://mashable.com/2014/07/23/citizen-journalists-mh17-spies/ Mashable noted] "Toler and Higgins were able to establish that the photograph was shot around 11:40 a.m. local time." I tried a quick azimuth measure, eyeballed relative only to the blue car, and got 165 degrees (yellow line, read backwards). This equates to a time of almost exactly 12:00 noon (about 30 minutes before solar noon, and 20 minutes later than their estimate). Seeing they're close to right, I'll presume they're closer than me and defer to 11:40. <br />
<br />
If this photo is taken at 11:40 AM, and it's the same truck seen leaving Donetsk around 11-11:20 AM, it's impossible these images are from the same day as alleged (Gmaps says it's 68.8 km, 1 hour 14 mins drive, when there's only 20-40 minutes between the images). That would mean multiple mobile launchers with multiple "Titan" trucks, or just one but with some date fudging. The company says a number of its trucks were stolen, so matching multiples are entirely likely. But so is date fudging, multiples or not. If that's so, I suspect the Donetsk photo was from July 15 or 16, and this one more likely from the day of the crime. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 04:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br /><br /><br /><br />
=== Zuhres Video ===<br />
[[File:Buk Zuhres Vid.png|right|480px]]Again, a truck of that same type loaded with the same apparent weapon is briefly seen driving east (detail at right). This one was never reported wrong and was in fact pre-geo-located by the uploader [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=48%C2%B0+1'1.38%22N++38%C2%B018'6.04%22E&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=48.034019,38.391724&spn=0.629958,1.564178&gbv=2&hnear=H21,+Zuhres,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&gl=us&t=h&z=10 here in Zuhres.] Higgins confirms, 100% sure, and others concur. <ref name="Story1" /> Zuhres location: on highway H21 halfway between Donetsk and the general disaster zone - 36 km east by road from the position of the truck in the Paris Match photo. I agree with the location, refined below as I lined up in the still used here - the blue line runs between the blue thing and the building corner (footprint, not roofline) to the front of the truck as it passes. <br />
<br />
The sky is fairly overcast, so solar angles can't be measured precisely; the differences in facet lighting are clear but not massive. A broad and inclusive azimuth range of 167˚ to 214˚ (rounded) is shown by the yellow arrows below. This yields a range (to the nearest minute) of 12:09 PM and 1:45 PM. The best middle is a bit early - 185 degrees. That would be 12:44 PM. Altitude, at solar noon, helps little. 12:09, 12:44, and all times between round off to 63˚. if that simply looks too high, we're forced to the later end of the time frame. - 57˚ at 1:45. My super broad-estimate: 12:45 +/- 50 minutes. Weather at this time on whatever day - as noted, it partly overcast, and it's windy. The clouds are moving fast, with slight lighting changes visible in just these few seconds. Winds by the swaying trees are from the southeast, perhaps, blowing northwest - at least at the building with a face running that way.<br />
[[File:Buk Zuhres analysis.png|center|680px]]<br />
<br />
==The Truck Owner's Story==<br />
The apparent owner of the white truck so important to the MH17 operation was of course tracked down via the giant phone number for his compant on its side. Interviewed at least twice now, first by Paris Match, then by Lithuanian agency Alfa, this businessman has been anonymized as Vassili (then Vasilijus). Thorough summary of the related, alleged facts, from each (translated) report:<br />
* [http://www.parismatch.com/Actu/International/EXCLU-MATCH-Un-camion-vole-pour-transporter-le-systeme-lance-missiles-577289 Paris Match, July 25:]<br />
:''Photographs of Paris Match showed that the rebels had failed to remove the billboard on the truck they had stolen. Thus we joined the owner of the vehicle. Vassili said the rebels occupied warehouses on the outskirts of Donetsk since July 8. "They are fighters Slaviansk. They landed and told me they loved my premises and we had to escape. They shipped me a dozen large vehicles, including the white truck. I do not know what happened to them, "admitted Vassili, distraught.'' (that was actually just what they published, aside from context material) <br />
<br />
* [http://www.alfa.lt/straipsnis/472203/alfa-lt-isskirtinis-interviu-su-raketas-buk-kuriomis-buvo-numustas-malaizijos-avialiniju-lektuvas-gabenusio-vilkiko-savininku?p=1#.U-GIxeOSyuZ Alfa.lt, July 29:]<br />
:''This person's testimony is crucial. After it becomes indisputably known that anti-missile system, which shot down a passenger plane was precisely the Kremlin-sponsored terrorist hands. ''<br />
Here, separatists are throughout called "terrorists" (Bezler is "the "People's Republic of Donetsk" terrorist gangs ringleader"). Vassili says these took over and occupied his company premises on July 8, taking the white truck - they said because it was needed He says they stayed in control of his facility for 8 days, apparently departing on the 9th day - July 17. Becuase of this, he and his staff - especially his drivers - were unable to do anything that whole time. He's entirely certain it's his truck in the videos (the phone number says so) as it's the only one of its type in that part of Donetsk (Žinoma, ji – vienintelė tokia Donecko srityje, tokios kitos nėra. Tokios „Volvo“ su tokia kabina). He says he still hasn't seen it since.<br />
:''...more and more irrefutable evidence that Russia supported the terrorists shot down over the temporary control of the territory in the east of Ukraine aboard passenger "Malaysia Airlines plane, and later sought to hide evidence.''<br />
But as Paris Match noted, they couldn't be bothered to detach the phone number to the guy with the whole dang story. <br />
:''Alfa.lt knowledge of the personal data, company name, knows his responsibilities and phone numbers (one is (050) 471-41-80), but because of '''the danger to his life''' that can not be published. "Stop saying my name, and I already have enough problems," said new horrific crime witness Vasilijus.'' <br />
This is valid; of course his best defense would have been to simply ''not'' implicate the separatists mostly running Donetsk, but it's too late now. DPR authorities might want him for questioning. And especially now that he's been publicized as a "crucial witness," others will want him to '''appear to have been brutally murdered by them''' (he will have served his main purpose by now, perhaps). I hope someone's able to arrange protective custody quickly enough, or that he can arrange his own vacation, or convince his friends (he'll know the ones) of his continuing usefulness to them alive. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Titan Gate blurry.png|left|380px]]Further bits on the business: Wikimapia has labels. One for the front building is generic. In English writing: [http://wikimapia.org/#lat=48.0399571&lon=37.794637&z=16&l=0&m=b&show=/24479492/Ochakivska-vulytsia-19 Ochakivska vulytsia, 19]. Beneath: Category: safety, '''private security company.''' Around this, a bigger labeled area including the back building and surrounding lot. Label: Территория службы охраны "Титан" Translated, it says "Territory protection service "Titan" (Donetsk)." Beneath it: "Category: '''Do not display name''', fenced area." (не отображать название, огороженная территория) Below, their gate area as it appears in Human Rights Investigation's still, and three versions I've seen randomly changing over the last day or so with different parts that could be the name blurred out (most recently back to not blurred). Is that unusual? I predict further twists in this, with the truck found somewhere bolstering the Kiev story, and with the company's "outing" being manipulated somehow. Feels a little spooky. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
;Assessing "Vassili's" Story<br />
<br />
There are a number of problems with and interesting questions about this witness' story and how it meshes with other allegation (details forthcoming).<br />
<br />
In Vassili's defense, I'll say the world needs to hear more. What happened in these eight days? Were Russian officers coming and going? Poring over air charts in the side room, before closing the door with an annoyed look? A lot could have happened - this could be a gold mine of direct evidence for war crimes trials of these terrorist gang's leaders (as understood). --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
[[File:MH17 Vassili's Truck August 1c.png|right|400px]]<br />
An apparent support: as HRI found, [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/08/07/new-sighting-of-volvo-linked-to-buk/ New sighting of Volvo linked to BUK?] August 7 - One of those provocatively deleted tweets, quite recent with a supposedly same-day (dawn or sunset) photo from somewhere in Donetsk - outskirtsy, like where <s>rebel</s> I mean Kiev junta forces proudly claim to almost be. this photo (saved by HRI) shows "a truck" carrying a tank, driving behind another tank. The posted thought it was for a new roadblack/barricade (concrete slabs were also being hauled). It appears to be the same truck Vassili says he lost, or one just like it. And this does look like the type of thing seaparatists would do if they had seized it, and still didn't realize how famous it had become. This thing likes to drive at dawn, doesn't it? How are checkpoints then, a little sleepy maybe? Hmmm... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::(added later: inset image - from the photo, color-corrected and cropped on just the truck - for full view see the article or below) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: FTR I took up HRI's challenge to identify the truck on that picture and did so with almost 100% certainty. It's a Volvo FH second generation (2001-2013) with low cabin. Like [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Volvo_LKW_Fahrerhaus.JPG this one] which has a higher cabin but other than that is quite a match. Also FTR, I noticed that the twitter account has "Donbass Bandera" as location, which can but must not mean anything. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: Bandera might mean something, in context, but no time to puzzle too much. Good ID work there. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Vassili's Truck August 1 Loc.png|left|380px]]The article passes on a geo-location I can confirm: [https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Makiivka,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine/@48.04073,37.967479,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m5!1e2!3m3!1s78165143!2e1!3e10!4m2!3m1!1s0x40e08e984a0db9a9:0xe4e52efde2e0641c Here on Google Maps,] photo taken, as described, from "opposite the Vostochno-evroppeyskiy restaurant & lounge “Atrium” in Makiivka on the H-21." A site photo of the "Atrium" is included. The graphic I made at left shows the approximate view, including the stairwell (to a subway station?), though the billboard is less clear. The view is roughly towards the rising sun northeast - a rough azimuth measure suggests the sun is shining from about <s>66</s> 71 degrees from north, for a time of around <s>5:24</s> 5:52 AM (elevation: <s>1.8</s> 6 degrees). --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC) and corrections --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
FWIW, I went over to militaryphotos.net and scanned [http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?236005-Situation-in-the-Ukraine-Crimea-*Photos-Videos*-ONLY/page200 the thread about Ukraine starting on page 200] in very early July, up until page 225 when all the known truck/BUK info and disinfo was posted. Watched countless military convoys, including a whole bunch from Donetsk in the time between. Not a sign of the truck in question. If it was in "rebel" hands since July 8 like the alleged owner claims, they used it only for "special ops", alone in the early morning or so, not in their larger relocation operations. Two things remotely interesting: in an operation [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0JdcC324Ek reactivating a WWII tank from a war museum in Donetsk], a similar trailer is used, but the truck is a different one. And in [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2eGNPJlkMo this video from July 5] but without given location, the Ukie army does some operations and two BUK TELARs are seen. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Possible Launch Sites ==<br />
*Launch site discussion here is based on a photo of disputed provenance, said to be made '''near [[Category_talk:Ukraine#Torez|Torez]]''', showing a plume of smoke (see on the right and below). Exact date is disputed, but it was posted shortly after the accident. A late update or second version of the photo emerged in December 2014; this is further discussed in the [[File_talk:MH17_Launch_Plume.png|talk page for the photo]]. A different launch location in '''Artemovsk''', based on Bezler account, is discussed elsewhere [[Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17#Bezler_Account|(link).]] . <br />
<br />
===What do we know? ===<br />
Questions about the photo, --if it is genuine-- include:<br />
<br />
*What is shown on the photo? (Likely a missile launch, but can be MANPAD, or some other launch; raising fire smoke not excluded though less likely) <br />
*When was the photo made? (Claimed to be couple of minutes after the MH 17 shootdown launch; but could be made on earlier days)<br />
*Where was the photographer, and where is than the 'launch site" Photograph claimed to be made in Torez (4 microdistrict?) . Claimed launch sites locations are [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/launch-location-detected-of-missile.html SE] or [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2107 NE] from the photographer. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
A site, or maybe a couple of locations, have now been forwarded, based on compelling evidence, as likely SAM launch sites of July 17 or thereabouts. This is worth careful consideration here. To start:<br />
<br />
* [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10984530/MH17-the-clues-which-may-lead-to-missile-launch-site.html UK Telegraph, July 22] This report with some detail and a photo visits a few areas where signs of possible BUK launcher movement and firing occurred recently. Caterpillar tracks, mostly light, signs of burning, various debris left behind, all or mostly "in the area of the town of Snizhnoye." These details might suggest whoever did this had multiple launchers set up in different areas that left as soon as the operation/accident was done. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
::So far, signs are saying it was just the one. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Below: The site shown on video, stitched panoramic view (with confusing curve). This helps get the fullest set of geo-location clues. I may even check if this is the same spot identified by Ukraine@War, below. It should be, or we might have two firing locations pretty near each other, which would be odd. The firing direction from here would be northwest, almost directly along MH17's flight path. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
[[File:MH17 Telegraph site.png|center|940px]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Launch Plume.png|right|340px]]Ukraine@War: [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/launch-location-detected-of-missile.html Launch location detected of missile that brought down MH17] The photo at right, cited by Kiev as proof of a BUK launch in the right area, July 17. The anlysis here looks good on first blush and lines the filming to northern Torez, plume on a line including a supposed patch of cat tracks just revelaed by fresh Google/GeoEye images of some fields [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Donetsk&hl=en&ll=47.989347,38.773155&spn=0.078813,0.195522&t=h&hnear=Donetsk,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&z=13 here] by Snizhne. As traced, the tracks look realistic to me. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: There is (a disappeared) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUvK5m2vxro BBC video ] suggesting that smoke is from a direction of Saur-Mogila (= constant fighting) and a coal mine. <br />
::Thus smoke may be unrelated to the launch. Also timing of photo is unclear. <br />
:: Buk trail from unrelated launch videos appears considerably [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDXScnEKaP0 more impressive than on the photo] , and traces well visible trajectory, likely attracting attention of many people . But there appears to be no witness reports. <br />
::Buk appears to use [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_navigation proportional navigation method], and if so, its navigation control will try to guide it on a straight path to impact.<br />
::Unless it was doing something else (but can it??? the answer requires expert knowledge), it was most likely on a straight line trajectory which can be deduced from the impact direction.<br />
--[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 00:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Yes, an odd video. I'm not certain they even picked the right view, but it looks about right - I think she and Oliphant (Telegraph) point to the same monument as a landmark - a place of fighting. Seems like they got close, but didn't have a specific spot like U@W picked, and didn't find anything. As for angle, I think it can maneuver around, but would prefer to fly straight (not an expert, don't know what "prefer" means here). And if it was hit head-on like the impact marks suggest, then it probably did fly just about straight into the jet. Obviously if it came over the wing, and was fired from here, it would have to curl around, but I don't think that's the case. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
<br />
The satellite images cited at Ukraine@War are available if you have Google Earth. As explained [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/satellite-images-reveal-how-buk-has.html here,] there's a .kmz package you can download [https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxEeOqcjSE5uQXlkWkxKeVhDaEk/edit here] that loads on Google Earth new, murky images from July 20 (but the display still says August, 2013). The tracks he highlights are visible, faintly. There are a couple sets perhaps connecting - some could be local paths - there's no recent enough images to say there weren't there July 16. One important missing thing is a patch of burnt grass it seems should show up up differently - it's not identified there, and not evident right around these tracks. From this, it's not a great fit, except that line of sight pointing here. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Plastic Debris 1.png|left|280px]]So is the Telegraph site and the Ukraine@War site the same thing? Well, the Telegraph article says they went to the spot identified on a blog, but found, as the image suggests: Two possible launch sites – a rundown collective farm and a nearby wheat field – showed some track marks but no sign of any rocket launch whatsoever." It was a farmer plowing his fields there who pointed them to ''a field nearby'' that burned the other day, and that 's the unclear site they show. "The location of the fire lies on the supposed flight path of the rocket, and track marks – though indistinct – are present. Some unidentifiable bits of green plastic littered the site of the fire." There were also discarded bottles (type unclear) and apparently this oddity, shown in a photo but not mentioned - soft bakelite-type plastic ... thing, with years in the 1980s and 1990s stamped in it. It's all near enough to the rebel town, the Russian border, and concealed rebel positions that they think only rebels could operate there. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
First, let's note that author "P. Martin" connects these possibly relevant tracks with the surveillance video showing the Buk launcher driving south The Telegraph spot, from the burnt grass, must the spot the exhaust pushed off from, and the burn line should probably be to the northwest. There's no sign of that alongside these track marks found on that visual line. That's a problem, as the exhaust never said a luncher was driving around thataway, but rather launching from thataway. <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Telegraph Spot Mapped.png|right|380px]][[File:MH17 Telegraph Spot Cleared.png|right|320px]]Rather, it's the nearby "Telegraph spot" - not quite on his line but close - that [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com/2014/07/exact-location-pinpointed-of-mh17.html Martin thinks is the EXACT location] That, he thinks, is in the next field south. It should be visible in the updated imagery, but it turns out this is just off the edge of the area they provided, so it can't be verified or ruled out based on that. The inset graphic shows this cut-off line, his previous possible firing locations (track-based, seemingly un-burnt, in yellow) The spot yields a best placement with coordinates already noted by Petri in a section [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Map#Buk locations and flight paths|here.]] (I picked out the spot myself, best guess, and got the same but 3 seconds east) It can't be checked like that for the telltale stripe to the northwest, but it looks pretty likely to me. The main view down the tracks (left half of the panorama above) would be looking south, and the near line of trees on the right running west. The pretty obvious tracks he identifies as likely launcher tracks, and they do seem to curve in where it stopped. Otherwise, to me, this has more the look of a pre-travelles semi-road on the line between fields. Either way, it probably drove that way, and fired from here, and not from the un-burnt spots north. All the tracks he notes, none certain in themselves, are supported in their possible relevance by this being what's at the end of the trail. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC) and [[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Added in November, the image below that. I noticed Google Maps had new post-crash imagery up, and re-checked the spot for burn marks, since it was just off the grid before. This replacement - overlayed with translucence - seems too late. The strip most likely to show the signs has apparently been harvested/cleared before this image Some will say that constitutes a coverup. And it might, but probably just out of stupid reflexive nervousness. I just wanted to measure its angle and stuff. There is a nice track right up to the spot, likely pre-existing and just unclear before, and what they used to get there. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Location Challenged ===<br />
<br />
The above stuff, as of now and as I've been running it mainly, seems to bear out the vaunted "social media sleuths" placing the launcher and probably the launch in "separatist-held territory." I agree with all locations provided, and times too. Everyone acknowledges date is less sure. There are compelling clues pointing to concrete firing spot, that seems to be lined up the hit the jet head-on, as it's starting to seem the airliner was hit. In this narrative, the questions people should be asking is who was really running that. But readings differ, and some differing views can be considered here. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* [https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByibNV3SiUoobnpCVDduaHVORHM/edit?usp=sharing MH17 Analysis] – CDN <br />
<br />
Petri posted this to the front page, a 25-page report with many graphics and explained reasoning. One of its conclusions, based on range to impact, mainly, meant that "the missile that downed MH17 was not fired from Snizhne." At the moment, I disagree. Petri, who is CDN, and are they soliciting feedback? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::The anonymous PDF was published via Saker's blog: [http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/08/detailed-expert-analysis-of-mh17-downing.html Detailed expert analysis of the MH17 downing] "CDN" has [http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/08/detailed-expert-analysis-of-mh17-downing.html?showComment=1407347983141#c8862773971299986141 responded] [http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/08/detailed-expert-analysis-of-mh17-downing.html?showComment=1407350196815#c7564049628743605813 twice] in the comments. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 00:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
I think these might be part of what threw the author(s) off:<br />
# the heading seems to be off, too southerly to trace back like that. At the end, maybe close enough<br />
# possibly too-wide debris field starting too early - final breakup likely E-NE of their spot (ie closer to in range)<br />
# Wrong presumed angle of impact <br />
# Lack of knowledge, specified on page 23, of this contrail image or, obviously, the supporting clues pointing to what might be "the Telegraph site" excluded here. "Why are there no images of the rebel missile and its impressive launch contrail?" Oops, there is and it point there. <br />
--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: I just skimmed it before coming here. It was posted [http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.de/2014/08/detailed-expert-analysis-of-mh17-downing.html over here] where you can join the discussion (which I haven't read yet just saw that Petri is there chiming in in comment 2 of currently 93). I think it's first valuable in presenting the known capabilities of the Buk etc. If your stuff above is true and it is one single truck with one single TELAR that was seen in the different locations, then it shows quite conclusively that the Telegraph position can not be the launching point, because even if the Ukie claim of disappearance from Radar 50km from the Russian border is not true, due to the position of the debris it could only be further away, not closer, which adds to the argument. My 2 cents for the moment. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
: Oh, not directly related to the critique, but driving around with a huge phone number that leads to a Titan security of all places is more than a bit suspicious, I'd say. ;o) --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: "the Telegraph position can not be the launching point" if my "stuff above is true and it is one single truck with one single TELAR that was seen in the different locations" - how? "because even if the Ukie claim of disappearance from Radar 50km from the Russian border is not true, due to the position of the debris it could only be further away, not closer, which adds to the argument." Huh? I think the field is placed really vaguely in that report, and that's what sets the impact point - it looks maybe kilometers off, to the west. Placed right, the implied impact point is further east, ie closer to the launcher. It is a valuable report, but that point should be re-checked more carefully before I could be convinced to write off all the other evidence pointing there. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::: Take a careful look at pages 9 and 10 of the PDF. Place the spot to where you think it's "right". Think how that would change the picture. The argument is based on the empirical location of the debris and unless I've missed some serious flaw in the numbers and basic calculations made on the pages leading to that, I think it's by rule of thumb a very sound argument. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 13:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::: I'll do my own soon - I can say it would end further east, relative to the border there, and probably start further east too, but maybe I'm unaware of some outlying debris - but first a though on the debris field I just had, even more relevant than size and placement - what does it actually say re: the plane? He presumes it would follow the trajectory east. Not much, really. With only so much momentum and breaking up, with five miles to fall, the main factor will be wind. Even a breeze has five miles to act on it. That was so with PA 103 - the wind was about perpendicular to the path, and that determined just where stuff scattered on a line across the borders area right to the north sea - only the cockpit and a few things were off much from that line. Here, if it blewa along the flight path, the reasoning would work fine. If it blew back, to the west, the plane was probably shot further east than the field suggests. Ie, closer yet to in range. The Zuhres video above shows wind apparently to the northwest, and pretty strong. Worth a review and re-think in that light. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 14:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::: With an initial speed of 907 km/h I see no reason to take wind into serious account. I see no reason at all for going into more detail in this rule of thumb argument, not on the debris, not on the alleged launching point. But I'm as always looking forward to what you can come up with. ;o) --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::: btw there's no exact calculation of the traveled distance of the falling pieces, it's just found plausible resulting from other data. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::::: There's good reason. [http://martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/PA103_debris.gif past precedent.] I did read it wrong - the blue oval is about right, I thought the scale by it, which is way off. That's the 20 km drift - if the wind was blowing due east at the right speed... to the near edge of the oval and 30 km to the far edge... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 15:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 four last points.png|center]]<br />
<br />
Debris fields as shown in MH17 WSJ data combined.jpg. The two tracks, 118 per Flightradar24 and other sources, and 111 from a Russian graphic (see label C), just in case. They cross at point E just to look cool - superimpose wherever to visualize a track-back on these or any line between. <br />
<br />
The four red "last points", eyeballed onto the map as shown in the various graphics used here (all pretty approximate): <br />
<br />
A: last return, flightradar 24 (erred, I think, way too far along - I suspect some inherent offset...)<br />
<br />
B: Russian ATC last return, '50 km' from the border (vague description, likely close to accurate)<br />
<br />
C: end of 111 track shown in MH17 radar 1.png (maybe arbitrary, lower resolution)<br />
<br />
D: report, deduced point of impact (presuming 20-30 km flight due east after impact, wind app. not considered at all)<br />
<br />
E: My guess for breakup point, where the damaged front came apart (should maybe be further east, right over the south part of the first orange blob). Actual impact point, an unclear distance back. probably not very far - downward flight could start anytime after that, decreasing the lateral distance traveled) . <br />
<br />
The cockpit, aerodynamic, shows the most like forward trajectory of this, relatively minimal wind complication. The heavy forward parts had more drag, wound up NW of there. A bit further NW, the light, high-drag, punctured upper fuselage. That these parts aren't spread further out suggests the jet managed to descend some ways before the front totally fell apart, and/or that the wind was fairly light. From there, most of the plane remained together, kept more momentum and little wind effect, and crashed kilometers east. The last part of this plummet, about one minute seen on video, it was nose-free and essentially nose-diving. A slight north trend, perhaps curtailed eastward progress, largely just down, leaves it all hitting together by Hrabove, scattering woth the fireball trajectory and wind deciding where these bits landed. That it only got so far from the forward parts again suggests this breakup was fairly low in the fall - maybe just before the start of the one video. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I'd say forget point D, it is way too far west, this plane was not going to fly 25km once hit. On debris, I'd put breakup where the "f" is in your word "forward" and impact not very far NW of that, lifting the whole 118 line a little northwards. You can't bring breakup below impact and count on wind pushing wreckage "uphill" because that first group of wreckage included 37 bodies, which would not "sail". The impact would be enough to knock the course slightly south, to drop the cockpit at Rozspyne, where it turned NE to end up at Grabovo. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 03:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Thanks. D is the presumed point used to rule out this launch location, the original point of this sub-section. That dot fails by a good margin. My E and your guess are both north of the flight path, along which all the red dots are (this graphic is confusing, needs updating, if I didn't flatten it). I was thinking a NNW wind did the north and west spreading, but the records say the wind was flat "east" (to the west). I'm left suspecting now the plane banked hard left just before it started breaking up. Actual impact, just before that. The "C" label is pretty arbitrary, but it keeps seeming about right. On the imagined red line 1t 117-118, I dunno, maybe 20-30 pixels back. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::Winds are described as 'from' not 'to. So a wind blowing to the NNW is reported as a SSE wind.<br />
::::A slip - I'm trying to say it that way now. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::Getting on to the wind. The actual breeze direction is usually a function of altitude - veering or backing from ground level observation. It can easily be 90 degrees out from ground level. You need to look at the vertical profile used in aeronautical soundings to see where debris will in the main blow to. --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 11:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::Sounds like a real headache to map. There's also changes over time, where east at 5:00 may change briefly ten minutes later, or 10,000 feet up. All that seems can be counted on is easterly winds in general - no exception to that. And generally, even if they measure it at the airport, it must extend up to the clouds, which can be seen swirling east over the area. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::No it doesn't extend to the clouds except by accident. Major direction change can happen in hundreds of metres altitude especially at night. Examples of wind shift between ground level and 700 millibars (9800 ft) in day time can show a direction change of 90 degrees - e.g. North to West. This is significant with MH17 where the breakups occurred between 33,000 feet and probably a few thousand feet for the final disintegrations. --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 11:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::FYI Here is all about [http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/48/ Veering and Backing] --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 11:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::As for the spread issue, I'm re-thinking it. As for the bodies, it depends on a few things but I take your point - bodies are dense. And I didn't know that detail - worth considering. Also a sad side-note: most bodies would be alive and aware, from what I learned looking at Lockerbie. Lack of O2 would black them all out at first, but gravity makes it so there's enough in that final stretch those not dead already (the lucky few) would probably "wake up" in time to both feel their injuries and their fall, and to see the "separatist-held" fields rushing up to kill them. :( ---[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::: My indications are they were all dead when they hit the ground. That's not to say some didn't suffer from the first blast up there. Using my (very long ago) rescue triage training, I examined all the body photos for type of injury. The main findings were (a) almost no blood (as the separatist intercepted call rightly claimed) (b)a lot of legs at angles suggesting hip/pelvic fracture (a very common injury in air crashes to people wearing seat belts) and (c) all the bodies appear swollen (in first-day photos). We are thinking of what happened as a decompression, a low-pressure event. But that was preceded by the blast detonation of the missile just outside... a high-pressure event. The very high pressure shock wave compresses the blood vessels and severely damages the lungs. Blood pressure and heart rate go sky high trying to compensate. In 1/2 a second the blast wave is gone and they are in decompression.The heart can't adjust fast enough. The lack of blood flow makes the brain and liver swell up, too, so normal blood circulation cannot be re-established even if the heart recovers. The Lockerbie bomb, and various exploding fuel tank cases, were lower pressure explosions; sadly many would have survived those until ground/water impact.[[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 20:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::So there is evidence of blast wave, not _just_ decompression alone? But no shrapnel wounds? --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 21:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::(cut my comment - I had misread - taken to [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Debunked topics#Bloodless bodies – fake Facebook profiles?|bloodless bodies spot]] FWIW - but I disagree with both the lack of blood and the validity of many "separatist" communications, but if we're not arguing a planeload of corpses being shot down, I won't argue it much.) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
More to the point, leaving the above graphic aside, would be this newer one I should finally add. Basic straight path, 118 and placed as agreed by most sources. Alleged launch location, measures app. My best guess is a 2 km range from 22.75 to 24.75, weighted to the center. Or most likely about 23.75 km out (irrespective of actual projectile flight path, that's where it made contact, but this helps visualize how the alleged launch site might line up with [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Forensics#Direction of projectiles?|the directional forensics]]). --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
[[File:MH17 missile intercept distances.png]]<br />
::Straight line from launch is okay. But impact has to be further north, ie before the most westerly debris. You've used the map which assumes that debris to be blown back by wind. That can't be right, as it included bodies (too dense to blow back) and witnesses saw them and plane sections falling straight down. This only makes about 1 mile difference to the missile range, so does nothing to exclude that launch location. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 01:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::The map of spread is only app., some orange area I made. The pink dot and lines are from a map, Russian analysis, as you say apparently presuming a SSE wind. Debris including people ''would'' be blown back to some degree, all of it, varyingly; trajectory can only do so much when you have five miles of falling, with the breezes acting the whole time, and the lightest parts will be back a bit, whatever direction and as mentioned above, a SSE winds at some time or altitude still isn't ruled out at all). Do we know just where in that area those passengers landed, and what types of things are its far end? ? <br />
(<br />
:::I mean, you could be right and it's a bit further back, maybe with a continuation due east from there and no real wind effect except slightly back. It was only 9-12 mph, and maybe it fell halfway before starting to fall apart, which means less spread. I'm thinking about a possible left turn to explain the north aspect, or it could be wind, or being further back (more north, as well as west), or a combination. The turn has to be a certain size, the wind direction is not certain aside from east prevailin, ... whatever point best explains whatever happened ... we're down to a shrinking agreed range, and as you say, it's all within range of the one spot, so it's not ruled out after all. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 04:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
At this stay of play, I feel it will be helpful to have displayed prominently an overall map reflecting best guess on impact location as well as already flagged suspected launch sites, that is the two launch sites we have been discussing (near Snezhny ; near Chernukhino) , PLUS launch locations flagged and TIMED by released satellite data (currently only Russian data is available). I would be generous with the range here, we can find range suggested by public sources but presumably actual range depends on a number of things (height, radar range, trajectory, wind), and may exceed the "official" range. Another useful graphics piece info would be indicating the front lines, if there is a way to have those known. '''I would be extremely cautious with displaying graphics reflecting just one way of thinking (whether "worst", "best", or "middle of the way"), for the reason that any graphics is easy for human brain to absorb, more than words spread out on all our numerous pages, and ''no graphics at all'' is better than displayed ''skewed'' graphics.''' One-sided graphics may be '''inviting''' even more noise releases "supporting" some already skewed scenarios, and I feel that was already happening way too often. I feel that most helpful stance at this point would be as neutral as it gets. (Regarding trajectories, a default guess is a straight line, anything else requires an explanation. Straight line is implied so no strong need to actually display it, especially if it ends up curling in suggestive funny ways on graphics). --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 09:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::I've been doing a lot of graphics, so not all fired up for more. But if you are, I wouldn't mind making another if it helps. Maybe this is best taken to [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Map#Interception Location]] (a lot of this is redundant, and I might move it, but at least I can say let's stop piling intercept stuff here as well as there). Up to picking a certain spot around Chernukino? Some outskirts area, on a major road, it'll be a guess. A couple guesses could be mapped. Also, if it seems worth it, I can do updates and upload the new version as needed. Any timed satellite launches, let me know. Front lines, not known and IMO misleading in this case. Those who would know would try - and maybe manage - to sneak this thing behind them... the caution about leading labels, I can leave to you - you could just tell me what to put. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
:::::Would take me forever, may try later on, but not immediately; some cleanup/re-arrangement seems the easiest option. (If there are tools for collaborative mapping, may be good to start using those; but not aware of any) --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 11:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The preliminary [[Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Dutch preliminary report|Dutch report]] says the flight recorders were suddenly lost at 13:20:04 UTC at a point that almost exactly matches the 22.6 km mark. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 22:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Plume Location Re-challenged ===<br />
There is another video, essentially giving a bellingcat in voice-altered Russian. We discussed all that essentially; but he seems at least to end up with a claim for geolocation for the plume photo. Seems to be a new one (or I forgot the old one already by now). The claim is based on [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2055 unrelated panoramic photo] somebody took nearby, and [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2025 claimed to be geolocated by presenter]. Here it is on <br />
[http://maps.yandex.ru/-/CVG0nLo~ yandex map] ; it is taken from a terricon located at Lutuginskii bugor(=hill). There is a cableway from there to TsOF (remember, Khuevyi Torez tells about cableway from Lutugino to TsOF, so here they are); [http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=48.012722&lon=38.665695&z=14&m=b&show=/10590043/ru/ЦОФ-им-Киселёва TsOF is central enrichment plant]; photos from TSOF do show a similar [http://photos.wikimapia.org/p/00/00/62/81/85_big.jpg cableway] . So based on that and an audio of locals of unknown provenance and authenticity, discussing a missile-looking trail in the direction of [http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=48.041767&lon=38.741055&z=14&m=b&show=/18687650/ru/Химмаш Khimmash], our presenter [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2107 ends up] with this [http://maps.yandex.ru/-/CVG0rMnO claimed plume location] , somewhere near this Mochalino village. And apart from this, his contribution to the topic is the claim of a white spot on the other side of 3'2 Buk which he claims to match on the way out. I do not believe all those Buk sightings were taken on the same day, and so do not believe in the overall glue-up of the story, but geolocating the plume, no matter what the plume is, remains legitimate. This author gives his answer to that question. Is this geolocation correct? I do not know, it is not tight, there are lots of cableways out there I presume, and some posts nearby are not too unusual. I do not see a tight fit between Lutuginski bugor photo and the plume photo--some elements do match, but those are obviously not identical places. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 02:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Excellent. Let's keep the title. But I guess you just forgot the previous location. This is the same view. The plume could be added, but I doubt it, and it's to that view at a consistent time on a consistent day. I'm not convinced ''all'' Buk sightings are same day, but most of them being so is a good fit with this plume that way, and a plane down with damage that seems consistent to me. (I hate this case) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::Are you sure it's the same? This new one is NNE from Torez, I thought it was placed SE from Torez by [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/launch-location-detected-of-missile.html U@W ]--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::Going back to check, this is a different filming location proposed. Line of sight isn't included, but it seems to be the same line over the same area to the same place. Even before he could see the distinctive mound, Petros (U@W) had [http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-cfSqhRb2dKo/U80x2OxK1XI/AAAAAAAATNk/r42WpH-Bf-Q/s1600/missile+trail+9.jpg this lineup], which includes this spot. Right where Petros pic says "trees" is what this guy decided were the foreground trees where it was filmed. I wondered when checking but decided on the further version. And seems to be the same result either way. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::I don't think this is accurate, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2107 video at this timestamp] gives 'место пуска ракеты' (launch location) near [http://maps.yandex.ru/-/CVGgVPJN Molchalino]. I have not seen this elsewhere, I only seen the one claimed to be SE of Torez. He does not discuss filming location, but shows it on video and assumes it is in Torez near the terricon, which is close to what other sources assume. He does show the line of site on the video; it is nearly perpendicular to U@W. Lots of terricons, coalmines (so likely cableways), and power lines leading there in this area, so location now seems uncertain. As I understand, no solid evidence for either of these two being the correct geolocation (those cableways seems to be quite common) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::::I am/was confused then. I thought it showed a SW view, just from closer to the mound. Now I see at 33:45 a view from right by it, looking NE? Can't explain the other one you see in the distance in the fuller view (right ?) That's kind of towards Molchalino, but that won't explain anything I suspect. (and what a bad fake or odd coincidence to have a plume up there and a the Buk tracking imagery lead to south of Snizhne, oops!) We'll see south and west faces of buildings if looking NE, so sun will be shining from well east of south, but also quite high, like mid-day in the early AM - or maybe just earlier mid-day, like 11 am. That would be another sloppy mistake. I doubt the details will line up. BUT a couple minor things didn't quite seem to the other way, so maybe worth a try (later). --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I will send this comment also to<br />
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/01/27/is-this-the-launch-site-of-the-missile-that-shot-down-flight-mh17<br />
The US map launch location can best best and almost exactly located from the last magnified picture:<br />
https://wp4553-flywheel.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/32.jpg<br />
That location is here:<br />
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.9571993,38.7466343,488m/data=!3m1!1e3<br />
The triangulation result in the last 3 pictures of the article introduces unnecessary error and clearly does not match the magnified picture.<br />
There is a structure that looks similar to an airfield and it is just south of Chervony Zhovten (=Oktyabr), matching with a witness observation in that place ("it was flying as if from Saurivka", though not matching 2 other witnesses in the zello audio, indicating it came from government held positions further south, [2:00] "Well, it appears everybody saw where the missile has flown from." [2:04] "Well, where you are, everybody saw it, but the Ukrainian media, as usual, will say, will say that that were us.")<br />
It would be outside the range of the plume picture geolocation bounds, which may be either an error given the long distance, or, the plume picture was taken the day before from the reported grad missile launch (as well as the burned field). (The photographer gave his camera to the SBU after twittering the first picture, so later pictures and dates can not be taken for sure).<br />
http://7mei.nl/not-buk-m1-new-video-proof/--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 19:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:(1) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkCcCmYlMZc That audio], as it turns out, was posted by Torezinfo on 24 July, and updated on 1 February. Torezinfo is a favorite posting place of Khuevyi Torez(=KT), who posted a very [https://twitter.com/WowihaY/status/489914266439671808 similar location map on 17 July already]. KT mentions zello recordings on 25 July in the follow-up, so shortly after it gets on torezinfo. With all that stuff linked to this KT poster, I would not put much trust that any of that is genuine. (Or that this KT poster is not acting as a medium for SBU). (2)[http://fr1.sidcdn.net/maps/nsdc/2014/07/large/map-nsdc-2014-07-17-uk-w3000.jpg Ukrainian map] does give us some Ukrainian held area somewhere to the South, but from that map it is hard to tell where exactly opolchenie ends and UAF begins--(I would not know) (3) Actually, going from there, not likely to hit on the left side--so having it from Artemovsk (as Bezler told, indeed) seems most probable --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 21:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:: Here is another map http://liveuamap.com/e/2014/16-of-july-saurivka-is-bombarded-over-and-over-by-rus-grad?ll=47.907137219641115;38.75392913818363&zoom=8<br />
::And here is an article which says that both Marinovka and Tarany were held by National guard. http://www.interpretermag.com/ukraine-liveblog-day-149-russian-tanks-and-artillery-reach-donetsk/#3353<br />
::I just opened bellingcat https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/01/27/is-this-the-launch-site-of-the-missile-that-shot-down-flight-mh17 and see that large parts of the article disappeared, I think they are working on it. That location given by the US photo does not really match well with the plume direction anymore, lets see what they come up with--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 21:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::I believe Marinovka was [http://lifenews.ru/news/136715 taken by opolchenie on 16 July] (lifenews report). Tarany--do not know, perhaps still Ukraine, but not totally sure. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 21:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::: other sources say attack was repelled and forced them to retreat to Stepanivka http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_in_Shakhtarsk_Raion http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/213817.html--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 22:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::: That US photo launch location differs by an angle of about 11 (?) degrees from the brown line in the bellingcat plot (measured from the photographer's location). https://wp4553-flywheel.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/101.jpg (launch location is just visible below the letter 'p' of 'the word 'suspected'). I think this a lot and puts the 'plume' into question. But then there is only the US photo, which itself could be a production based on social media (or worse).--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 22:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Well some believed this is for real, then they got a case to answer [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/22/mh17-us-intelligence-russia-separatists-report Guardian: Photograph: US intelligence community] [https://twitter.com/barbarastarrcnn/status/491559153559932928/photo/1 @barbarastarrcnn] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
In the following, I assume that most of the social media pieces and leaked audio tapes are correct and connect the dots in a different way:<br />
<br />
1. On July 14, an Ukrainian Antonow 26 airplane was shot down by a missile near the Russian border town of Donetsk.<br />
http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/what-weapon-was-used-to-shot-down-ukraine-air-force-antonov-26-at-july-14/<br />
The video in above link showed the missile flying for 39 seconds until it hit. Only a BUK can fly that long, a manpad or Pantsir, also claimed to have been used, not (see first comment in link).<br />
<br />
2. According to a recorded audio tape published by the Ukrainian Secret Service SBU, rebels possessed a BUK ('BUK3x2') in the Donetsk area at least since July 14 ('we already have BUK'). At that date it may have been either on Russian or already rebel held territory.<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVAOTWPmMM4<br />
<br />
3. A social media search discovered only one other system in the area, capable of shooting down AN26 - a Pantsir. However, a Pantsir can't fly for 39 seconds. Based on a max.speed of 780m/s and max range of 20km, it can only fly for about 25s.<br />
http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.co.nz/2014/11/unnoticed-video-of-26-downing-confirms.html<br />
Therefore and because of the crew's intent to engage in the civil war, it is likely that AN26 was shot down by BUK3x2. Afterwards BUK3x2 had only 3 missiles left.<br />
<br />
4. On July 16, Ukrainian and rebel statements both confirmed the shoot down of a SU-25 plane near the "Marinivka border crossing", which is only a few kilometers south-south east of Pervomaiske, the destination of BUK3x2. Ukraine's defence ministry said: "It is likely that [the hit] was carried out by air-to-air rockets from the Russian air force which were patrolling the border in a pair." <br />
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-28345039<br />
This may have been another reason to install a BUK system in this area on the next day, leaving room for an accidental Ukrainian shoot down, apart from an accidental rebel shoot down and a willful Ukrainian false flag shoot down.<br />
<br />
5. On July 16, rebels fired grad missiles from a location near Pervomaiske. The plume may have been photographed as well by an SBU informant in Torez and twittered on the next day, claiming to show the launch of the missile hitting MH17.<br />
http://7mei.nl/not-buk-m1-new-video-proof/<br />
<br />
6. On July 17, BUK3x2 was seen in rebel territory on its way to Pervomaiske, south of Torez. Ukrainian SBU knew about the arrival latest since July 14 and about its destination latest July 17 morning, allowing a false flag operation from positions held nearby.<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVAOTWPmMM4<br />
<br />
7. There was an ongoing battle in the region with "fluent" contact lines. Marinivka and Tarany, about 8 kilometers south-east and south of Pervomaiske, were controlled by Ukrainian National Guard as well as all of the border region. Marinivka would match well with the direction of the Torez plume photo.<br />
http://liveuamap.com/e/2014/16-of-july-saurivka-is-bombarded-over-and-over-by-rus-grad?ll=47.907137219641115;38.75392913818363&zoom=8<br />
http://www.interpretermag.com/ukraine-liveblog-day-149-russian-tanks-and-artillery-reach-donetsk/#3353<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_in_Shakhtarsk_Raion<br />
<br />
8. The Russian Defense ministry claimed in a news conference, that on July 17, Ukraine installed several BUK system near rebel held areas.<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bNPInuSqfs#t=1567<br />
<br />
9. In a popular 'zello' audio recording, witnesses in the area were talking about the launch of the missile hitting MH17. A witness from "Oktyabr" (Chervony Zhovten) claimed "it was flying as if from Saurivka". <br />
Two other witnesses said:<br />
[2:00] "Well, it appears everybody saw where the missile has flown from."<br />
[2:04] "Well, where you are, everybody saw it, but the Ukrainian media, as usual, will say, will say that that were us."<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkCcCmYlMZc<br />
<br />
10. A Reuter's witness also claimed that the missile was fired from Kiev held territory. Reuters, however, said, "off camera, he said that it was launched from a nearby rebel site. Asked why originally he said the opposite he said it was because he was afraid of the rebels."<br />
In a new interview this witness claims that "off camera comments were just made up by the [Reuters] journalist".<br />
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=497_1427729491<br />
<br />
11. BUK3x2 was again photographed in Lugansk with its 3 missiles, no missile fired since July 14.<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4HJmev5xg0<br />
<br />
12. The US presented a very low resolution satellite photo with the track of a missile added. The launch location does not match well with the direction geolocated with the Torez plume photo, it deviates by about 11 degrees in angle, hence either or both appear to be incorrect.<br />
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/01/27/is-this-the-launch-site-of-the-missile-that-shot-down-flight-mh17/#comment-12493<br />
<br />
13. Award winning investigative journalist Robert Parry reported about leaked US intelligence "that U.S. intelligence agencies do have detailed satellite images of the likely missile battery that launched the fateful missile, but the battery appears to have been under the control of Ukrainian government troops dressed in what look like Ukrainian uniforms."<br />
https://consortiumnews.com/2014/07/20/what-did-us-spy-satellites-see-in-ukraine/<br />
And later Parry wrote: "But I’m now told that U.S. intelligence analysts ... are concentrating on the scenario of a willful Ukrainian shoot-down of the plane, albeit possibly not knowing its actual identity."<br />
https://consortiumnews.com/2014/08/03/flight-17-shoot-down-scenario-shifts/<br />
<br />
14. During the coming months BUK shrapnel may have been collected from the AN26 wreckage and planted in the MH17 wreckage.--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 00:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Photographer Statement===<br />
[http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com.au/2014/12/interview-with-eyewitness-who-made.html Reported to say] : "That day did not foretell anything special would happen. In the morning I woke up and went to my work. At four ó clock in the afternoon I arrived home. And at 16:20 we heard an explosion. The first explosion was not very heavy. 15 seconds later, something like that, there was a second explosion, which was louder and it made the windows shake."<br />
: Did not foretell --an ass, --is this lawyer-written? 'We heard". --Took till December to polish up ? --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 16:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:: Agreed. 'I did not know in advance this would happen.' Uh, who said you might? And 15 seconds must be rocket travel. Did he hear the firing from there? Could be, not that far. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Time delay consideration ===<br />
Photographer reported two sound booms td=15 seconds apart; an interpretation may be launch and impact sounds arriving to him in Torez. If P=(0,0,0) is photographer cordinates, I=(d,0, h) is impact, with d ground distance between Torez and Rozypnoe, h is the height of flight at 10 km , and L =(x,y,0) is launch location, dist(A,B) is Euclidean distance between A and B, c is peed of sound, and n (about 2.5) is missile speed in Machs, then<br />
<br />
(1). dist (P,L) = dist(L,I)/n + dist (I,P) - td*c <br />
<br />
(2). dist (P,L) >= h/n + dist (I,P) - td*c <br />
<br />
(1) is a biquadratic equation for y given x (square enough times for square root to disappear); plotting that gives a closed 'ellipse-like' curve on (x,y) plane; once on that curve, time delay is exactly td seconds (doing this involves solving quadratic equations and removing spurious solutions not satisfying (1) ) . That curve is at distance about 13 km in NW direction from photographer in Torez, and about 22 km in SE direction from him on the Southern ( Saur Mogila side). <br />
<br />
(2) gives a simple estimate that distance between photographer and launcher is greater than the known right hand side; that distance is more than something like 13 km<br />
<br />
(3) Requiring launch withing the range, --launch is not more than 20 km horizontally from the impact-- selects a NW arc of the curve described in (1) ; that arc is to the NW from Torez, and goes slightly NW from the impact point (meaning its ground projection). <br />
<br />
Conclusion, based on the above, is that launch is too far from the photographer, to match the photo. <br />
<br />
(Knowing exact time delay can tighten the argument. With what's actually known, and objection can be raised that whatever actual time delay was, it appeared to be 15 seconds to the photographer. Graphics of the curve may be supplied if needed). --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Ooh. That kind of math could really come in handy with recorded audio cues, for example. But based on '15 seconds, something like that,' from memory months later, I wouldn't put any weight on it. If that turns out correct and pretty exact, there's a good point. Otherwise, the photo and other stuff is more solid, and says it's just about where it should be, as far as I've seen anyway. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Contrail ==<br />
This is what an "impressive launch contrail" of a big missile might look like.<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3lLwP1y0w8 АТО. Запуск двух ТРК Точка-У. Артемовск.] (ATO. The launch of two TRK Tochka-U. Artemivs'k.) – August 28, 2014<br />
-- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 22:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Something happens in the sky. This is the people's reaction:<br />
* ''20/09/2014 Over many parts of the DPR and LPR were seen circles in the sky.'' [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7310 1,] [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7311 2,] [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7312 3,] [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7313 4,] [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7314 5]<br />
-- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 03:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
Tochka U missile is single stage solid fuel, which is a mixture of ammonium perchlorate with rubber and aluminum powder (Russian [http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/tochka/9ch151.shtml "ДАП–15В" fuel] ).<br />
I could not find information on Buk with a comparable level of detail. Buk missile is single stage, solid fuel of some type, "dual-mode solid propellant (total work time - about 15 seconds)" [http://www.webcitation.org/67kZeZxeh] , [http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-9K37-Buk.html]<br />
Earlier "Куб" ("Cube") missile used [http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/kub/kub.shtml 'ballist' fuel,] [https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%85#.D0.91.D0.B0.D0.BB.D0.BB.D0.B8.D1.81.D1.82.D0.B8.D1.82.D0.BD.D1.8B.D0.B5 gunpowder] + plasticiser type (Russian "ВИК-2") at the start, followed by some sort of ramjet ("direct flow rocket engine") at final stage. It is not clear, but possible, that fuels and contrails of Tochka U and Buk are different. Here are some videos with Buk launch: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDXScnEKaP0] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EAtNpsXrgWs], and [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSXMhaFntrU a longer with stupid music version]. Those videos appear to be shot from a closer distance than Tochka U video; and a contrail on them does look quite impressive. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 10:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:The amount of smoke is highly dependant om Alumin(i)um loading. In general more aluminum is more 'oomph' and also more smoke.<br />
:On the other hand, it's common to alter the loading for other reasons. I refer to the Syrian Volcano (122mm variety) that started out as high Al-load and quite smokey but recent versions have low Al load but perhaps similar characteristics? --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 10:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Here is something that might be a BUK: Ukrainian AN-26 shot down from Russian border area on July 14th. Ukraine@war claims it as a BUK. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 10:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
* [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.fi/2014/11/unnoticed-video-of-26-downing-confirms.html Unnoticed video of AN-26 downing confirms shot down from Russian territory] – Ukraine@war, November 27, 2014<br />
** Video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoS4kgHxPnE Ukrainian Military Aircraft Su-25 Downed After Russian Attack Near Izvarino, July 16]<br />
:::Does not look like Buk, short contrail, --not all the way to the ground like on Buk video launches. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::It was a BUK. It flew 39 seconds in the video, a Pantsyr can't do this, see also first comment in this link http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/what-weapon-was-used-to-shot-down-ukraine-air-force-antonov-26-at-july-14/. Easy maths - at Mach 3 (1020m/s) it can fly for about 42 seconds (range 42 km, bit more because initially it is slower). According to the audio tape, BUK 3x2 was in the area on that day! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVAOTWPmMM4 Ukraine@war needed 5 months to find something else in the area, but the Pantsyr can't fly that long. This is how BUK 3x2 likely lost a missile.--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 21:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::::Well, yes, it does takes 42 seconds to fly 42 km at 1000 m/s , but that does not mean what we see '''must be''' a Buk. They start discussing that plane caught fire at 0:03 on the video already. We do not see what on hell is going on until some 30 s later. This plane likely was brought down by Igla or similar modern MANPAD. Possibly two hits, at 0:03 and another at around 0:30. Or it got on fire at the start of the video and than eventually went down (It is unlikely to have SU 25 pilot bailing out after Buk strike; or particularly likely catching fire as it's not aiming at the engine; contrail is weak for a Buk, too). Pantsir claims are much later from what I have seen,--- and no need for Pantsir to shoot SU 25. ---If something is there on SBU audio and some murky photo, does not mean it's all for real, and that what we do actually see all have to be linked to all that murky SBU stuff. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 22:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::::There may be some confusion here, just a recapture<br />
::::::First video https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xTT6BDRA8_k<br />
::::::0:03-0:11 buring object <br />
::::::0:17-0:33 contrail making a half looping<br />
::::::Second video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoS4kgHxPnE<br />
::::::0:29-0:39 contrail making a half looping + detonation.<br />
::::::ukraine@war http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/11/unnoticed-video-of-26-downing-confirms.html<br />
::::::says both videos show AN26 shoot down on July 14 (second video with wrong label SU-25)<br />
::::::says 2nd video impact at 0:39, claims missile has been burning for at least 39 seconds--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 06:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::::::After reconsideration, I would say ukraine@war is right, both videos show AN26 shoot down, but wrong, people were initially watching AN26 with engine burning and a second missile was fired. That missile was seen burning about 16 seconds in first video, and time has to be added to reach that altitude/location, so likely over 20 seconds. That would exclude man-pad, Pantsir (?), likely BUK, R73 air-to-air, ...--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 06:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Actually, it is interesting to know how contrail of Buk on a long haul launch looks like. It is said that it fires engine for some 15 seconds only (and unknown will it do less, if it can do away with less). That 15 seconds need to put it at a spot where it can reach the target with little, if any, engine work and doing turns only. It is not very clear how much targeting happens in the first 15 seconds, likely it does some; and it is self-guided and doing proportional navigation later on. Knowing details here allows to find exact trajectory, short of that thinking it goes straight to the collision point is a sensible idea. In any case, heavy contrail '''raising from the ground''', perhaps higher than the target is. Contrail is white, and stays put for a while. Seriously heavier than the stuff we see on social media. There are youtube videos of Buk launches giving an idea --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:These 15 seconds are wrong. Here is a video (start at 2:00) showing a SA-11 burn fuel for 35 seconds until its too far to distinguish. It is detonating at 42 seconds. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBlU2hHYJMg (I just copied the comment from here http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/what-weapon-was-used-to-shot-down-ukraine-air-force-antonov-26-at-july-14/ )--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 23:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::That video probably shows a modern version ('over horizon' capability was mentioned somewhere regarding modern developments; this one seems to be showing us something like that). 15 sec is coming from Russian sources [http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/buk/buk.shtml Зенитная ракета 9М38 выполнена с применением двухрежимного твердотопливного двигателя (общее время работы - около 15 секунд)]. Older versions also had shorter listed range. 22-25-35-42 km range, going through modifications. (Would be happier without 15 sec engine limit actually-easier to know trajectory) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::Actually what goes off is [https://digitalempire.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/9m38m1.jpg 9M38M1], the one supposed to have [http://pvo.guns.ru/buk/buk_02.htm 15 sec engine run], but the video lasts for 40 sec. This appears to be edited video, around 2:30 we got two tracks, than one slides right unreasonably for a natural recording. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 02:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::Since this is a point we haven't already covered around that I know of, I'll pop in for it. 42 seconds I gather is the time for the fuel to burn out and the thing to fall, like a grad rocket or the like can only do. But this is a missile with guidance, set to intercept a moving airliner. Therefore, app. 40-45 seconds is the longest, not the shortest, it can fly (or am I just confused?) But 15 seconds is plausible, depending. Still might be untrue, not trusting people saying stuff. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::::After the engine is off it is high up and and at high speed, still can fly until gravity acceleration brings it down, and is on guided flight -unlike Grad-because fins can move causing it to turn. Issues here are visuals (contrail all the way or only about 15 km in flight), and trajectory. With engine on for 40 +secs it will go straight to collision point doing proportional navigation all the way (exploding earlier if it needs to be). If it is only 15 sec, trajectory is less clear, it may for example use engine to climb high up, than do guided fall and proportional navigation to the target from a spot where engine delivered it (for low and close-by target, that may potentially end up with a hit from another side--some drawings from unclear sources were showing opposite side hits at under 1 km and direct hits at 10-15 km). Or it may use engine to end up on a ballistic trajectory hitting target (no side changing than). This is solid fuel engine so there is not much control on how quickly it burns off, that time is a set design feature. What we see on launch video is 40+ seconds of engine work-- will go direct to collision point in that case. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 12:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::::That's another clue that plume of smoke photo is not a Buk launch, that would give at least some 10-15 km worth of contrail, not a plume; with 40+seconds engine, contrail all the way to impact...(or else, launched from far away, over 40 km distance) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 12:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==About accents==<br />
<br />
[http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29109398 This report,] released one day before the preliminary official report, recycles visual imagery already discussed on this page, and attempts a new claim that a BUK crew spoke with Russian-'Muscovite' accent. The claim is made by (British-accent) actors representing 'eyewitness(es)', with a visual imagery of a car at unknown night-lighted location in the embedded video, and some text, provided in English. Regarding 'Muscovite' accent, first it is not easy to tell, for example [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBCfmlMkYMg this video] is Mr. Poroshenko speaking in Russian to a resident of Crimea, replying in Russian, and commented by a presenter, who is speaking 'Muscovite'. Although Mr. Poroshenko has a slight southern accent, there is little difference between the three speakers in practice. Moreover, actors and presenters can easily switch from Southern to Muscovite as required. <br />
<br />
Secondly, if somebody speaks 'Muscovite', this does not mean this person works for Russia or the rebels,--- he can work for any side (PS. No change of condition to the blue dumpster on Zuhres video was reported in this latest update). --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Thanks for bringing this. What a stupid report. "Three eyewitnesses, all civilians, separately told Panorama that they saw a missile-launcher in rebel-held territory a few hours before the Boeing jet was hit." Yeah, video shows the same. It was there. It probably shot down the plane. Accents, as you note, aren't the best indicator of anything, and even the reason sounds vague: the G thing, which even I know about (back to Olga/Olha). The "Russians" might even be Russian dissident mercenaries right from Moscow, for all we know. Who paid them? Their going up to the media and saying "you didn't see us" was not a good plan to stay secret. The witnesses: chosen at random? Directed to them? <br />
::''If correct, the Kremlin has to explain to the relatives of the 298 passengers and crew who died - including ten Britons - why Russian military personnel were allegedly seen in the area escorting a BUK shortly before MH17 was shot down.''<br />
:I think Russia could come up with a reason or two such allegations are made. Those ten Britons' tax dollars fund it. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: Hmm, this foreigner is confused by dat BBC talk: "If correct" ... doesn't that mean it ''wouldn't be'' merely "allegedly" but, well, correct? ;oP --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 23:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::It means "If {made up vague allegation) is correct....then "SHOCK HORROR CONCLUSION IS TRUE". this lets them be as wild or wide off the mark as they like and the magic "if correct" turns it true. Without any effort to check if it IS true in our understanding of that word.[[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 03:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::Another BBC weapon in its arsenal of innuendo and dissimulation is the quotation mark. Whenever they are dealing with something of dodgy provenance, or something of good provenance they want to weaken they put it in quotation marks. e.g. - ISIS beheaded 20 Syrians. becomes ISIS 'beheaded 20 Syrians' or 'ISIS' beheaded 20 Syrians or ISIS 'beheaded' 20 'Syrians' or ISIS beheaded '20' Syrians. No need for corrections later. Any version can be retrospectively justified or otherwise. --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 03:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== If Buk 3x2 Was in Russia ==<br />
Previously, it seemed quite likely the Buk launcher associated with the shoot-down was one of those owned and operated by the Kiev regime, simply snuck into separatist territory, maybe with some cover to make them even invite it in like a Trojan Horse. Then, I saw the November Bellingcat research on "Buk 3x2." As covered [[#Bellingcat and 3x2|above,]] this claims to match that unit with a distinct one seen three weeks earlier, driving in a military convoy well inside Russian territory. This is widely taken as clear proof the Russian military supplied the weapons, and it is strongly indicative of that. However, the general possibilities are worth laying out at this point.--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
All options below share these presumptions: <br />
* MH17 was brought down by the missing SA-11 missile AND/OR (in some cases) at least the launcher's appearance was coordinated to give that impression and is a clue to the plot <br />
* The videos and photos in question are genuine and not manipulated (my usual presumption, same here)<br />
* The Russia geolocations (many of them, making sense in context) are correct - Buk 3x2 as seen was seen in Russia, between Kurk, Stary Oskol, and a bit south of there (not verified but most likely correct) <br />
<br />
Presuming all that:<br />
* Buk 3x2 (seen in Russia) and the mystery one are not the same - this require paint job match and matching damage to the lip above the track to make a Kiev-owned unit look like that one. It's possible, but not the most compelling.<br />
* The two units are the same - it was in the convoy in Russia and also towed around Donetsk oblast July 17. <br />
<br />
If the unit is the same, there are a few possibilities for the nature of that connection, some of them silly or just there for logical fullness:<br />
* It was Kiev's unit and they snuck it over and into this convoy, and...<br />
** ... got it back later<br />
** ... the Russians kept it and used it for their own operation<br />
* It was Kiev's but some other way lost to the Russians <br />
* It was Russia's but Kiev managed to sneak over and steal it out of the convoy and then use it for the false-flag event<br />
* Same, but Donbass rebels then stole it from Kiev <br />
* It was Russian, and someone on the Russian side drove it over and then it was stolen by Kiev forces <br />
* Someone on the Russian side drove it over and it stayed in their control or handed over to their chosen parties, or transferred at the border - that is, no Kiev interference.<br />
<br />
So far, I'm inclined to call Bellingcat's reading (the last option, the widely accepted one) the single most reasonable one, though maybe outweighed by the ''combined'' alternatives. It's not fun to feel almost swayed to a view so close to Kiev's problematic narrative, but this is what I see, pretty basic. Some combined maybes go against the straightforward reading. As for other thoughts I might be missing, well, that's partly why it's here. Let me know, I'm all ears. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Starting from that reasonable if unproven last option, not one but three final types of possibility remain. If it was freely moving in convoy inside Russia, it probably belongs to Russia at the time. Presumed. However, it could be that...<br />
* '''A rogue officer''' at Kursk - maybe a closet Nazi who sympathizes with Kiev, hates Putin, or just took a bribe - provided this unit to Kiev. He would set up this convoy to anchor the thing in Russia, then send the shady unit on, with his own guys or to hand off to Kiev's, who took it from there as I've speculated. The strangely obvious manner it was displayed - on both sides of the border, with its number slowly fading away - is consistent with this motive + intelligence. <br />
* '''It happened as reported''' (one way or another) Putin's military signed off on the loan, apparently with a sent crew or maybe given to local handlers, who for their own purposes did fire that shot. The strangely obvious manner it was displayed is consistent with this + stupidity/sloppiness, providing proof that probably wasn't even needed, just helpful, to start the punishment. At that point, it would be a real problem about as trumpeted, and still I would suggest we consider what the real crime is under the circumstances, if the solutions pursued are fair, or if this is all just geo-politics and warfare by other means cloaked in a cynical disguise of concern for justice. ^ <br />
* '''Koo-koo (?):''' "as reported plus" - a mega conspiracy theory: it goes all the way to the top, and Putin is that rogue general selling the nation out, to demonize himself and Russia and be sure to get caught, in an elaborate staged play - Putin (or whoever's running things presumed to be run by HIM) is somehow controlled, his opposition scripted and ultimately geared towards provoking and achieving an expansion of "The West" into "The North." (I've always considered this possible, and one that's occurred to me more lately, and seems worth listing ... but I don't buy it. I'm going with "rogue officer" with a second bet on one of the other divergence points listed before that - unspecified. Third choice is "as reported.")--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::^ Not to apologize for egregious behavior if it really is that, but let's please compare this to the shoot-down of Iran Air 655 by the USS Vincennes in 1988. A US Naval ship illegally in Iranian waters shot down an Iranian passenger plane with 290 people aboard, despite all the safeguards and sensors working correctly (the consistent clues the ship's computers gave them saying "do not shoot" can only be overridden so totally by choice). But it was deemed by the US to be no crime, just accident and Iran's fault for being provocative, and useful in the effort to compel them to quit the war with Iraq they were just starting to win. In Ukraine, repeated Air Force attacks on rebel-held cities, often hiding their jets behind civilian airliners, might both justify arming the rebels with such defensive weaponry, and invite an honest mistake from a team running this machine in stand-alone mode. The SBU version however overrides this all: it was an accident, but the Russians' intent was never defensive, always planning to kill an airliner, just meaning it to be a different one. That would clearly be criminal in all regards, and it's a sub-set of "as reported" - not a very good one. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Sorry, I can't help you here as I don't share your presumptions. I consider it a waste of time and energy to connect dots that are laid out by "sources" like the SBU and Brown Noses - proven liars and at least in case of the former producers of fraud "evidence" - and therefore I didn't even read your logical chains based on them. Just saying to not make it appear that I agree. ;o) --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 10:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:Poking at specific presumptions could be helpful, but it all could go on and on and remain inconclusive anyway. And I take back what I say about leaning this way or that - I keep leaning different ways and on balance I'm feeling sort of weightless here. I think that comes through in the text... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I don't see the numbers matching, getting close is not good enough, and I quit it there. Yes, it is weird that they are close, and that this murky business is covered by Spiegel, but can't really help with any of that. There is lots of murky weird stuff going on all the time, can't change the whole world to stop it. (Also: the Russian Government would be fully capable of doing a painting job properly if deciding to starting painting at all, their food trucks are all nicely painted, etc; just too sloppy for them to be behind) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:The paint being what it is, between that and the bend and light patch below all lining up, I think we're down to the same unit, or faked to match, and the possibilities branching off those two. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::As discussed earlier, the dot is shifted off the middle, more on Russian video than in PM photo; in Russian video, number 2 has well-curved semi-circle; in PM, it is almost straight segment. Bad photos for comparison but it's off, as far as it's possible to tell. As for the skirt bend, too blurry and distorted on PM to tell; Russian video, I think it is actually dirt, not a bend. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Also, looks like two squares , a bit darker than background, over first digit in PM photo. Unclear is it paint or digital camera effect. Any sane person hiding something will paint over everything, not paint just specifically over the first digit. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::I think I got everything linesd up - it has to be de-skewed the same, and all ines up. You might be scraping bottom on this one. The curve is there, at its elongated part, at an angle. The dent/dirt looks the same, same place, relative to the light patch and all else. It's too much for coincidence by a couple of degrees. BUT I just shifted back to option ... should have numbered them. ... the middle starting option - image authenticity. I hardly ever call digital image fakery, and not calling it here, but... I still haven't checked the new (to us) June videos, so I'll stay presuming it might be okay - video's harder to fake than a photo. But on the other end, it all comes down to the one photo. That I noticed, no other views are close enough to say if these matching clues are present. (the bend, maybe). The squares you noticed, maybe a paint clue or just artifacting. It may too pixelly. I cannot really analyze the technicals properly to say. It looks okay, but possibly fishy too. Maybe the dirty windshield helps hid the painted in pixels to make this thing - just once - or maybe again in other images - look like that Russian 3x2 unit, exaggerated and going into rebel hands... Some kind of coincidences setting that up to work, but it's possible, and an expert should look closer at this picture. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC) <br />
::::I, --at the very start of discussion,-- zoomed picture on screen (by a lot), and measured length ratios (to the dot/ total panel length), parallel to the 2 sides of the panel, using ruler (millimeters one) over screen. I ended up with ratios in horizontal side of panel directions were off, by more than blurring; in vertical, could not tell-within blurring. This is not sensitive to skewing or zooming. So I don't think it's the same. May double-check measurement when have time; or somebody else can. Did not have time to try doing digital version of the same/similar method. Did not look carefully at comparison the 2 after de-skewing , but have an impression this is different; not that much skewing there; it looks essentially straight line on PM, skewing will not make circle into a line. May look at 2's some other time. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::::Finally took a closer look and PM was still off a bit on rotation and vertical-to-horizontal - in line with your observations. Still working out the adjusted graphic. The white is shifted a bit left of lining up perfectly... I think it's still close enough it's the same or is supposed to be, and not far enough off I'd call a bad fake - probably just pixel shift. Will see tonight. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 00:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Okay, I don't have a comprehensible graphic handy yet, but Maybe Resup is seeing what I am now. I was having a hard time aligning it all, so focused just one the one rectangle panel with the number. Still, on the PM photo I trace apparent edges, best line of dark pixels ... it lines up, proportion-wise, with the white spots on or a hair to apparent left. But when the whole image is placed by lining up that center, the rest of it doesn't line up - both sides seem shifted right, or the middle shifted left. (also the track areas appear far to the left, but they stick out a bit, and from the back angle flattened like this, that's why. Each difference in relief from "true flat" plane of the side will cause this... maybe I'm just not correlating it right, and maybe it's a clue the photo is messed with. possible offsets in both white patches as well, but maybe too in the natural fuzz zone. ?? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
If the launcher was driven over the Russian border, fired once then driven back again after it had carried out its mission, the part of the story that doesn't make sense is the sighting on a stolen flatbed truck outside Donetsk. If the Russians were prepared to supply a launcher but not a truck, the stolen truck would have had to be driven to the border to be loaded and there'd be no reason to risk a journey back to Donetsk. The west to east journey is more consistent with CL's original suggestion of a launcher from the Ukrainian base north of Donetsk. If this was a false flag, there would have had to be a paint job to give it Russian markings (maybe to match one in a recent video). Otherwise the videos would point to separatists with a captured Ukrainian BUK, leaving the Ukrainian government liable for failing to close its airspace when it knew that a BUK had gone missing. [[User:Pmr9|Pmr9]] ([[User talk:Pmr9|talk]]) 16:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:Now this sounds engaged, thanks P. Yes, why drive it to Donetsk? (Other than to be seen in the smoking-gun rebel capitol, before getting seen in Lugansk too) And I never thought of that why it had to be Russian. Indeed, for liability reasons, it had to be a snuck-in surprise, not captured (unless they could come up with a reason why they didn't learn about it, and I suppose they could). The suggestion has problems and was slow to gain adherents, but maybe this kind of thought has swayed people to realize Kiev "must be right" about that... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Sunday Times story: original is behind paywall but reprint [http://malaysiandigest.com/news/531506-ukraine-ignored-warning-to-close-malaysia-airlines-flight-mh17-airspace-before-tragedy.html here]. Eurocontrol's experts "spoke privately to their Ukrainian counterparts" about their concerns but Ukraine refused to close its airspace. "Ukraine intelligence sources said they had been made aware that several anti-aircraft systems had crossed from Russia into Ukraine at least a week before the MH17 incident. But they claimed the intelligence was not “100 per cent reliable” and could not have been used as grounds for 'drastic moves' such as shutting airspace". [[User:Pmr9|Pmr9]] ([[User talk:Pmr9|talk]])<br />
:::Okay, well there's a train headed this way then. Several units? The whole June convoy? We do have this alleged maybe-Buk launch just before on July 14, an associated loader seen later, etc. And Ukie intel somehow did point to this number "312" you can't see on the unit they tracked so quickly. Did they already have that obscure Russian video everyone missed until now? And more yet showing the "1" still there? That early on? (that's all very speculative, but interesting). It has to be snuck in, maybe, but then it helps that you can vouch for it - so they fudge and average this aspect. Main point then seems to be, whatever failures they mumble out on their own end, it has to implicate both Russia (provided weapon) and the rebels (held the space needing demonized).--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references /></div>Antidyatelhttps://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17/BUK_Tracking&diff=22565Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/BUK Tracking2015-06-06T08:23:53Z<p>Antidyatel: /* Kiev's Buks Shuffled? */ satellite images, who is faking?</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:MH17]]<br />
==Who Has the BUK Launchers in Ukraine?==<br />
=== Kiev's Holdings ===<br />
<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3MomxNHnUA#t=288 Ukrainian Buk in ATO area], 16 July 2014. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 23:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CBQbFC9loc#t=350 Captured map] of 1 battalion of UAF 95 air-mobile brigade, dated beginning of July 2014, show location of 2 positions of Ukrainian Buks. Basurin points them on the map; but video resolution is insufficient to see those. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 05:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Maps can be faked, but still I'm curious what it shows. I imagine there might be a flat image of the map somewhere. Resup, could you maybe have a look? It's too slow for me to try an image search with translated words. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
::I have not seen the map in news reports mentioning the finding; and now I see it says explicitly that they are not going to make it public, [http://real-info.info/novorossiya/13429-vlasti-dnr-ne-budut-obnarodovat-karty-vsu-do-okonchaniya-rassledovaniya-krusheniya-mh17 until MH 17 investigation is completed]--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 23:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::Here is a press conference report--with video but not the map --[https://vk.com/strelkov_info?w=wall-57424472_57351 (Basurin press conference)]--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 23:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
-Antidyatel June 6, 2015.<br />
It is possible to understand what it means when they say Ukr army controlled territory. But what us rebel controlled territory. Even if we take the maximum estimate for rebel numbers in July 2014 of 10,000 fighters, it gives a fraction of a rebel per square km, if we assume uniform distribution. In reality rebels very concentrated in Lughansk, Donetzk, Saur Mogila, 2 cauldrons. So everything else is free for all territory. When MSM declares rebel controlled territory, they just rely on Kiev's maps. Very reliable source.<br />
<br />
<br />
----Antidyatel <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==== BUK 312 and comrades ====<br />
[[File:Buk 312 sbu.jpg|thumb|left|BUK 312 on a trailer. Photo shown on SBU website and later removed. – ''[[:File:Buk 312 sbu.jpg|more...]]'']]<br />
Part of the material the Ukrainian SBU released to suggest that "rebels" shot down MH17 with a BUK, was photo material showing a BUK TELAR numbered 312 on a trailer, alleging it has been photographed on its way back to Russia. This was quickly shown to be extremely questionable as evidence surfaced showing number 312 in Ukrainian hands. The SBU then removed the photos from their website while other material like a suggestive photo showing a "plume" remained there. <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Buk 321.png|thumb|TELAR 321 as posted by @MOR2537 to illustrate what he alleges to have witnessed]]<br />
This was outlined (and a screenshot saved) in more detail [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/07/21/the-mh17-investigation-and-buk-312/ over at Human Rights Investigations]. A [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bj-VZB0ZdEA video embedded there] shows BUK 312 in Ukrainian hands back in March. The other two TELAR's seen in the video are numbers 323 and 321. BUK 321 [http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Ukrainian+government+forces+maneuver+antiaircraft+missile+launchers+they+transported+north+west+from+Slavyansk+eastern+Ukraine+Friday+July+2014+Photo+Dmitry+Lovetsky/10004193/story.html has been seen] in Ukrainian hands just two weeks before MH17 crashed, transported close to "liberated" Slavyansk. <br />
<br />
Interestingly enough, one of the tweets [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com/2014/07/reconstruction-of-whereabouts-of-buk.html spoon-fed by Ukrainian loyalists to imaginative Dutch blogger Ukraine@War] to suggest that there have been eyewitnesses for a "rebel" BUK, is then [https://twitter.com/MOR2537/status/489709431467171841 followed-up by the alleged eyewitness] with a picture of BUK 321 to illustrate what he has seen. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::yep, he is a conduit for Kiev but seems to have outside info, too. Like originals of photos he can get geolocations off (he says). But also has good collection of very early photos etc which have since become hard to find.Not sure I trust him though. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 15:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::I hadn't seen that before, thanks. I'll be considering... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 22:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: More photos: [http://www.armyrecognition.com/images/stories/east_europe/russia/missile_vehicle/sa-11_gadfly/pictures/sa-11_gadfly_anti-aircraft_missile_to_armoured_tracked_vehicle_Russian_army_russia_011.jpg 321] - [http://rt.com/files/news/2a/b1/40/00/640x480.jpg 312] - [http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1870560.1405614701!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_970/correction-ukraine.jpg 321] --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:Buk 312 in Lugansk.png|thumb|left|According to alleged former operator "A", this is BUK 312 after relocation sometime in Spring 2014 in Metallist settlement of Lugansk, with Yubileynaya mines in the background]]<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmI2KCOt_sA Anatolii Sharii] version of events, shows that Buk blamed on Russia has number 312 and was earlier photographed as part of Ukrainian convoy. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 20:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Sharii interviewed a Ukrainian soldier who served on Buk 312; this can be found on [http://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/1947657.html Cassad]. The guy does not know about MH17; but recalls SBU claiming it was this Buk 312 responsible. From this interview, meaning of 312: 3 is division number, 1 battery number, 2 unit number in a battery (there are loading and command vehicles, not just launchers). This UAF Buk is initially from Luhansk; than relocated to Kramatorsk; than places in a field. A serviceman took it on a ride with hand break on, leading to a small fire affecting electrics and requiring repairs. So it was traveling on a trailer at some point. It was than moved to Dnepropetrovsk, village of Novogrigorievka (apparently for repairs, and after trailer photo was taken, but exact date was not given). Buks from Luhansk which were not broken were moved by UAF elsewhere (and according to the soldier, were photographed in variaous places including Gorlovka; while 3 broken Buks remained in Luhansk) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: Interesting. I see that the "[http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Ukrainian+government+forces+maneuver+antiaircraft+missile+launchers+they+transported+north+west+from+Slavyansk+eastern+Ukraine+Friday+July+2014+Photo+Dmitry+Lovetsky/10004193/story.html has been seen]" link to the Montreal Gazette is dead by now. If anything I'm surprised that it lasted that long. Minitrue at work. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 04:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: [http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2014/12/17/shooting-down-mh-17-buk-312-story-false- Here] (and mirrored [http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2014/12/17/buk-312-crew-member-says-rebel-shoot-down-of-flight-mh17-story-is-false-transcript/ here]) is an English translation of the interview. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: And [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2rRCSNp33I here] is the video itself with English subtitles. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 20:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:What you said about the accident and the photo showing the damaged BUK on a trailer is about the very photo the SBU showed on their website as "evidence" and later removed. Also adding that he says friends in Lugansk saw "rebels" trying to repair the units they had left behind, but he knows that "whole equipment units" were lacking so the remaining stuff was "unusable". And that he says that he asked his ex-comrades still operating the BUK if they dunnit, and they said they didn't. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Good to see this section expand. Interesting additions from the alleged operator, and reasonable-sounding (the photo might show smoke stains to the back left side). But in the end, this issue might be not so relevant. I doubt it was Kiev's unit 312 that was used, and seeing how Kiev always was eyeing a supposedly Russian unit 3x2, maybe 312 ... In fact, if the middle number connotes unit number, and it's done the same, the launcher is always 1 and it would be 312 (or is that mixed-up?) So maybe all this really shows is how Kiev knew but didn't want to say all along, implausibly picking their own 312 to illustrate that knowledge with an embarrassing but harmless "error", while awaiting ... as it turns out, the independent Bellingcat investigation that finds 3x2 somehow in Russia... That tracked this ludicrous Buk field trip, as presented and followed on this page, which almost seems tailor-made for them, but Kiev wants us to know they they were secretly on the ball too from the start. (all thoughts in progress, a bit distracted too) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::::If SBU wanted to point out they knew the TELAR had number 312, why would they publish the photo in [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmI2KCOt_sA such a low resolution] that the number could not be read? -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 21:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: As Resup summarized, 1 is the battery number. The leading 3 means it's from the Lugansk division. If this is true, the fact that 312, 321 and 323 have been seen together on video in March perfectly fits with what the alleged operator said: That they were removing units in usable state from (all batteries of the division) Lugansk early on, leaving the crap behind. And the view that the SBU just published everything they could find to fit their tale that the "rebels" used a BUK to down the plane, including this photo, cut-together and taken out of context audio tapes and that ridiculous "plume" pic, and the 3x2 bellingcat nonsense from lately is meant to distract from these facts, is much simpler and straight forward than what you tried to come up with here on the fly. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::Ah, I see it now, not when I was typing, sorrys. Middle number could be anything, bust mostly we always see low numbers, so odds are good it was a "1". 3 means from Lugansk if that's true (presuming so) and it's Ukrainian. Diff. number paintjob though, as noted below. But I'm sure the Ukies just faked this exact 312 to a different style of 312 and then painted it out partly, and just let it slip with the one photo of how it looked before...? We'll have a hard time agreeing here, as the stuff you just dismiss as "nonsense" looks kind of like possible evidence with details I'm sort of trying to consider. I don't see how you can just ignore it as if it must be wrong somehow, and all made up to distract from ... this 312 disguised as 3x2 theory? Where it wasn't even at the end of that fake plume anyway and might be totally irrelevant or entirely fake? Or, what am I missing? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::Didn't you say that you haven't even watched the videos and checked the geolocation/origin yourself, if they really are from Russia etc.? Well, I certainly won't. Because I have no reason to believe that the sources are more truthful with the "evidence" than they have been before, and that track record is well established. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::::Yeah, which is why I'm neither in a good position to say they aren't wrong/fake, nor to go against my usual presumption it will be sound (has been so far, on this subject anyway) And by the supposed stills compare to supposed satellite imagery, it looked like a good match (I did skim the site once I could). I don't like the implication either, and I want it to be wrong. And it may well be, but I'll want to see how. And hey, there's a whole other section or two about this below... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
:::: I watched the video [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bj-VZB0ZdEA with the Ukie BUKs in March] again. There are actually more than the three I mentioned earlier. It starts with 323, which is not a TELAR. Followed by the two TELARs 321 and 312. Then comes what is also not a TELAR but what looks differently than 323: Number 301. Followed by two more TELARs, 331 and 332. So they could all be from the Lugansk division, parts of batteries 0 to 3. But one would suspect that the batteries are internal always numbered the same way. "A" says:<br />
::::: ''BUK is a complex of 4 specialized military vehicles: command post, mobile target detection and assignment station, loading and starting station, self-propelled fire installation.''<br />
::::So if 1 and 2 are TELARs, why are there two of them and why is 301 what could be the detection station with a radar? Is 323 a loading station? --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::::Too rusty, but good questions. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::: Ah, I think we can sort this out [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SA-11 thanks to wikipedia]:<br />
:::::''A standard Buk battalion consists of a command vehicle, target acquisition radar (TAR) vehicle, six transporter erector launcher and radar (TELAR) vehicles and three transporter erector launcher (TEL) vehicles. A Buk missile battery consists of two TELAR and one TEL vehicle.''<br />
:::: So our "A" didn't mean that a battery consists of 4 vehicles, but that the whole BUK consists of 4 different kinds of vehicles, some more than once. From this I deduce that "0" is for command and detection units (here our main radar 301) of the Lugansk division 3, and the batteries 1,2 and 3 each consist of two TELARs (numbered 1 and 2, here 312,321,331 and 332) and one TEL (numbered 3, the first vehicle in the video, 323). Makes sense? --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 13:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::Russia said Ukraine had 27 BUK launchers in the crash area, i.e. one brigade, or what ever comes in the hierarchy above battalion. If all units are numbered the same way, from 101 to 333, then one TELAR in 18 should be numbered 312. Maybe [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:9K37_Buk_of_the_Ukrainian_military,_Independence_Day_parade_in_Kiev.JPG not.] Russian numbers seem to reach higher. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 01:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::::Good find. The existence of 114 and 115 makes it more complicated. The [http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buk_M1 German Wikipedia article] says, contradicting the English one, that one battery consists of one command vehicle, one main radar, four TELARs and four TELs. But if that's true, there's no logical place for Radar 301, and why would one TEL be number 3 and the other three TELs numbers 6 to 8? --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 10:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
How to read BUK numbers<br />
This is how you decipher 312:<br />
<br />
3 stands for the third (Lugansk) division,<br />
1 stands for the battery number, ours was no. 1,<br />
2 stands for one of the 2. service units in each battery, ours was no.2<br />
<br />
according to a Ukrainian who explains it was "his" bUK (but not in his hands at the time)that shot down MH17. One of th many reports [http://www.opednews.com/articles/Shooting-Down-MH-17--BUK-by-Michael-Collins-Buk-312_False-Accusations-Of-Terrorism_False-Flag-Attacks_Mh17-Airline-Crash-141217-104.html about this interview] This claim is now superceded by the Capt Voloshin air-to-air claims. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 15:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
That solder knew nothing about who shot the Boeing. He was talking to Sharii, who previously made a video showing that Buk shown on SBU website is actually Ukrainian Buk 312. Later, the soldier emerged, saying that Buk 312 was his. (Claim of this one shooting Boeing is not his, it is SBU early claim) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 16:48, 26 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
While Voloshin story may be a play on destroyed by SBU evidence. There is supposed to be a log of flights, missiles fired, likely those logs no longer exist. Also before they claimed SU 25 were lost on 16 of July, but SBU denial of Voloshin story had SU 25 shot on 17 of July. And that Dnepropetrovsk airport traffic control lady vanished without a trace. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 16:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Supposed 321 belonging to KIEV<br />
::video shows three BUk sets [http://eurazya.today/2015/04/11/about-the-buk-312-who-allegedly-shot-down-mh17/ from 0.31 mark] but I can't really pick the number, they say it is 321. at Gorlovka in March. One on a white lowloader. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 12:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== Russian claims ====<br />
As part of their July 21 presentation of evidence, the Russian Ministry of Defense published satellite images allegedly showing Ukrainian BUK positions around Donetzk ([http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ RT report]). It's no secret the Ukrainian military maintains a base with anti-aircraft units. The facility shown in the Russian presentation (best seen [http://rt.com/files/news/2a/9a/00/00/4.jpg here]) I located - it's south of Avdeyevka, 3 km north of the airport, about 5 km north of Donetsk like they say. Visual match first, then noticed the label could have found it for me ... [http://wikimapia.org/#lat=48.0999781&lon=37.7578908&z=16&l=0&m=b&show=/16956839/ru/Зенитно-ракетный-дивизион-в-ч-А-1428&search=Donetsk on Wikimapia]. Labels, translated: Anti-aircraft missile battalion (in / h A-1428) One of the three anti-aircraft missile battalions ("Buk-M1"), located in Avdeyevka, Mariupol and Lugansk." BUK-type launcher photos included. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The counter-arguments to this at least sometimes fail. [http://www.interpretermag.com/mh17-and-moscows-magical-mystery-jets/ Interpreter rag] decided "the presence of Ukrainian government air defense systems is something of a red herring, not least given the clear evidence that the separatists had deployed at least one Buk system in the area." The side with a ''motive'' and clear, moving and likely operating units of the things on that day (see below) is irrelevant and shouldn't be considered because there's apparently also proof the presumed bad guys also had the units they needed to be so presumed. The very fact that separatists aren't ruled out means the other side should be free of any danger of being ruled in, and the separatists should ruled in just as automatically as they were ''before'' this social-media verification came in. This is clearly an irresponsible suggestion. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC) and --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Kiev's Buks Shuffled?===<br />
<br />
* From Russia's military press conference: [http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ RT, 10 Questions] - [http://www.ruaviation.com/docs/1/2014/7/22/83/ in more detail]<br />
:''3. Why was a large group of air defense systems deployed to the militia-held area if the self-defense forces have no planes?''<br />
:“As far as we know, the Ukrainian military had three or four air defense battalions equipped with Buk-M1 SAM systems deployed in the vicinity of Donetsk on the day of the crash. This system is capable of hitting targets within the range of 35 km at the altitude of up to 22 km.”'' <br />
:''4. Why did Kiev deploy BUK missile systems on the edge of militia-controlled zones directly before the tragedy?''<br />
:''“We have satellite photos of the places where Ukraine had its air defense units deployed in the southeastern parts of the country. The first three photos were made on July 14. The first photo shows Buk launchers 8 km northwest of Lugansk. You can clearly see a TELAR and two TELs. The second photo shows radars 5 km north of Donetsk. You can see two TARs along with other equipment and technical structures. The third photo shows air defense systems north of Donetsk. You can clearly see a TELAR launcher and about 60 military and auxiliary vehicles, tents for vehicles and other structures.''<br />
<br />
:''“Here’s a photo of the same area made on July 17. Please note that the launcher has disappeared. The fifth photo shows a battery of Buk missiles at the village of Zaroshchenskoye 50 km east of Donetsk and 8 km south of Shakhtyorsk on the morning of the same day. The sixth photo shows the same area on July 18. As you can see, the battery has left.”''<br />
<br />
Note: the <s>latter</s> fourth photo of July 17 has substantial cloud cover, but unless they happened to hide the launchers in those areas (or Russia's satellites waited until the area was covered) it appears the noted vehicles have left to go do something - on/by the 17th, where they say launchers appear and then disappear in a town closer to the crash on the 17th. Zaroshchenskoye [http://maps.yandex.com/?text=Ukraine%2C%20Donets'ka%20region%2C%20Shakhtars'kyi%20district%2C%20Zaroshchens'ke%20ville&sll=38.446008%2C47.98844&ll=38.517419%2C48.048098&spn=0.810242%2C0.300187&z=11&l=map on Yandex maps] - 13 miles SSW of the crash sitel, 9 miles W-SW of Torez..--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
On July 30, Vitalyi Naida, head of Ukrainian Security Service SBU’s counter-intelligence, came up with a series of slides ([http://euromaidanpress.com/2014/07/30/russia-fakes-mh17-crash-site-satellite-images-says-sbu/ short article], [http://www.sbu.gov.ua/sbu/control/en/publish/article?art_id=129610&cat_id=35317 announcement on SBU website] with link to [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ut1JExQKV-0 youtube-video showing the slides (presumably Ukrainian language)]) allegedly showing that the Russian material was "faked". He points to a patch of trees, claiming they had been cut down shortly before the 17th, while Russia's images show the trees intact. On August 1, the Russian Ministry of Defense published [http://eng.mil.ru/en/analytics.htm a rebuttal] advising that<br />
:''Instead of presenting hastily doctored evidence to the international community, the SBU could do with better control over all the mercenary units in the areas around Donetsk and Lugansk organized by Kolomoisky, Lyashko, Yarosh and others, who shell Ukrainian territory without any control from those in charge of the anti-terrorist operation.''<br />
<br />
The trees probably are cut down by now, but we'll have to wait for the true details of just when they were and when the image showing that was taken, or if the image shown is even of any one day and not a composite - "doctored" as Russia says. Other clues suggest launchers moving out of this area at that time: The [[#Paris Match Photo]] - ostensibly from the morning of the 17th - shows the infamous launcher-loaded truck seen in Lugansk, or one just like it, being carried on a truck belonging to a company just south of the missile base in northern Donetsk. That was seen carrying the launcher east out of town at 11:15 AM, purportedly on July 17 (and with the location completely fudged to say Snizhne, when it was only headed there).--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Zaro redeploy.png|left|600px]]The Russian military press conference said "The fifth photo shows a battery of Buk missiles at the village of Zaroshchenskoye 50 km east of Donetsk and 8 km south of Shakhtyorsk on the morning of the same day. The sixth photo shows the same area on July 18. As you can see, the battery has left." (#5 inset) The Ukraine@War blog's analysis decided this image as well was fake. That's mentioned [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com/2014/08/ukrainian-sbu-comes-with-conspiracy.html here] if not elsewhere. The reason: "the shadows of these BUKs have a different direction for all three of them. It means these were pasted into the image." I have to admit, it looks a bit like that. The trees have consistent shadows to the west, in a morning image. The furthest vehicle to the left has a visible shadow about like that. The other two don't seem to, and the one furthest right seems to have a shadow on the wrong side (looks like early PM). I wracked my brain just a little thinking of other explanations aside from just low resolution. Nothing much came up. Anyone else? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br /><br /><br />
<br />
<br />
: '''New video proves UKIE BUKS ACTIVE'''<br />
: video has surfaced, posted to Youtube on July 16, taken a few days before, showing a Ukie BUK radar [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3MomxNHnUA being rotated]. The reporter is taken somewhere in a helicopter and proudly shown the BUK. Segment starts around 4.17 in the chopper, BUK shown briefly at 4.45. Label does not say where exactly, just reads "Officers of Ukrainian Armed Forces patrolling in the ATO zone". <br />
: This ties in with claims that they were doing anti-aircraft exercises, probably in response to claims/fears the Antonovs were brought down not by the rebs but by aircraft from Russia. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 10:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::Thanks! We had this July 16 video [[Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17/BUK_Tracking#Kiev.27s_Holdings| elsewhere]], but here is a good place... The other video, from March, was not seen. There were few more early sightings of Ukrainian Buks, uncertain locations, with those 3** numbers; maybe should get a good place to keep them all --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::: Location of sighting is unclear. But according to some reports ([http://lifenews.ru/news/136731 LifeNews]), on July 16 UAF SU 25 was shot down from a height of 6 km by opolchenie MANPADs. That was near Russian border, --reports say the plane actually crossed into Russia, not far from Marinovka. It could be suspected by Ukraine that a Russian plane was involved, so it will be plausible to have Ukrainian coverage of the accident area by BUKS. On July 14, it was reported that [http://m.rosbalt.ru/ukraina/2014/07/16/1292690.html AN 26 was shot down in Luhansk] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
--Antidyatel <br />
There is strange twist of Logic in Bellingcat report about satellite photos. The photo with Buks in the field is claimed to be manipulated.They found that July 17 image was manipulated but only invite region of clouds. They don't say that BUK was removed by software (there are 4 more vehicles missing). But on all Google earth photos BUK never moved. So did it move ever or not? Manipulation of Google earth photos or likely their source is not new.[http://www.imediaethics.org/News/130/Exclusive__google_investigating_photoshopped_gogle_map_image_.php]<br />
<br />
Surprising Google earth have more updated photos on the BUK base location and nearly nothing for the location where Russians seen BUKS. There is something strange about RUSSIAN supposed fakery. Doesn't make sense.<br />
<br />
===Separatist Holdings===<br />
While much certainty has been shown it was a separatist BUK system responsible, everyone seems to acknowledge that ordinarily, they didn't have any, that were known of. Fresh sighting of them in the field, supposed admissions, and existing presumptions remain the strongest evidence. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;June 29 Seizure?<br />
The Open Newsroom team have latched onto a June 29 message from a Twitter account associated with the Donetsk People’s Republic, @DNRpress claiming separatist forces had conquered a base with anti-air BUK missiles. This is apparently the A-1402 base, as an Itar-Tass report specified. That report noted ... It seems to just cite the tweet which, it was found, used a dated photo online since mid-2013. In essence, there's no good evidence they ever did seize this place. But it was referred to by some as "Deleted DNR tweet confirming Russian rebels indeed have a BUK-M1." The crew at large seems a bit vague on the status of this base:<br />
:'' It appears that the A-1402 military unit was moved into the Donetsk region in 2007 from Odessa, and reports note that the unit was based near Donetsk airport. Local reports from June 29 cited ATO spokesman Alexei Dmitrashkivsky as stating that separatists had attacked the military unit.'' <ref name="Story1" /><br />
As we just found with geo-location, it's 3 km north of Donetsk airport, and it's the same place Russia believes is firmly government-held. It's the place they say at least one BUK-type launcher was removed from on July 17 for some reason, by Kiev's forces who run it. If [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Donetsk_Airport this basic Wikipedia article on the battle for the airport] is correct and/or in line with [[Attack on Donetsk Airport|our page on it]], the airport and anything military-related north of it would probably be government-held continuously to the present time. It's possible some launchers could have been lost during a brief seizure of the base, but this too seems doubtful. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
:Social media published many photos of the "liberated" Buk missiles. I searched for them on Google Image Search; all were old photos from more peaceful times. I have no idea what really happened. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 23:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Thanks. I hadn't looked into it myself, but recycled images made sense given the other clues that they never did take that base, or at least get anything out of it. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 00:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Something in English [https://www.facebook.com/TruthfromUkraine/photos/pb.1452285018328179.-2207520000.1409095455./1515506872005993/ on Facebook,] with links to Russian souces. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 23:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Your geolocation is wrong. The former [http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-SAM-Site-Configs-A.html SA-2 launch site] to the north of the runway is called A-1428, at least according to the [[:File:Donetsk Airport battles 5 Oct 2014.jpg|map by Komsomolskaya Pravda]]. The site was rebuilt sometime between 2002 and 2009 with new garages covering part of the SAM ring. Tactical maps say today it is still held by Ukraine, but may have been in NAF hands earlier. Base A-1402 is located south of the new terminal building along Stratonavtiv Street.<br />
<br />
When looking at the latest airport battles I noticed that Military Maps already shows structural damaged to the new terminal building. I did not expect Google to provide any relevant satelite data. In Libya we had almost daily satellite images of Tripoli, but in Syria we have seen no new photos of the battle-effected areas.<br />
<br />
I opened Google Earth to see what has changed during the war. It seems that the war has had no effect on either base. There is still a lot of military hardware parked on both bases. Most of the trucks and whatever are parked just where they were last year, or on many cases in 2007. I did not see anything that I could identify as a BUK launcher. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 02:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;Held by July 14?<br />
The US embassy in Kiev said in [http://ukraine.usembassy.gov/statements/asmt-07192014.html a press statement of July 19]:<br />
:''Intercepts of separatist communications posted on YouTube by the Ukrainian government indicate the separatists were in possession of a SA-11 system as early as Monday July 14th. In the intercepts, the separatists made repeated references to having and repositioning Buk (SA-11) systems.'' (also quoted [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/20/malaysia-airlines-mh17-videos-missile-launcher-torez-snizhne at the Guardian])<br />
As "Corporal Frisk" [http://corporalfrisk.wordpress.com/2014/07/21/comment-on-the-us-assessment-of-the-downing-of-flight-mh17/ aptly responded:]<br />
:''Having perhaps the world’s best intelligence network, and then using easily faked videos of separatist communications posted on YouTube as evidence sure has a degree of ridicule attached to it, but is also an inidcation that US intelligence believes at least some of these transcripts are real.''<br />
That's totally apt if one suspends the usual definition of "believe" (to include "wants to appear to believe," etc.) In the same piece, the author apparently gives more "credibility to the charges that the Buk-M1 is indeed Russian supplied (and possibly crewed), as opposed to stemming from captured Ukrainian stocks." As covered below, this I can agree with if we suspend the usual definition of "Russian" (to include "allegedly Russian villains," "the Ukrainian version of [http://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2011/07/african-mercenaries.html Libya's African Mercenaries] and [http://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/wiki/The_Shabiha:_Ghost_Stories%3F Syria's Shabiha]," etc.) this would be spot-on. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:54, 10 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
(more allegations to cover?)<br />
<br />
;The One That Matters<br />
Whatever the evidence rebels had Buk systems by the 14th, Kiev also has suggested, and many have accepted, that ''the one that mattered'' at least - the launcher unit that shot down MH17 on the 17th - wasn't theirs at all, but brought in and operated by Russians for the day only. If only for that reason, all the above is likely moot. See next section. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Russian Buk Field Trip? ===<br />
The Kiev regime's narrative also suggests separatists had no BUK systems of their own. Rather, someone else brought one in to their area, took it on some kind of tour through several towns thought accessible only to rebels and allies, and got it seen in each place. Then these people '''shot the airliner down themselves on the separatists' behalf.''' That party is the Russians, they say. This is perhaps best encapsulated by "counter-terrorism" chief Vitaly Nayda's early assessment. AP's July 25 report summarized it, saying "the account was based on information from intercepts, spies and resident tips."<br />
:''Nayda laid the blame fully on Russia: He said the missile launcher came from Russia and was operated by Russians. ... According to Nayda, at 1 a.m. on July 17 the launcher rolled into Ukraine across the Russian border aboard a flatbed truck. He cited communications intercepts that he would not share with the AP. By 9 a.m., he said, the launcher had reached Donetsk, the main rebel stronghold 125 miles (200 kilometers) from the border. In Donetsk it is presumed to have been off-loaded from the flatbed and started to move in a convoy on its own.''<br />
:''Nayda said the Buk turned back east toward Snizhne. Townspeople who spoke to the AP said it rolled into Snizhne around lunchtime.''<br />
:''...As for the Buk, Nayda said, intelligence suggests it went back on the move shortly after the attack. That very night, he said, it crossed the border, back into Russia.''<br />
<br />
This is full of details that don't line up with the emerging record, but the gist including a grand-circuit tour including both separatist stronghold/capitols Donestk and Lugansk plus the disaster zone, seems about right. But the evil they allowed came from and returned to Russia.<br />
<br />
This does however jibe with the Kiev allegation (I learned of through [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/07/25/snizhne-mh17-and-rebel-held-territory/ this excellent and relevant HRI article] that '''Russian jets''' violated Ukrainian airspace to '''bomb an apartment building in Snizneh on July 15th, killing 11 civilians.''' This all makes a bit of sense in context; that false flag attack was blamed by locals on Kiev'a noble Air Force - almost understandably! It "created the conditions" by which people ''might'' accept apparent a team of apparent Russians with a Buk launcher in their town two days later. The best guess for any single firing location is a field just southeast of that town (see [[#Possible Launch Sites|below]]). The locals might smile at, and later even cover for, this poisonous gift. But a trojan horse is a trojan horse, of course. They should have looked it in the mouth better, and been more aggressive with their questions. Because Russia has it in for the separatists, Kiev implies, using its skilled and well-documented team to murder 298 people in a horrific way on the separatists' behalf. This is not an accident, Kiev must know, but proof that Russia and its "inhuman" terrorists they must hate (and who do not seem to have any Buk launchers of their own, BTW) are the new global menace du jour. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Markings and the Mystery Launcher ===<br />
[[File:MH17 Buk 321 Parismatch comp.png|right]]A serial number on the launcher's side is apparently standard in Ukraine's arsenal (see [[#BUK 312 and comrades|above]]). Inset, an image comparing the side of the unit seen in [[#Paris Match Photo]], the one blamed for the shoot-down on the 17th, to TELAR unit 321. The side panels are easy enough to correlate and see the unit in the photo lacks a number, but does have a sliver of white paint (or similar) in one corner. Whoever was moving this painted it it out before this, so there is some attempt at concealment. Is this color of paint only available in Russia? The white sliver here could be part of the number, if it were painted higher up/larger than Ukraine usually does. I can't say yet how they do it. I did a Dogpile Photo search, lots of pictures, context unclear, different vehicles from different sides, mainly Vitaly Kuzmin photos so app. Russian military parades and such: --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
* Number shown, diff. vehicle: [http://military-vehicle-photos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/9881.jpg #1(loader?)] - [http://pix.avaxnews.com/avaxnews/8a/6f/00006f8a_medium.jpeg #2 same?] <br />
* Launchers with no visible numbers: [http://77rus.smugmug.com/Military/May-5th-Parade-rehearsal-2014/i-t7RjrzP/0/M/5may14-33-M.jpg #1] - [http://77rus.smugmug.com/Military/12-April-Parade-2013-rehearsal/i-KHVD3Tv/0/M/12aprilrehearsal_33-M.jpg #2] - [http://livedoor.blogimg.jp/gunzichannel/imgs/b/e/be60ae58.jpg #3] - [http://military-vehicle-photos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/9880.jpg #4] - [http://77rus.smugmug.com/Military/13th-April-rehearsal-Alabino/i-fKQdjW4/0/M/13April-Rehersal-Alabino-26-M.jpg #5] <br />
* Same vehicle, Buk TELAR launcher with numbers: not found. <br />
<br />
At the moment, the lack of a number almost makes it look Russian. The next panel over seems to have smaller numbers, or characters anyway. Nothing yet tells me the Russians add a smaller number on the panel behind that, with or without special stencils available only in Russia. Is that even a number, or does it say return to Putin? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== Bellingcat and 3x2 ====<br />
:''moved from [[#Paris Match Photo]]''<br />
<br />
Adam: somebody's favorite Bellingcat is now saying, I understand, that he is capable to read off the number of this Buk from this blurry low resolution Paris Match photo, using unspecified colored magic and some expertly fitted proprietary boxes. Well actually this is so proprietary that he can ONLY read the first number 3, and the last number 2, but is completely unable to read the middle one. Because, he does not want this to be this Ukrainian [http://uainforg.livejournal.com/1811500.html Buk 312] , nah, noway. He rather want it to be the Russian Buk 3 X 2, where X stand for Russian, and for secret, as somebody is said to unearth this dirty monster in Russia, as he says (I guess). This looks too much baloney as far as I am concerned; you can read any number you set in advance from this blurry photo, and fit there any other crap, boxed-shaped or wiggly, all essentially at will. Just recording this latest saga page in case somebody has more enthusiasm to chase it than myself. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 00:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
:No, you didn't quite understand, but thanks for the tip. An interesting twist I wish I'd caught sooner. First, this helps the West at large get in synch finally with Kiev - it was Russia, not the separatists, who owned and perhaps ran that unit. Second, it seems to me the match is at least as good as they say, but there's at least one aspect of it I think is hilarious and I wouldn't be surprised if they managed to miss it. I'll be back - this one deserves a quick blog post. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: I agree with Resup, this stinks of baloney designed to divert attention from the [[#BUK_312_and_comrades]] story. The worst thing about Brown Noses and cohorts is the amount of coordinated promo they get in pre$$titute media. SPIEGEL today [http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/jan-fleischhauer-ueber-wladimir-putin-und-mh17-abschuss-kolumne-a-1004898.html has a op-ed piece by a particularly douchebaggy example] on those independent genius investigators as well. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::I need to brush up on what that 312 story is... because it looks like this used to say 312. Ultimately I suspect its some kind of baloney, but just where it breaks down I don't know. It is amazing how they get such praise for investigating the right things (never did get back to the Houla Massacre) and finding the right truth... Daily Fail says "The authors said that 'our investigation was made possible by the examination of open source material overlooked by other organisations'." Oh goodness, that technique they must have invested ... maybe if we started doing that we'd get praises too! --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/11/08/origin-of-the-separatists-buk-a-bellingcat-investigation/<br />
The report and whole site was not coming up when I tried (might be a problem on my end), so I don't even know what's behind their pay-wall. In the interim I checked around. [http://thetruthserumblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/an-open-and-transparent-investigation.html Here's a critical blog article I like] that mentions another article praising the report. But what was useful was [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2827853/Russian-military-supplied-missiles-ahead-MH17-shooting-says-new-independent-report-evidence-points-Russian-separatists-responsible.html the Daily Mail's Australian promo article] with the cover and a few images from the report as well as a summary. The 3x2 ... This lets me quickly see what 3x2 refers to. And actually, it looks like a good description and even a good match. The number is not from Paris Match photo but from footage I haven't noticed, they say from inside Russia - presumably a Russian unit then - seen conspicuously moving towards Ukraine in late June. (the source of these images and details might be worth checking into) ... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 3x2 Comp.png|right]]Bottom is Paris Match, skewed to match. Top is the new (to me) Bellingcat June 23 image As I just put together [http://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2014/11/how-russians-covered-up-truth-partly.html here,] they seem to be onto something here. It's something silly. But it's something strongly suggested by real paint in recognizable patterns.<br />
<br />
Implied: Russians wanted to hide this thing's identity, maybe because they were about to do something secret with it. So first they painted out the number in the middle - I think it was a one. Except they left one little corner of white visible. Just got tired. It's identifiable (in both images). <br />
<br />
Then before it appeared in Ukraine, it was rendered totally unidentifiable: they boldly blacked out the 3, and perhaps at the same time even, the 2 - except for a larger identifiable sliver. Just got tired. It's next to the other dot. <br />
<br />
Haha, no way to connect these now! Also a light patch next to the small number (and the number, as far as we can see) matches, as does a light patch along the lip below that. My guess: this is the same suspect vehicle seen gettin' hauled all over on the "stolen" truck with the phone number left on. Was it actually in Russian territory as well as near so many rebel checkpoints around dawn? For how long was it there? Bellingcat cannot confirm that Russian unit 3x2 ever returned to its base in Russia ... nor, I guess, that it ever actually left, or was ever Russian, or didn't have its truncated paint job simulated and expanded on another vehicle... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
::He got some photos of an actual [http://www.kavicom.ru/news-view-12861.html convoy], almost certainly in Russia, fairly hi-res photos, no 3*2 there. Than out-of-a-blue-or-elsewhere, he gives photos from convoy made by 'local residents', now with discolored 3*2 photo(s) there; I could not spot details where this photo is now coming from. He claims it "shows on 8 out of 16 videos", but I do not know where is a single one. He also compares tank track and plate above profiles for these 2 photos; details are blurred (and also those profiles change from use), can't say how much they match each other by eye; don't trust his fitted lines, or his conclusion accepting those, but did not try matching myself (no tools to do it quickly; or enough photo resolution to feel strongly motivated). This is doable but doing it tool-free takes time; and not knowing that second photo is definitely in Russia, I am not convinced spending a lot of time is worthwhile. This is clearly a well-supported operation, so the burden of proving their own version is on them; and they did not bother even linking the videos, no clue where are those. His report downloads without problems at this time. <br />
::Also details such as dirty rear skirt and a bend there likely are common; dirt is because exhaust is through the opening above; skirt likely is bent when there is servicing, or example changing tracks or doing something else, like maybe servicing engine. Buk 321 above on this page has dirt and bend, for example. This bend is something which can be easily produced, same goes with the painting job, both things together can be done in well under 1/2 hour. If they had an example of how something in Russia looks like, not difficult to do it for a blurry photo. Clearly, with phone well-displayed, etc, the purpose of all this is a demo job. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Here is a publication [http://censor.net.ua/video_news/274823/ukraina_zaschischaet_donetsk_ot_napadeniya_rossii_zenitnoraketnye_kompleksy_buk_zanimayut_pozitsii_fotovideo Ukraine defends Donesk from Russiam attack, missile complex Buk takes positions], with photo, video of Ukrainian BUks, numbers 323, 321, 312, 301, 331,332. (Some of them have dirty skirts, e.g. 301 looks dirty and bent...). Ukrainian radio is playing on the video. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 21:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Thanks, and I get the lack of motivation, and the ambiguity. That #312 I'll compare later ... looks like a different number style (thinner) with vehicle color less clear ... I guess this could be innocent dirt instead of black paint, but it's some thick dirt, and by the end almost totally covering the numbers on this particular unit ... or two that can seem the same. (?) So it still seems most likely paint, that is deliberate obfuscation - that was also comically slow and incomplete (with clean edges to the white parts and no visible parts of gray half-covered numbers) . It must be a problem with my system (updating soon) but I still can't connect to the site or get the report. I'm not mad motivated myself, but will want to check the alleged video source and geolocation eventually. Before I was seeing this as a Kiev unit simply snuck across the internal line. So the big wrinkle of course is it being in Russia. Options if the geolocation of June 23 is right: <br />
* it wasn't there (faked match-up - As you say, all matching features ''could'' be faked, not just the paint) <br />
* or Ukraine snuck theirs across (with a whole convoy?) just to get it seen there <br />
* or they snuck over and stole this one while it was near the border <br />
* or Russia willingly sent it over, with or without a subsequent theft by people intent on misusing it on the separatists' behalf. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
There is actually a 3*2 Buk in Russia, he put links to videos on his [https://www.mapbox.com/labs/bellingcat/index.html map], I looked at 06/23 Troitskiy (Odnoklassniki) goroskop odnoklassniki ru/video/14723648043?fromTime=25 . But I doubt it can be concluded that Paris Match is a match (number itself can't be read, this is just bogus). For example, that dot in the Russian version appears to be a bit further to the right (60 % of total panel length) , while Paris Match is closer to 50 (I got 52 %). Also, in Russian version, it is almost level with protruding to the right part of number 2; in Donetsk photo, I'd say it's a bit lower (but blurriness creates problems to measure) . Panel to the left of number panel appear to look very different; in Russian case, clear horizontal line above the main bottom line; not so in Donetsk, a messy lower line. As for the skirt, it it dirty but actually does not look broken in the Russian version, just some frames create such impression. In Donetsk, hard to know (to blurry to tell crack from dirt) but there is serious change in angle there somehow; (could be the windshield playing some tricks). (Also, in Donetsk, it is dirty windshield, not actually certain what makes the dot; but it is roughly where expected, so I can go with this being paint assumption). <br />
:No point for the rebels to display it prominently in Donetsk (not far from UAF BUK base), than go towards Snizhne; this just has no point at all. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 00:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
:I'm the one, ironically, claiming to see things in that griny mess. I'd never do it unless I saw t spot well whiter than the others AND seen in another view ... didn't even notice until then. To note, your descriptions are of the first version of the graphic, now updated. Becuase of overall problems, I cut what seemed just the number panel (including shadowed edge) and put it on top of where it should be. Same proportions, within a pixel or two, "find edges" to mark the white patches, and it remains lining up. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 3x2 comp 2.png|right|420px]]At right: it can't be the embarrassingly misrepresented Ukrainian 312 they're hiding, unless that was painted over before this other one .... FWIW, the middle dot would still line up with the serif on that "1." As the updated blog article notes, if "the Russians" were smart, they would have painted this slender 312, or other recognizable number and style, on there. Instead, this nonsense.... <br />
<br />
I suppose that Ukraine ''might'' have known about this 3x2 video and match in advance (and never mentioned it?) and that's why they found a photo of ''a Buk 312''' (not checking what it actually showed, and just claimed they knew was en route to escape into Russia, after parking for yet another photo?) No, that doesn't make much sense. But I sense a link. Maybe that's because I'm seeing 312 when maybe it's 872, for all we really know. Maybe instead of partly painted out it was just left never fully painted in. Too many unknowns and now I'm unenthusiastic about it. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Whatever one thinks of this graphic comparison and interpretation, the strange and suspect thinking it implies is consistent with what else we know about how this "secret" operation was carried out. If true, it would fit this broader pattern (real or reported clues left by whoever, all open to interpretation, and here couched in the terms of allegations by Kiev and supporters):<br />
<br />
* Recalling that this whole weapon itself would have no normal business in the area and would be denied later, it should have been kept secret. Instead, it was driven around in broad daylight on the same day as the crime, just partly covered with a tarp but revealing all clues needed to identify it, its hidden ID number, and its full rack of missiles.<br />
* The truck it was so displayed on was stolen in Donetsk, and kept with the huge sign on its side with the apparent owner's phone number on it. When the media called that number, little surprise, the owner told them pro-Russian "fighters from Slaviansk" who took over his whole trucking company on July 8 (see [[#The Truck Owner's Story|here]]) Put lightly, this is a stupid way to secure a rig one intends to use for a secret operation like this was supposed to be.<br />
* They loaded the truck in Donetsk, likely at the commandeered site in the north of Donetsk, near the Ukrainian base with Buk launchers, in a coincidence. This truck then got seen leaving Donetsk on the 17th, parked pointing east at the east outskirts, then seen driving in convoy (a couple civilian cars with the operational crew moved with the truck) past Zuhres and then through Torez to the east. They were seen arriving in Snizhne around noon, then the Buk unit seen off the truck and driving in stand-alone, and it was then seen again driving south out of Snizneh, towards the apparent launch location.<br />
* The people running the convoy made sure AP journalists saw them in Snizhne just before the shoot-down from a bit south of there. The convoy stopped, and a man in unusual uniform "approached the journalists. The man wanted to make sure they had not recorded any images of the missile launcher. Satisfied that they hadn’t" filmed that secret missile launcher there, but had noticed it, and their intention to remain sooper seekrit "the convoy moved on." All this was made quite clear to the media and apparently published even before the news that MH17 was shot down. ([http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/what-happened-the-day-flight-17-was-downed/2014/07/25/716c36e4-142b-11e4-ac56-773e54a65906_story.html AP Via Washington Post]) <br />
* After the disastrous attempt to secretly provoke a Russian invasion, with utmost discretion the operators put the smoking gun, its rack of one-less missiles left uncovered, back on the same truck and drove it and the phone number back to Russia - by a strange detour on a long route towards the other easily-recognizable smoking gun rebel capitol, Lugansk ... when government ATO forces had just battled their way to the edge of Lugansk ... and got seen there passing at dawn on the main highway south, apparently having come from the center of town, and then presumably drove to Krasnodon (rebel-held) and to Russia....<br />
<br />
The fail delivery here is almost flawless, with no mistake left unmade and hardly any reasonable gaps to call for deduction. Letting multiple camera views on both sides of the porous border capture and track the gradual move to this stealth mode seems pretty consistent to me.--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Note: the implications of this contested finding, and the visual basis for it as well, is continued below under [[#If Buk 3x2 Was in Russia]] --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
--Antidyatel <br />
<br />
I think one point is still not discussed here. Look at this video from 26 June 2014. You might have seen it before. But what is striking, all the Buks shown do not have numbers painted on them. Not only it will allow to paint new numbers or any clumsy painting on the side, using video of a known BUK, it also means that those BUKS were not accounted for when Ukrs presented evidence, if they ever presented, about the location of all the existing and operational BUKS <br />
[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BBEYZHOT0bQ]<br />
<br />
-- Antidyatel 6 September 2015<br />
<br />
=== General Observations === <br />
*It is clear that pro-Kiev side produced early and persistent stream of fakes, misrepresentations, or selective half-truths, all aimed to place the blame on Russia and/or "separatists" as a part of well organised and supported information warfare. This information warfare did not establish an objective to prove the blame of Russia or "separatists", as any of those media creations will not survive a rigorous scrutiny, and there is nothing to bring to court in particular. However it successfully altered Western perceptions in early days past the catastrophe, and helped to impose sanctions and other 'increased costs' on Russia, bringing the world on the brink of another cold war. It brought situation in Ukraine closer to perpetual chaos, and kept closely related people to continue killing each other every day. Although those fakes and misrepresentations were later realized to be such, those costs and calamities were not reversed. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*After moving equipment close to border, why would Russia send just a single TELAR to Ukraine in a highly visible manner as it was alleged? For meaningful operation of Buk, one would send at least 1 TELAR, 1 TEL (to be able to load missiles), and 1 command vehicle (as radar on TELAR gives only poor basic operation)? There are also lots of support vehicles seen, in case of something meaningful all that is needed. So moving single TELAR is all but pointless from military standpoint. Single TELAR is mostly for a show of sort. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Reported SIghtings == <br />
(consider along with the visual sightings below) <br />
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/what-happened-the-day-flight-17-was-downed/2014/07/25/716c36e4-142b-11e4-ac56-773e54a65906_story.html AP via Washington Post] <br />
shows the separatists strategy to not be seen as they rolled the murder weapon around:<br />
:''Even before the plane was downed, the AP had reported on the presence of the missile launcher in the town July 17. Here is what that dispatch said:''<br />
:''“An Associated Press reporter on Thursday saw seven rebel-owned tanks parked at a gas station outside the eastern Ukrainian town of Snizhne. In the town, he also observed a Buk missile system, which can fire missiles up to an altitude of 22,000 meters (72,000 feet).''<br />
:''AP journalists saw the Buk moving through town at 1:05 p.m. The vehicle, which carried four 18-foot (5.5-meter) missiles, was in a convoy with two civilian cars.''<br />
:''The convoy stopped. A man in sand-colored camouflage without identifying insignia — different from the green camouflage the rebels normally wear — approached the journalists. The man wanted to make sure they had not recorded any images of the missile launcher. Satisfied that they hadn’t, the convoy moved on.''<br />
<br />
That kind of pro-Russian sooper-seekrisy aimed at the media in front of the media should stop them being seen, right? No, oddly, it didn't. See below. The clumsy bastards could hardly have implicated themselves any more thoroughly than they did that day. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
One interesting post at the Ukraine@War blog mentions two tweets, both from July 17 and before the crash, mentioning this BUK launcher on a trailer at places consistent with the video record. [https://twitter.com/MOR2537/status/489702736766586880 One of them] (translated) sounds perhaps ''too'' informed, and says "Was driven missile system on the tractor cover + two cars after Thorez (Torez) in snowy (Sniznoyeh) in 12-10 (at 12:10? Too early...)." [https://twitter.com/_StradivariuS_/status/489704260045910016 The other one] says "(someone this) morning wrote that (the truck) stood (parked for some time) on b.Shahtostroiteley not intersection with Ilchicha, aside (heading towards) Makeevki. waiting to see (to be seen?) If that's an intersection named, it's a different parking spot identified as being [https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=48.002515,37.854917&spn=0.010222,0.02444&t=h&z=16 here on Google Maps,] one km west of the spot it was parked for the "Paris Match" photo. Otherwise, it refers only to the same place. The contributor noted "Another interesting detail in that tweet is that “it was standing” and “they were waiting”. My understanding of that phrasing is that the #Buk was actually parked there for some time. Meaning there might be witnesses." <ref name="UWD">[http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com/2014/07/reconstruction-of-whereabouts-of-buk.html CONFIRMED the BUK that shot down MH17 has indeed been in Donetsk] P. Martin, Ukraine@War, July 23, 2014</ref> There was a witness with a camera, and a photo sent to the Western media. That almost seems to have been the idea - to get witnessed like that. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== SBU Wiretap Clues ==<br />
I just had a look at the SBU wiretap transcripts, ones released July 19. In it is a segment tying in with the above stop or stops in Donetsk, the exact spot of the [[#Paris Match Photo]], and the general orders to drive east with the launcher. I'm not up on the wiretap stuff - if this is the same material said to be corroborated by the US as the real people talking. But briefly, know that parking spot in just past a roundabout, by a motel and a bus station, well short of a crossing Hornostaivska street halfway to Makiivka. Important clue to why it was here this thing had to get seen and talked about: one source claims this roundabout at the edge of town is "a big separatist checkpoint established on Jun 3 at the road circle." <ref name="UWD" /> This is supposed to all be pretty damning, and I must say it's at least looking like a pretty slick plan may be going on here, with pre-scripted parts that come into play later, etc. From Kiev mouthpiece UaToday, parts of a transcript they ran with the video and other allegations, on the 19th - How credible is this evidence?<br />
:''Khmuryi: Sergei Nikolaevich Petrovskiy, year of birth 1964, officer of Main Intelligence Directorate of Russian Federation, Deputy Chief of Ihor Girkin on Intelligence, at the time of the interception he was in Donetsk.''<br />
:''“Buryat” – militant of terrorist organization “DNR” (to be indentified).''<br />
:''Buryat: – Where should we load this beauty, Nikolaievich?''<br />
:''Khmuryi: Which one? This one?''<br />
:''B: Yes, the one I’ve brought. I’m already in Donetsk.''<br />
:''K: Is it the one I’m thinking about? “B…,”M” one?''<br />
:''B: Yes, yes, yes. “BUK”,”BUK”.''<br />
:''K: Is it on a tractor?''<br />
:''B: Yes, it’s on it. We need to unload it somewhere, '''in order to hide.'''''<br />
:''K: Is it with a crew?''<br />
:''B: Yes, with the crew.''<br />
:''K: '''Don’t hide it anywhere.''' She’ll go there now.''<br />
:...<br />
:''Khmuryi: – Tell me, have you brought me one or two?<br />
:''Buryat: One, one. Because they had a misunderstanding there. They didn’t give us a tug. We loaded it and went at their own pace.''<br />
:''K: Did it go on her own or on a tug?''<br />
:''B: It crossed the line (border).''<br />
:''H: And now have you brought it on a tug? Don’t put in anywhere… I’ll tell now where it should go, it will go together with “Vostok” tanks.''<br />
:...<br />
:''K: Sanych, the point is that my “BUK–M” (modified Russian SAM system) will go with yours, it is on a tug. Where should I drive it to put in a column?''<br />
:''Sanych: There, behind “Motel”, not reaching Hornostaevka.''<br />
:''K: Just after the Motel, right?''<br />
:''Khmuryi: Listen to me carefully, behind the circle near “Motel” there will be you know what. Call to “Bibliotekar” (Librarian).'' <br />
The next part, to me, suggests that as far back as the 19th or earlier, people talking on tape were seeding, or working by, the SBU-proposed Aeroloft plot with the town mix-up. In that light:<br />
:''...Bring inside only those, who just came back, only as much as you need for the convoy. Leave everyone else here. Not far away '''there is Pervomaiskoe, look at the map.'''''<br />
:''DNR militant: I got it.'' (Or did he not quite get it?) <br />
:''Khmuryi: Settle somewhere in that area, bring there those who are left. Your task is reserve, plus protection of this piece (BUK–M), which you will drive now. “Giyrza” will come there too. If anything, I’m on line.'' <ref name="Trans">[http://www.uatoday.info/?p=2579&lang=en SBU releases more conversations implicating Russia in shooting down Malaysia Airlines flight (VIDEO, TRANSCRIPT)] UAToday, July 19, 2014</ref><br />
--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The veracity of that recording needs challenged well now ... the day too early claim [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17#SBU wiretap video|did not pan out,]] so it won't be that easy. Has anyone really done a good analysis tearing it apart some other way? Could it even be half-legit, with some local rebels tricked by some undercover (wire-wearing, not wire-tapping) supposed defector delivering it "with a team" coming "from Russia" (meaning Parubiy et al.)? Who knows? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Imagery Mapping ==<br />
[[File:MH17 Storyful video mapping.png|right|330px]]There have been quite a number now of photos and videos showing BUK launchers ostensibly in separatist strongholds, on July 17. The geo-location of these in such towns by social media networks has been the subject of some recent media commentary. These purported placements are worth collecting and considering here. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
One somewhat comprehensive and updated/evolving page: [http://blog.storyful.com/2014/07/19/how-social-sleuthing-uncovered-evidence-of-anti-aircraft-missile-system-in-eastern-ukraine/#.U9oY_Ua3498 How Social Sleuthing Uncovered Evidence of Surface-to-Air Missile Systems in Eastern Ukraine] Inset is a small preview of the interactive map they made of all placed images (as it stands at the end of July - [https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=200399683004956931329.0004feca5d1fbab0a1d25&msa=0&ie=UTF8&t=h&source=embed&ll=48.206371,38.968506&spn=1.281328,2.334595&z=8 full-size presentation with links, on Google Maps]) <ref name="Story1" /> <s>Note that one of them is way up in Lugansk - which one is a little unclear at the moment - the site may be wrong</s>) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;List of Scenes, placed or not<br />
* Billboard Video: released by Interior Ministry, filmed in Krasnodon before dawn, the Interior Minister says. Russian military analysis places it in Krasnoarmeysk, and the Open Newsroom crew contradicts both and decided "collaborative geo-location was able to place the footage in southwestern Luhansk.'' <ref name="Story1">[http://blog.storyful.com/2014/07/19/how-social-sleuthing-uncovered-evidence-of-anti-aircraft-missile-system-in-eastern-ukraine/#.U9oY_Ua3498 How Social Sleuthing Uncovered Evidence of Surface-to-Air Missile Systems in Eastern Ukraine] Storyful blog, July 19, 2014 and onward (updated)</ref> <br />
* Surveillance Video: located to Snizhne by Eliot Higgins, date unclear. <ref name="Story1" /><br />
* Zuhres video: Pre-geo-located by the uploader [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=48%C2%B0+1'1.38%22N++38%C2%B018'6.04%22E&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=48.034019,38.391724&spn=0.629958,1.564178&gbv=2&hnear=H21,+Zuhres,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&gl=us&t=h&z=10 here in Zuhres.] Higgins confirms, 100% sure, and others concur. Driving east. <ref name="Story1" /><br />
* Torez square photo - located by an associate of Higgins - filmed app. 11:40 AM in central Torez. See below. <br />
* Another photo placed: Snizneh, nearest the shoot-down area (f/c)<br />
* [http://www.parismatch.com/Actu/International/EXCLU-MATCH-Un-camion-vole-pour-transporter-le-systeme-lance-missiles-577289 Paris Match photo] - allegedly Snizhne, reportedly placed '''in northern Donetsk city.''' See below. <br />
<br />
===Billboard Video===<br />
(to be condensed) <br />
A video released by the Ukrainian Interior Ministry is highly dubious and worth some analysis. It shows what seems to be a BUK launcher loaded on a truck driving some direction in some town at what seems to be early twilight (or pre-dawn, depending). The [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4HJmev5xg0 original posting] (with almost 2 million views already) gives no details: "Militants take out missile system "Buk" to the border with Russiam" the title translates. "No description available," it says below, and no comments allowed.<br />
From what I've seen no one knows where this is filmed. Daily Mail says it's a "separatist stronghold," unnamed, and headed south, back towards Russia. "Ukrainian spies reportedly filmed the launcher used in the attack being smuggled to Russia - with two missiles missing." Eliot Higgins was cited by [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/20/malaysia-airlines-mh17-videos-missile-launcher-torez-snizhne the Guardian] with his new team of fundraistigators as geolocating some video and photo but not, apparently, this one. As explained at [https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1278239551/bellingcat/posts/919158 the kickstarter link] they give, Higgins writes:<br />
:''In the above video, posted by the Ukranian Ministry for Interior claiming to show the Buk missile launcher being driven towards Russia it was possible to match the transporter in the video to the transporter in Torez, details of which... (you have to subsidize their operation to see)'' --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== Avakov's Placement: Krasnodon or Lugansk ====<br />
Interior Minister Arsen Avakov said in [https://www.facebook.com/arsen.avakov.1/posts/670837696339673 a Facebook post of July 18] Google-translated: <br />
:''Covert surveillance units of MIA of Ukraine today July 18 at 4.50 am was recorded caterpillar tractor loaded with missile complex, moving in the direction through Krasnodon, toward the border with the Russian Federation. The video can be seen uncovered missiles. Two missiles in place - the average is not visible. ''<br />
:''There is an analysis of this and other information gathered. Presumably this is the missile system "Buk" that made a last shot at a civilian plane from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur .. ''<br />
:''Criminals try to hide the traces of this heinous crime. Not succeed. Security Service and Interior Ministry of Ukraine has collected and collects more irrefutable facts and evidence, the author points out the tragedy of the terrorist organization DNI / LC and its Russian backers Putin.'' <br />
:''The investigation of events MIA issue a comprehensive report on the information. This fragment consider it necessary to publish immediately.''<br />
<br />
By the 22nd, "online sleuths" had placed it in Lugansk (see below). Avakov then confirmed this - he was wrong the first time. One article makes it sound like he wasn't just echoing the sleuths:<br />
:''On July 22, Ukraine's Minister of Internal Affairs, Arsen Avakov, gave the exact coordinates of the video’s location: separatist-held Luhansk, about a 45-minute drive from Krasnodon. Locals quickly verified this claim by photographing the scene, which perfectly matches the landmarks seen in the video.'' ([http://globalvoicesonline.org/2014/07/29/russia-ukraine-mh17-conspiracy-buk/# article by one of the sleuths])<br />
<br />
====Krasnoarmeysk====<br />
One source venturing a guess is [http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ the Russian government and RT witrh their 10 intriguing questions:]<br />
:''“For example, media circulated a video supposedly showing a Buk system being moved from Ukraine to Russia. This is clearly a fabrication. This video was made in the town of Krasnoarmeisk, as evidenced by the billboard you see in the background, advertising a car dealership at 34 Dnepropetrovsk Street. Krasnoarmeysk has been controlled by the Ukrainian military since May 11.”''<br />
[[File:MH17 Billboard Vid Russian Analysis.png|right|250px]]There is a sign, but I cannot make it out just yet, if ever. Can they really? Even if that's so, surrounding towns might be good places for a dealership in Krasnoarmeysk to advertise. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
At right now is a still from a video claiming to show this, I still don't see it. They seem to think the gray span says that, perhaps from seeing a clearer view of this ubiquitous sign elsewhere. Opps. There's no reason to say a dealership in one town can only have billboards in that town. This alone fails. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 14:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Krasnoarmiis'k,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&hl=en&ll=48.323387,37.919312&spn=1.252829,3.128357&sll=48.226502,37.386475&sspn=0.627601,1.564178&oq=Krasnoarm&t=h&doflg=ptk&hnear=Krasnoarmiis'k,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&z=9 on Google Maps as Krasnoarmiis'k] - ''not'' to be confused with the Krasnoarmeisk not far away in Russia. Distance: about 100 km almost due west of the crash site. Panorama, possiblt location, directions/implications forthcoming. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Dnepropetrovsk Street is the main street of Krasnoarmeisk, leading northwest to Dnepropetrovsk. It tried matching this to the street corner where the car dealership is located. Yandex Maps did not provide a street view. It could be there, but too few details to make a positive match. Whatever this is, it is not evidence for anything. The least the SBU could have done is provide the location and some corroborating photographs.<br />
:The same applies to all so called "evidence" provided by Ukraine and the US State Department. As far as I can tell it is only cut-and-paste of unrelated footage to ''illustrate'' the claims made. A perfect example of this illusion is the "satellite photos" of Russian artillery shelling Ukraine released on Sunday morning. A photo of Russian GRADs on some unidentifiable field was placed next to a satellite image with an arrow pointing "Here Be Monsters!" Purely illustrative and no proof. There is a difference between legerdemain Hocus Pocus and outright forgery. The Russian video presentation displayed screen capture recording from the ATC radar, usually stored for two weeks. For this to be a hoax, Russia would need to create a forged tape of the radar data. Highly unlikely, as the the claim of authenticity had support of the full authority and prestige of the Russian Armed Forces. If the US presentation turns out to be hoax, State Department will claim the photos were never meant to be evidence. Some internee was told to prepare a presentation using stock images for some facts they ''knew'' to be true – trust us! -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 14:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: You must have missed [https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BtZSVQrIMAARzKr.jpg:large this], Petri! ;oP --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 18:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
::: That is an awesomely perfect picture for this sorry episode so far. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 14:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
::It would be neat though if we could show where this is and thus which way its's headed. The Kiev authorities, I think, know what happened. They say it was this exact launcher missing two missiles. It could be. Where is it at filming time and where headed? If it's true this same one was in Torez (dubious but possible) we'd have a direction traveled until that point also, and a rough time, 8:30 or so. [http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jul/27/mh17-storyful-social-media-twitter-youtube The Guardian again] citing Storyful's open-source investigation: <br />
::::''“There are now four pieces of content – three pieces of video and one image – which, in the case of three, conclusively show a Buk [surface-to-air] missile within rebel-held territory and in the case of the fourth, almost definitely in their territory,” says Storyful executive editor David Clinch. “Of those four pieces, individual groups or companies probably verified in or around the same time one or another of them.”''<br />
:''Open Newsroom verified three pieces of content and is investigating the fourth, thanks to its 900-strong network of journalists and experts. ''''<br />
:The fourth is this video. Wouldn't it be a coup if we were the first to place it? Force that intern excuse and then laugh at it. That said, it's not the most likely to place but you, Petri, especially, might be able to. I think I might. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 22:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* [https://plus.google.com/118234537318646233652/posts/LZV1XZD854E James Miller Google + July 21] "Was a Buk sighted in Krasnoarmeysk or Krasnodon (continued analysis)? We've taken a new look at this video which has been debated since it was posted days ago. We're fairly confident, though not 100% confident, in this geoanalysis, but we're making significant progress. Any more information would be extremely helpful. " Cited: [http://www.interpretermag.com/russia-this-week-lurid-anti-ukraine-propaganda-broadcast-on-state-tv/#1753 Russia This Week: Defense Ministry Claim on Buk in Billboard Video Doesn’t Add Up]<br />
:''...As we reported on our Ukraine Liveblog, the Buk was spotted before the shoot-down of the Malaysian airplane and ultimately geolocated to the town of Torez, near the location of the crash in Grabovo. Then the video, taken early the next morning on 18 July, showed a scene in Krasnodon,... <br />
--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Google Earth has one photo [http://www.panoramio.com/photo/55329278 from ул. Днепропетровская.] The street has about the same width. The streetlights are not quite the same. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 14:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
::That image doesn't help a match, especially since by now it looks like Lugansk. For the record, there was a go by pro-rebel social media people at identifying a spot in town to explain the video scene, but it didn't do that either. [http://wikimapia.org/#lat=48.276196&lon=37.176087&z=18&l=0&m=b this spot on Wikimapia] is what they pointed to - filmed from the marked building, they say, looking southwest to the mall. No matching anything. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 02:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== Placed in Lugansk! ====<br />
[[File:MH17 Billboard Vid-Lugansk Match.png|right|800px]]Storyful's rundown states of this video:<br />
:''The footage is not the original, however we believe that the first instance of this footage was removed by the uploader and the version below is the earliest we can find. Ukrainian Interior Minister, Arsen Avakov, made early claims that the video was filmed in the Ukrainian town of Krasnodon near the Russian border, however collaborative geo-location was able to place the footage in southwestern Luhansk.'' <ref name="Story1" /> <br />
It links to "Bellingcat," which you have to pay to see much of. [https://plus.google.com/118234537318646233652/posts/bMdeBzY8yty James Miller] passes on that it's "Mystery SOLVED: Video released by Ukraine's Interior Ministry does in fact show a Buk, possibly missing several missiles, in Lugansk headed east from the MH17 crash site and in the direction of Russia." The spot they think matches the video (better panorama coming) is [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=48%C2%B032'44.7%22N+39%C2%B015'52.6%22E&ie=UTF8&ll=48.545926,39.265147&spn=0.002436,0.00611&t=h&cid=0&z=18 here on Google Maps]. Was that a highway? Where's the cross-street? I see elsewhere they have a high view showing the same basic billboard there, but that's going to be true of several spots in this area. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
My impression of the scene - based on the panoramic view below - is far from matching with this. That does not look like a highway, and it just seems like a small town. However, I finally saw some of the supporting images (see [http://news.bigmir.net/ukraine/827864-V-Lygansk-vehala-kolonna-voennoi-tehniki--SMI here] and [https://twitter.com/djp3tros/status/491651820188860416/photo/1 here] - source of the inset image.) It seems a likely match after all. I won't say I confirm it with any certainty, but I don't think I'll be challenging it like I was preparing to do. Note the different billboard in the right spot, and the matching one over there. There are other images, apparently more current, showing that that they moved the one sign over to the right spot They don't point to the pinkish roofed building beyond the red-roofed one, but that adds to the match (compare to below). Whenever this video was made and whatever it really means, it seems quite likely it was at this spot in Lugansk shortly before dawn. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
There is another video from June 2014 showing the same billboard with the same car ad:<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ez8cZ3nqjCs Луганск 02 07 14]<br />
The video shows a column of BMPs with one 9K35 Strela-10 short-range surface to air missile system passing the intersection in Lugansk. I suspect they came from Russia, as [https://www.facebook.com/groups/IOUCO/permalink/584402078339517/ I specifically asked] for Putin to send in the Russian tanks that morning. They passed exactly when I expected them to, at 6 minutes past 4 am. (I estimated it would take 2 hours 6 minutes from the border.) -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 17:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== ACLOS Review ====<br />
As noted above, my review agrees with the placement agreed by the others. For what it's worth, the huge panorama I made (the middle is full-resolution) and starting notes from before I realized no work was needed. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 03:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
[[File:MH17 Billboard Video Pan.png|center|880px]]<br />
It seems to be filmed near the edge of town, or edge of a hill anyway, with a clear view ahead, two vague homes/buildings seen down the slope. Otherwise, very non-descript. The angle of intersection will be one of the better clues - it looks to me not 90 degrees ( |- ), but with the road the truck is on either slanting or curving somewhat towards the camera ( /- ). One important observation: '''there's no logical reason he should have been just happening to film this area''' unless he knew something interesting would drive by at just this odd time. That's clarified by how he zooms in just before it enters frame - he was waiting for that truck. How did he know about it? Informants on the other side of town phoning ahead makes enough sense, I suppose. <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 launcher truck composite.png|left|480px]]Another issue: If this is dusk (sunset 8:20 PM local), isn't this facing roughly northwest? If so, this vehicle is driving roughly north, not south. And we might start looking on the west edge of town. There's a highway out to the northwest, back towards Kiev. This street is too narrow and unmarked to be the highway, obviously, but it might be driving that way, for example. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
:Or, alternately, he's facing towards the sun about to rise, early on the 18th, as alleged by the Interior Ministry) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
::That he happened to be filming just before dawn is even less likely than dusk. He clearly knew this was coming, whatever that means. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 03:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Above is the composite scene without truck. At left is the truck without background. Besides lightening the scene, it seemed worth getting the clearest details from different frames into a composite view of the truck and its load. This helps compare to the launchers seen in other areas and different times. So far, they all seem to look the same and perhaps be the same. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 03:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br /><br />
<br />
==== HRI ====<br />
Pretty good points [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/08/05/mh17-the-lugansk-buk-video/ from Human Rights Investigations]:<br />
:''To sum up, the statement of Avakov, the film and its location suggest the Ukrainian authorities had advance knowledge of this BUK and trailer’s movements or control over it. It is also extremely strange that this BUK, allegedly after shooting down MH17, is supposedly filmed by a Ukrainian surveillance team in ostensibly rebel territory, with its covering missing, as if to show the world a missile is missing.''<br />
--[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Paris Match Photo ===<br />
[[File:MH17 Paris Match.png|770px]]<br /><br />
* [http://www.parismatch.com/Actu/International/EXCLU-MATCH-Un-camion-vole-pour-transporter-le-systeme-lance-missiles-577289 Originally published by Paris Match] on July 25, with the claim the picture was taken by their own reporting team near Snizhne at mid-day on the 17th. Note the prominent, apparent, telephone number prominently centered in the picture - (050) 471-41-80. The truck and launcher, as far as can be seen, are quite similar to or the same as the one seen in the billboard video anyways. How many of its missiles the unit has at this moment is unclear. <br />
<br />
* [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/07/28/why-is-paris-match-on-the-location-of-a-buk/ Human Rights Investigations:] "it turns out to have been taken in Donetsk, 75km away" (citing someone else's geo-location - [https://www.google.com/maps/@48.004592,37.87265,3a,75y,63.38h,82.21t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sRGnHwZ5YZnuGO-n_VvruWg!2e0 site link given.] <br />
:''We know this because the phone number on the truck panel (050 471 4180) leads straight to this hire place (photo):<br />
:''According to Paris-Match, the proprietor of this establishment claimed “rebels” had stolen a number of his vehicles earlier in the month. If we go from here to towards Snizhne we find the location of the Paris-Match photo, near a car dealership on Makiivske Highway on the outskirts of Donetsk:''<br />
:''After informing Paris-Match of the mistake regarding the video location, the author of the article Alfred De Montesquiou has now got back and explained:''<br />
:''Hello, indeed, it appears there was a mixup in caption : the picture was taken leaving Donetsk on road to Snijne, not in actual Snijne'' <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Donestk Buk Map.png|thumb|right|480px|Map: this truck location, the company's apparent headquarters ([https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Molodykh+Shakhtariv+St,+19,+Donetsk,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&ll=48.044923,37.783184&spn=0.079187,0.195522&hnear=Molodykh+Shakhtariv+St,+19,+Donetsk,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&t=h&z=13 GM link]), and the A-1402 missile base relative to each other.]]<br />
<br />
'''Questions:''' Was it a caption mix-up, or did their team really not know where it was taken, and just believed the real source when he said Snizneh? Who is the true photographer who knew to catch this picture near the company's base, apparently at the outset of a rather epic journey? Why did the rebel thieves leave the prominent phone number on the stolen truck used for such an important task? It wound up leading to man who pointed right to the rebel thieves, and prove yet again separatists, not Kiev allies, were the ones driving BUKs around. Was that so hard to foresee? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''To Do:''' Verify the geo-location - set a time, presuming July 17, by sunlight and that location - establish which way it's traveling relative to the government-run anti-aircraft base just a few km north of here and relative to the other places and times this truck and others were spotted rolling around prominently and getting filmed a lot by the right kind of people, in areas presumed to be impenetrable to any such frame-up operation - look into this company, etc. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''Location:''' I can't confirm it with certainty, but it's extremely consistent. Two standard but distinct pole types that close together on the right with a pull-over lane ending at the blue one, and consistent-scale foliage behind. Proceding on the location as likely enough to warrant the work. The stretch of highway identified runs northeast, heading 33 degrees. The truck is most likely not driving at the moment, as it's in the pull-over lane. But it's pointed as if ready to leave Donetsk as soon as they finish doing something in theis spot. All we can see they're doing is getting filmed, and maybe that's just what they're waiting for. Ahead would be the an industrial area, the eastern suburb of Makiivka, then Khartsyzk, etc. and further east Torez and Snizhne (driving times unsure, date also unsure. Russia claims the one launcher left the northern base sometime between in August 14 and 17 images. <ref name="RT10">[http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ 10 more questions Russian military pose to Ukraine, US over MH17 crash] RT. July 21, 2014</ref><br />
<br />
'''Time:''' I'm not sure how exactly to set this up, but the shadows appear to stretch almost right across the highway, with only a slight northern shift. The azimuth thus appears to be fairly close to to 140˚ (reached at 11:09 AM). As for solar altitude, trying to line up the launcher's corner with its shadow gives a reading of app. 56˚ (= 10:50 AM, with azimuth 133˚) or perhaps 59˚ (= 11:18, az 143.5). The graphic shows both readings. Which is better? I used [http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/solcalc/ NOAA solar calculator], with coordinates: lat 48.017102 long:37.9037626 time=GMT+2, DST +1 --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
There is more to consider about this truck, its company, its owner, and his story. But other than this photo's extra-clear view of the phone number and apparent proximity to headquarters, those are better covered in the section below [[#The Truck Owner's Story]].<br />
<br />
==== Time? ====<br />
[[File:MH17 Paris Match elev.png|right|220px]]<br />
Bellingcat was originally claiming that photo was taken at 9 am. [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/09/08/images-show-the-buk-that-downed-flight-mh17-inside-russia-controlled-by-russian-troops/] [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/11/08/origin-of-the-separatists-buk-a-bellingcat-investigation/]<br />
<br />
Then they were claiming 11 am as an obvious time without retracting previous 9am claim. Seems like 9am was more comfortable for them to match to photos from Zuhres and Torez. <br />
<br />
Sorry, using smartphone. Not very easy to comment --[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 01:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:<small>Looks like you put the same link twice, -it says 11 a.m.--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)</small><br />
::Antidyatel, welcome! Resup, thanks! I'd like to see any 9 am citation. But otherwise they agree on it being around 11? Good. The significance below is if the Zuhres square photo was taken at 11:40 AM as they say, it's basically impossible these images are from the same day as alleged - 69 km, 1 hour 14 mins drive between the spots, when there's only 20-40 minutes between the images. However, fudging it - let's say this is 10:50 and the other is 12:00 as I read it - that's 1:10 between, almost a perfect match. So maybe this isn't a great lead (I was never convinced it was). But 9:00 is way off and suggests they were fudging it to fit at that point. Would be good to document. BTW, on talk pages you can sign with <nowiki>--~~~~</nowiki> or the sign/scribble button. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: [https://web.archive.org/web/20141109132514/https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/11/08/origin-of-the-separatists-buk-a-bellingcat-investigation/ First archive.org snapshot] from the day after publishing (edit: a good three months after you called it :o)) says 11 am already. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 10:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: Okay, the links were fixed once or twice and [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/11/08/origin-of-the-separatists-buk-a-bellingcat-investigation/ the November report] says 11 am, not citing an azimuth or anything, just Paris Match saying it was "about 11 am," which doesn't count much for verification. The [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/09/08/images-show-the-buk-that-downed-flight-mh17-inside-russia-controlled-by-russian-troops/ earlier report from Sptember] might be based on something else when it mentions "a well known image from Paris Match, which shows a Buk in Donetsk at 9am on July the 17th." Neither one sounds like a firm final version. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== Screenshot from dashcam video? ====<br />
It it possible to identify if the photo was made by dashboard camera, smartphone, or other type of camera. Paris Match claimed that they made the photo. There are no date markings on the photo, which is strange. Position of the camera is such that it was either dashboard camera or the driver was making a photo (front and left side of the car). Paris Match was also implying in their report that it was a group of people in the car. "A sytem BUK missile launcher is photopgraphie by the team of Paris-Match in the suburbs of Donetsk, on the road to Snizhne the morning of July 17, hours before the flight Malaysia Airlines MH17 crash."[http://m.parismatch.com/Actu/International/EXCLU-MATCH-Un-camion-vole-pour-transporter-le-systeme-lance-missiles-577289]<br />
<br />
Why would they ask driver to make a photo? Dangerous or uncomfortable - illogical. If it was a dashboard camera, why not to release a video? And most importantly it would have a time stamp. <br />
<br />
Also in this report [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/01/17/new-images-of-the-mh17-buk-missile-launcher-in-ukraine-and-russia/] gives a new, a bit extended photo. Surprisingly the back of the BUK is nicely in focus, same as the truck cabin. While middle of the BUK is defocused. No wonder Paris Match cropped it. Bellingcat, that likes being so strict about photos, totally ignores this part. <br />
-- [[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 23:55,, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Yes, I agree. The two photos are crops from screenshots from a dashcam video. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 00:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
::Those must be two different shots at close-by time --look at position of street lamppost with respect to the truck cabin, one has it over black pipe, and the other more to the right from there. Can't think of a natural way for camera to focus on two different distances (maybe dirty and curvy windshield can be blamed but on tricky side here)-- FWIW. Usually dashboards have short focal length so that anything appear to be in focus; don't know why not the case here --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
RESUP, you are right. Those are two different shots. There is cable reflection from the windshield. Probably the cable is another indication of the dashboard camera.--Antidyatel<br />
<br />
=== Torez Square Photo ===<br />
[[File:MH17 Torez Buk Analysis.png|left]]This is another image geo-located by the Brown Moses network (ally Aric Toller) to central Torez, [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Donetsk&hl=en&ll=48.023472,38.614014&spn=0.004923,0.01222&hnear=Donetsk,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&t=h&z=17 here on Google Maps.] Like others, it was initially stated as in another locale - Snizhne - and that had to be corrected. I can agree the location pointed to is either the photo's site or one strangely like it. [http://mashable.com/2014/07/23/citizen-journalists-mh17-spies/ Mashable noted] "Toler and Higgins were able to establish that the photograph was shot around 11:40 a.m. local time." I tried a quick azimuth measure, eyeballed relative only to the blue car, and got 165 degrees (yellow line, read backwards). This equates to a time of almost exactly 12:00 noon (about 30 minutes before solar noon, and 20 minutes later than their estimate). Seeing they're close to right, I'll presume they're closer than me and defer to 11:40. <br />
<br />
If this photo is taken at 11:40 AM, and it's the same truck seen leaving Donetsk around 11-11:20 AM, it's impossible these images are from the same day as alleged (Gmaps says it's 68.8 km, 1 hour 14 mins drive, when there's only 20-40 minutes between the images). That would mean multiple mobile launchers with multiple "Titan" trucks, or just one but with some date fudging. The company says a number of its trucks were stolen, so matching multiples are entirely likely. But so is date fudging, multiples or not. If that's so, I suspect the Donetsk photo was from July 15 or 16, and this one more likely from the day of the crime. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 04:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br /><br /><br /><br />
=== Zuhres Video ===<br />
[[File:Buk Zuhres Vid.png|right|480px]]Again, a truck of that same type loaded with the same apparent weapon is briefly seen driving east (detail at right). This one was never reported wrong and was in fact pre-geo-located by the uploader [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=48%C2%B0+1'1.38%22N++38%C2%B018'6.04%22E&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=48.034019,38.391724&spn=0.629958,1.564178&gbv=2&hnear=H21,+Zuhres,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&gl=us&t=h&z=10 here in Zuhres.] Higgins confirms, 100% sure, and others concur. <ref name="Story1" /> Zuhres location: on highway H21 halfway between Donetsk and the general disaster zone - 36 km east by road from the position of the truck in the Paris Match photo. I agree with the location, refined below as I lined up in the still used here - the blue line runs between the blue thing and the building corner (footprint, not roofline) to the front of the truck as it passes. <br />
<br />
The sky is fairly overcast, so solar angles can't be measured precisely; the differences in facet lighting are clear but not massive. A broad and inclusive azimuth range of 167˚ to 214˚ (rounded) is shown by the yellow arrows below. This yields a range (to the nearest minute) of 12:09 PM and 1:45 PM. The best middle is a bit early - 185 degrees. That would be 12:44 PM. Altitude, at solar noon, helps little. 12:09, 12:44, and all times between round off to 63˚. if that simply looks too high, we're forced to the later end of the time frame. - 57˚ at 1:45. My super broad-estimate: 12:45 +/- 50 minutes. Weather at this time on whatever day - as noted, it partly overcast, and it's windy. The clouds are moving fast, with slight lighting changes visible in just these few seconds. Winds by the swaying trees are from the southeast, perhaps, blowing northwest - at least at the building with a face running that way.<br />
[[File:Buk Zuhres analysis.png|center|680px]]<br />
<br />
==The Truck Owner's Story==<br />
The apparent owner of the white truck so important to the MH17 operation was of course tracked down via the giant phone number for his compant on its side. Interviewed at least twice now, first by Paris Match, then by Lithuanian agency Alfa, this businessman has been anonymized as Vassili (then Vasilijus). Thorough summary of the related, alleged facts, from each (translated) report:<br />
* [http://www.parismatch.com/Actu/International/EXCLU-MATCH-Un-camion-vole-pour-transporter-le-systeme-lance-missiles-577289 Paris Match, July 25:]<br />
:''Photographs of Paris Match showed that the rebels had failed to remove the billboard on the truck they had stolen. Thus we joined the owner of the vehicle. Vassili said the rebels occupied warehouses on the outskirts of Donetsk since July 8. "They are fighters Slaviansk. They landed and told me they loved my premises and we had to escape. They shipped me a dozen large vehicles, including the white truck. I do not know what happened to them, "admitted Vassili, distraught.'' (that was actually just what they published, aside from context material) <br />
<br />
* [http://www.alfa.lt/straipsnis/472203/alfa-lt-isskirtinis-interviu-su-raketas-buk-kuriomis-buvo-numustas-malaizijos-avialiniju-lektuvas-gabenusio-vilkiko-savininku?p=1#.U-GIxeOSyuZ Alfa.lt, July 29:]<br />
:''This person's testimony is crucial. After it becomes indisputably known that anti-missile system, which shot down a passenger plane was precisely the Kremlin-sponsored terrorist hands. ''<br />
Here, separatists are throughout called "terrorists" (Bezler is "the "People's Republic of Donetsk" terrorist gangs ringleader"). Vassili says these took over and occupied his company premises on July 8, taking the white truck - they said because it was needed He says they stayed in control of his facility for 8 days, apparently departing on the 9th day - July 17. Becuase of this, he and his staff - especially his drivers - were unable to do anything that whole time. He's entirely certain it's his truck in the videos (the phone number says so) as it's the only one of its type in that part of Donetsk (Žinoma, ji – vienintelė tokia Donecko srityje, tokios kitos nėra. Tokios „Volvo“ su tokia kabina). He says he still hasn't seen it since.<br />
:''...more and more irrefutable evidence that Russia supported the terrorists shot down over the temporary control of the territory in the east of Ukraine aboard passenger "Malaysia Airlines plane, and later sought to hide evidence.''<br />
But as Paris Match noted, they couldn't be bothered to detach the phone number to the guy with the whole dang story. <br />
:''Alfa.lt knowledge of the personal data, company name, knows his responsibilities and phone numbers (one is (050) 471-41-80), but because of '''the danger to his life''' that can not be published. "Stop saying my name, and I already have enough problems," said new horrific crime witness Vasilijus.'' <br />
This is valid; of course his best defense would have been to simply ''not'' implicate the separatists mostly running Donetsk, but it's too late now. DPR authorities might want him for questioning. And especially now that he's been publicized as a "crucial witness," others will want him to '''appear to have been brutally murdered by them''' (he will have served his main purpose by now, perhaps). I hope someone's able to arrange protective custody quickly enough, or that he can arrange his own vacation, or convince his friends (he'll know the ones) of his continuing usefulness to them alive. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Titan Gate blurry.png|left|380px]]Further bits on the business: Wikimapia has labels. One for the front building is generic. In English writing: [http://wikimapia.org/#lat=48.0399571&lon=37.794637&z=16&l=0&m=b&show=/24479492/Ochakivska-vulytsia-19 Ochakivska vulytsia, 19]. Beneath: Category: safety, '''private security company.''' Around this, a bigger labeled area including the back building and surrounding lot. Label: Территория службы охраны "Титан" Translated, it says "Territory protection service "Titan" (Donetsk)." Beneath it: "Category: '''Do not display name''', fenced area." (не отображать название, огороженная территория) Below, their gate area as it appears in Human Rights Investigation's still, and three versions I've seen randomly changing over the last day or so with different parts that could be the name blurred out (most recently back to not blurred). Is that unusual? I predict further twists in this, with the truck found somewhere bolstering the Kiev story, and with the company's "outing" being manipulated somehow. Feels a little spooky. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
;Assessing "Vassili's" Story<br />
<br />
There are a number of problems with and interesting questions about this witness' story and how it meshes with other allegation (details forthcoming).<br />
<br />
In Vassili's defense, I'll say the world needs to hear more. What happened in these eight days? Were Russian officers coming and going? Poring over air charts in the side room, before closing the door with an annoyed look? A lot could have happened - this could be a gold mine of direct evidence for war crimes trials of these terrorist gang's leaders (as understood). --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
[[File:MH17 Vassili's Truck August 1c.png|right|400px]]<br />
An apparent support: as HRI found, [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/08/07/new-sighting-of-volvo-linked-to-buk/ New sighting of Volvo linked to BUK?] August 7 - One of those provocatively deleted tweets, quite recent with a supposedly same-day (dawn or sunset) photo from somewhere in Donetsk - outskirtsy, like where <s>rebel</s> I mean Kiev junta forces proudly claim to almost be. this photo (saved by HRI) shows "a truck" carrying a tank, driving behind another tank. The posted thought it was for a new roadblack/barricade (concrete slabs were also being hauled). It appears to be the same truck Vassili says he lost, or one just like it. And this does look like the type of thing seaparatists would do if they had seized it, and still didn't realize how famous it had become. This thing likes to drive at dawn, doesn't it? How are checkpoints then, a little sleepy maybe? Hmmm... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::(added later: inset image - from the photo, color-corrected and cropped on just the truck - for full view see the article or below) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: FTR I took up HRI's challenge to identify the truck on that picture and did so with almost 100% certainty. It's a Volvo FH second generation (2001-2013) with low cabin. Like [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Volvo_LKW_Fahrerhaus.JPG this one] which has a higher cabin but other than that is quite a match. Also FTR, I noticed that the twitter account has "Donbass Bandera" as location, which can but must not mean anything. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: Bandera might mean something, in context, but no time to puzzle too much. Good ID work there. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Vassili's Truck August 1 Loc.png|left|380px]]The article passes on a geo-location I can confirm: [https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Makiivka,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine/@48.04073,37.967479,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m5!1e2!3m3!1s78165143!2e1!3e10!4m2!3m1!1s0x40e08e984a0db9a9:0xe4e52efde2e0641c Here on Google Maps,] photo taken, as described, from "opposite the Vostochno-evroppeyskiy restaurant & lounge “Atrium” in Makiivka on the H-21." A site photo of the "Atrium" is included. The graphic I made at left shows the approximate view, including the stairwell (to a subway station?), though the billboard is less clear. The view is roughly towards the rising sun northeast - a rough azimuth measure suggests the sun is shining from about <s>66</s> 71 degrees from north, for a time of around <s>5:24</s> 5:52 AM (elevation: <s>1.8</s> 6 degrees). --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC) and corrections --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
FWIW, I went over to militaryphotos.net and scanned [http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?236005-Situation-in-the-Ukraine-Crimea-*Photos-Videos*-ONLY/page200 the thread about Ukraine starting on page 200] in very early July, up until page 225 when all the known truck/BUK info and disinfo was posted. Watched countless military convoys, including a whole bunch from Donetsk in the time between. Not a sign of the truck in question. If it was in "rebel" hands since July 8 like the alleged owner claims, they used it only for "special ops", alone in the early morning or so, not in their larger relocation operations. Two things remotely interesting: in an operation [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0JdcC324Ek reactivating a WWII tank from a war museum in Donetsk], a similar trailer is used, but the truck is a different one. And in [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2eGNPJlkMo this video from July 5] but without given location, the Ukie army does some operations and two BUK TELARs are seen. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Possible Launch Sites ==<br />
*Launch site discussion here is based on a photo of disputed provenance, said to be made '''near [[Category_talk:Ukraine#Torez|Torez]]''', showing a plume of smoke (see on the right and below). Exact date is disputed, but it was posted shortly after the accident. A late update or second version of the photo emerged in December 2014; this is further discussed in the [[File_talk:MH17_Launch_Plume.png|talk page for the photo]]. A different launch location in '''Artemovsk''', based on Bezler account, is discussed elsewhere [[Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17#Bezler_Account|(link).]] . <br />
<br />
===What do we know? ===<br />
Questions about the photo, --if it is genuine-- include:<br />
<br />
*What is shown on the photo? (Likely a missile launch, but can be MANPAD, or some other launch; raising fire smoke not excluded though less likely) <br />
*When was the photo made? (Claimed to be couple of minutes after the MH 17 shootdown launch; but could be made on earlier days)<br />
*Where was the photographer, and where is than the 'launch site" Photograph claimed to be made in Torez (4 microdistrict?) . Claimed launch sites locations are [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/launch-location-detected-of-missile.html SE] or [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2107 NE] from the photographer. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
A site, or maybe a couple of locations, have now been forwarded, based on compelling evidence, as likely SAM launch sites of July 17 or thereabouts. This is worth careful consideration here. To start:<br />
<br />
* [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10984530/MH17-the-clues-which-may-lead-to-missile-launch-site.html UK Telegraph, July 22] This report with some detail and a photo visits a few areas where signs of possible BUK launcher movement and firing occurred recently. Caterpillar tracks, mostly light, signs of burning, various debris left behind, all or mostly "in the area of the town of Snizhnoye." These details might suggest whoever did this had multiple launchers set up in different areas that left as soon as the operation/accident was done. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
::So far, signs are saying it was just the one. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Below: The site shown on video, stitched panoramic view (with confusing curve). This helps get the fullest set of geo-location clues. I may even check if this is the same spot identified by Ukraine@War, below. It should be, or we might have two firing locations pretty near each other, which would be odd. The firing direction from here would be northwest, almost directly along MH17's flight path. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
[[File:MH17 Telegraph site.png|center|940px]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Launch Plume.png|right|340px]]Ukraine@War: [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/launch-location-detected-of-missile.html Launch location detected of missile that brought down MH17] The photo at right, cited by Kiev as proof of a BUK launch in the right area, July 17. The anlysis here looks good on first blush and lines the filming to northern Torez, plume on a line including a supposed patch of cat tracks just revelaed by fresh Google/GeoEye images of some fields [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Donetsk&hl=en&ll=47.989347,38.773155&spn=0.078813,0.195522&t=h&hnear=Donetsk,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&z=13 here] by Snizhne. As traced, the tracks look realistic to me. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: There is (a disappeared) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUvK5m2vxro BBC video ] suggesting that smoke is from a direction of Saur-Mogila (= constant fighting) and a coal mine. <br />
::Thus smoke may be unrelated to the launch. Also timing of photo is unclear. <br />
:: Buk trail from unrelated launch videos appears considerably [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDXScnEKaP0 more impressive than on the photo] , and traces well visible trajectory, likely attracting attention of many people . But there appears to be no witness reports. <br />
::Buk appears to use [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_navigation proportional navigation method], and if so, its navigation control will try to guide it on a straight path to impact.<br />
::Unless it was doing something else (but can it??? the answer requires expert knowledge), it was most likely on a straight line trajectory which can be deduced from the impact direction.<br />
--[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 00:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Yes, an odd video. I'm not certain they even picked the right view, but it looks about right - I think she and Oliphant (Telegraph) point to the same monument as a landmark - a place of fighting. Seems like they got close, but didn't have a specific spot like U@W picked, and didn't find anything. As for angle, I think it can maneuver around, but would prefer to fly straight (not an expert, don't know what "prefer" means here). And if it was hit head-on like the impact marks suggest, then it probably did fly just about straight into the jet. Obviously if it came over the wing, and was fired from here, it would have to curl around, but I don't think that's the case. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
<br />
The satellite images cited at Ukraine@War are available if you have Google Earth. As explained [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/satellite-images-reveal-how-buk-has.html here,] there's a .kmz package you can download [https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxEeOqcjSE5uQXlkWkxKeVhDaEk/edit here] that loads on Google Earth new, murky images from July 20 (but the display still says August, 2013). The tracks he highlights are visible, faintly. There are a couple sets perhaps connecting - some could be local paths - there's no recent enough images to say there weren't there July 16. One important missing thing is a patch of burnt grass it seems should show up up differently - it's not identified there, and not evident right around these tracks. From this, it's not a great fit, except that line of sight pointing here. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Plastic Debris 1.png|left|280px]]So is the Telegraph site and the Ukraine@War site the same thing? Well, the Telegraph article says they went to the spot identified on a blog, but found, as the image suggests: Two possible launch sites – a rundown collective farm and a nearby wheat field – showed some track marks but no sign of any rocket launch whatsoever." It was a farmer plowing his fields there who pointed them to ''a field nearby'' that burned the other day, and that 's the unclear site they show. "The location of the fire lies on the supposed flight path of the rocket, and track marks – though indistinct – are present. Some unidentifiable bits of green plastic littered the site of the fire." There were also discarded bottles (type unclear) and apparently this oddity, shown in a photo but not mentioned - soft bakelite-type plastic ... thing, with years in the 1980s and 1990s stamped in it. It's all near enough to the rebel town, the Russian border, and concealed rebel positions that they think only rebels could operate there. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
First, let's note that author "P. Martin" connects these possibly relevant tracks with the surveillance video showing the Buk launcher driving south The Telegraph spot, from the burnt grass, must the spot the exhaust pushed off from, and the burn line should probably be to the northwest. There's no sign of that alongside these track marks found on that visual line. That's a problem, as the exhaust never said a luncher was driving around thataway, but rather launching from thataway. <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Telegraph Spot Mapped.png|right|380px]][[File:MH17 Telegraph Spot Cleared.png|right|320px]]Rather, it's the nearby "Telegraph spot" - not quite on his line but close - that [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com/2014/07/exact-location-pinpointed-of-mh17.html Martin thinks is the EXACT location] That, he thinks, is in the next field south. It should be visible in the updated imagery, but it turns out this is just off the edge of the area they provided, so it can't be verified or ruled out based on that. The inset graphic shows this cut-off line, his previous possible firing locations (track-based, seemingly un-burnt, in yellow) The spot yields a best placement with coordinates already noted by Petri in a section [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Map#Buk locations and flight paths|here.]] (I picked out the spot myself, best guess, and got the same but 3 seconds east) It can't be checked like that for the telltale stripe to the northwest, but it looks pretty likely to me. The main view down the tracks (left half of the panorama above) would be looking south, and the near line of trees on the right running west. The pretty obvious tracks he identifies as likely launcher tracks, and they do seem to curve in where it stopped. Otherwise, to me, this has more the look of a pre-travelles semi-road on the line between fields. Either way, it probably drove that way, and fired from here, and not from the un-burnt spots north. All the tracks he notes, none certain in themselves, are supported in their possible relevance by this being what's at the end of the trail. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC) and [[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Added in November, the image below that. I noticed Google Maps had new post-crash imagery up, and re-checked the spot for burn marks, since it was just off the grid before. This replacement - overlayed with translucence - seems too late. The strip most likely to show the signs has apparently been harvested/cleared before this image Some will say that constitutes a coverup. And it might, but probably just out of stupid reflexive nervousness. I just wanted to measure its angle and stuff. There is a nice track right up to the spot, likely pre-existing and just unclear before, and what they used to get there. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Location Challenged ===<br />
<br />
The above stuff, as of now and as I've been running it mainly, seems to bear out the vaunted "social media sleuths" placing the launcher and probably the launch in "separatist-held territory." I agree with all locations provided, and times too. Everyone acknowledges date is less sure. There are compelling clues pointing to concrete firing spot, that seems to be lined up the hit the jet head-on, as it's starting to seem the airliner was hit. In this narrative, the questions people should be asking is who was really running that. But readings differ, and some differing views can be considered here. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* [https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByibNV3SiUoobnpCVDduaHVORHM/edit?usp=sharing MH17 Analysis] – CDN <br />
<br />
Petri posted this to the front page, a 25-page report with many graphics and explained reasoning. One of its conclusions, based on range to impact, mainly, meant that "the missile that downed MH17 was not fired from Snizhne." At the moment, I disagree. Petri, who is CDN, and are they soliciting feedback? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::The anonymous PDF was published via Saker's blog: [http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/08/detailed-expert-analysis-of-mh17-downing.html Detailed expert analysis of the MH17 downing] "CDN" has [http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/08/detailed-expert-analysis-of-mh17-downing.html?showComment=1407347983141#c8862773971299986141 responded] [http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/08/detailed-expert-analysis-of-mh17-downing.html?showComment=1407350196815#c7564049628743605813 twice] in the comments. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 00:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
I think these might be part of what threw the author(s) off:<br />
# the heading seems to be off, too southerly to trace back like that. At the end, maybe close enough<br />
# possibly too-wide debris field starting too early - final breakup likely E-NE of their spot (ie closer to in range)<br />
# Wrong presumed angle of impact <br />
# Lack of knowledge, specified on page 23, of this contrail image or, obviously, the supporting clues pointing to what might be "the Telegraph site" excluded here. "Why are there no images of the rebel missile and its impressive launch contrail?" Oops, there is and it point there. <br />
--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: I just skimmed it before coming here. It was posted [http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.de/2014/08/detailed-expert-analysis-of-mh17-downing.html over here] where you can join the discussion (which I haven't read yet just saw that Petri is there chiming in in comment 2 of currently 93). I think it's first valuable in presenting the known capabilities of the Buk etc. If your stuff above is true and it is one single truck with one single TELAR that was seen in the different locations, then it shows quite conclusively that the Telegraph position can not be the launching point, because even if the Ukie claim of disappearance from Radar 50km from the Russian border is not true, due to the position of the debris it could only be further away, not closer, which adds to the argument. My 2 cents for the moment. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
: Oh, not directly related to the critique, but driving around with a huge phone number that leads to a Titan security of all places is more than a bit suspicious, I'd say. ;o) --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: "the Telegraph position can not be the launching point" if my "stuff above is true and it is one single truck with one single TELAR that was seen in the different locations" - how? "because even if the Ukie claim of disappearance from Radar 50km from the Russian border is not true, due to the position of the debris it could only be further away, not closer, which adds to the argument." Huh? I think the field is placed really vaguely in that report, and that's what sets the impact point - it looks maybe kilometers off, to the west. Placed right, the implied impact point is further east, ie closer to the launcher. It is a valuable report, but that point should be re-checked more carefully before I could be convinced to write off all the other evidence pointing there. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::: Take a careful look at pages 9 and 10 of the PDF. Place the spot to where you think it's "right". Think how that would change the picture. The argument is based on the empirical location of the debris and unless I've missed some serious flaw in the numbers and basic calculations made on the pages leading to that, I think it's by rule of thumb a very sound argument. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 13:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::: I'll do my own soon - I can say it would end further east, relative to the border there, and probably start further east too, but maybe I'm unaware of some outlying debris - but first a though on the debris field I just had, even more relevant than size and placement - what does it actually say re: the plane? He presumes it would follow the trajectory east. Not much, really. With only so much momentum and breaking up, with five miles to fall, the main factor will be wind. Even a breeze has five miles to act on it. That was so with PA 103 - the wind was about perpendicular to the path, and that determined just where stuff scattered on a line across the borders area right to the north sea - only the cockpit and a few things were off much from that line. Here, if it blewa along the flight path, the reasoning would work fine. If it blew back, to the west, the plane was probably shot further east than the field suggests. Ie, closer yet to in range. The Zuhres video above shows wind apparently to the northwest, and pretty strong. Worth a review and re-think in that light. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 14:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::: With an initial speed of 907 km/h I see no reason to take wind into serious account. I see no reason at all for going into more detail in this rule of thumb argument, not on the debris, not on the alleged launching point. But I'm as always looking forward to what you can come up with. ;o) --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::: btw there's no exact calculation of the traveled distance of the falling pieces, it's just found plausible resulting from other data. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::::: There's good reason. [http://martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/PA103_debris.gif past precedent.] I did read it wrong - the blue oval is about right, I thought the scale by it, which is way off. That's the 20 km drift - if the wind was blowing due east at the right speed... to the near edge of the oval and 30 km to the far edge... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 15:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 four last points.png|center]]<br />
<br />
Debris fields as shown in MH17 WSJ data combined.jpg. The two tracks, 118 per Flightradar24 and other sources, and 111 from a Russian graphic (see label C), just in case. They cross at point E just to look cool - superimpose wherever to visualize a track-back on these or any line between. <br />
<br />
The four red "last points", eyeballed onto the map as shown in the various graphics used here (all pretty approximate): <br />
<br />
A: last return, flightradar 24 (erred, I think, way too far along - I suspect some inherent offset...)<br />
<br />
B: Russian ATC last return, '50 km' from the border (vague description, likely close to accurate)<br />
<br />
C: end of 111 track shown in MH17 radar 1.png (maybe arbitrary, lower resolution)<br />
<br />
D: report, deduced point of impact (presuming 20-30 km flight due east after impact, wind app. not considered at all)<br />
<br />
E: My guess for breakup point, where the damaged front came apart (should maybe be further east, right over the south part of the first orange blob). Actual impact point, an unclear distance back. probably not very far - downward flight could start anytime after that, decreasing the lateral distance traveled) . <br />
<br />
The cockpit, aerodynamic, shows the most like forward trajectory of this, relatively minimal wind complication. The heavy forward parts had more drag, wound up NW of there. A bit further NW, the light, high-drag, punctured upper fuselage. That these parts aren't spread further out suggests the jet managed to descend some ways before the front totally fell apart, and/or that the wind was fairly light. From there, most of the plane remained together, kept more momentum and little wind effect, and crashed kilometers east. The last part of this plummet, about one minute seen on video, it was nose-free and essentially nose-diving. A slight north trend, perhaps curtailed eastward progress, largely just down, leaves it all hitting together by Hrabove, scattering woth the fireball trajectory and wind deciding where these bits landed. That it only got so far from the forward parts again suggests this breakup was fairly low in the fall - maybe just before the start of the one video. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I'd say forget point D, it is way too far west, this plane was not going to fly 25km once hit. On debris, I'd put breakup where the "f" is in your word "forward" and impact not very far NW of that, lifting the whole 118 line a little northwards. You can't bring breakup below impact and count on wind pushing wreckage "uphill" because that first group of wreckage included 37 bodies, which would not "sail". The impact would be enough to knock the course slightly south, to drop the cockpit at Rozspyne, where it turned NE to end up at Grabovo. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 03:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Thanks. D is the presumed point used to rule out this launch location, the original point of this sub-section. That dot fails by a good margin. My E and your guess are both north of the flight path, along which all the red dots are (this graphic is confusing, needs updating, if I didn't flatten it). I was thinking a NNW wind did the north and west spreading, but the records say the wind was flat "east" (to the west). I'm left suspecting now the plane banked hard left just before it started breaking up. Actual impact, just before that. The "C" label is pretty arbitrary, but it keeps seeming about right. On the imagined red line 1t 117-118, I dunno, maybe 20-30 pixels back. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::Winds are described as 'from' not 'to. So a wind blowing to the NNW is reported as a SSE wind.<br />
::::A slip - I'm trying to say it that way now. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::Getting on to the wind. The actual breeze direction is usually a function of altitude - veering or backing from ground level observation. It can easily be 90 degrees out from ground level. You need to look at the vertical profile used in aeronautical soundings to see where debris will in the main blow to. --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 11:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::Sounds like a real headache to map. There's also changes over time, where east at 5:00 may change briefly ten minutes later, or 10,000 feet up. All that seems can be counted on is easterly winds in general - no exception to that. And generally, even if they measure it at the airport, it must extend up to the clouds, which can be seen swirling east over the area. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::No it doesn't extend to the clouds except by accident. Major direction change can happen in hundreds of metres altitude especially at night. Examples of wind shift between ground level and 700 millibars (9800 ft) in day time can show a direction change of 90 degrees - e.g. North to West. This is significant with MH17 where the breakups occurred between 33,000 feet and probably a few thousand feet for the final disintegrations. --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 11:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::FYI Here is all about [http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/48/ Veering and Backing] --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 11:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::As for the spread issue, I'm re-thinking it. As for the bodies, it depends on a few things but I take your point - bodies are dense. And I didn't know that detail - worth considering. Also a sad side-note: most bodies would be alive and aware, from what I learned looking at Lockerbie. Lack of O2 would black them all out at first, but gravity makes it so there's enough in that final stretch those not dead already (the lucky few) would probably "wake up" in time to both feel their injuries and their fall, and to see the "separatist-held" fields rushing up to kill them. :( ---[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::: My indications are they were all dead when they hit the ground. That's not to say some didn't suffer from the first blast up there. Using my (very long ago) rescue triage training, I examined all the body photos for type of injury. The main findings were (a) almost no blood (as the separatist intercepted call rightly claimed) (b)a lot of legs at angles suggesting hip/pelvic fracture (a very common injury in air crashes to people wearing seat belts) and (c) all the bodies appear swollen (in first-day photos). We are thinking of what happened as a decompression, a low-pressure event. But that was preceded by the blast detonation of the missile just outside... a high-pressure event. The very high pressure shock wave compresses the blood vessels and severely damages the lungs. Blood pressure and heart rate go sky high trying to compensate. In 1/2 a second the blast wave is gone and they are in decompression.The heart can't adjust fast enough. The lack of blood flow makes the brain and liver swell up, too, so normal blood circulation cannot be re-established even if the heart recovers. The Lockerbie bomb, and various exploding fuel tank cases, were lower pressure explosions; sadly many would have survived those until ground/water impact.[[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 20:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::So there is evidence of blast wave, not _just_ decompression alone? But no shrapnel wounds? --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 21:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::(cut my comment - I had misread - taken to [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Debunked topics#Bloodless bodies – fake Facebook profiles?|bloodless bodies spot]] FWIW - but I disagree with both the lack of blood and the validity of many "separatist" communications, but if we're not arguing a planeload of corpses being shot down, I won't argue it much.) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
More to the point, leaving the above graphic aside, would be this newer one I should finally add. Basic straight path, 118 and placed as agreed by most sources. Alleged launch location, measures app. My best guess is a 2 km range from 22.75 to 24.75, weighted to the center. Or most likely about 23.75 km out (irrespective of actual projectile flight path, that's where it made contact, but this helps visualize how the alleged launch site might line up with [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Forensics#Direction of projectiles?|the directional forensics]]). --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
[[File:MH17 missile intercept distances.png]]<br />
::Straight line from launch is okay. But impact has to be further north, ie before the most westerly debris. You've used the map which assumes that debris to be blown back by wind. That can't be right, as it included bodies (too dense to blow back) and witnesses saw them and plane sections falling straight down. This only makes about 1 mile difference to the missile range, so does nothing to exclude that launch location. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 01:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::The map of spread is only app., some orange area I made. The pink dot and lines are from a map, Russian analysis, as you say apparently presuming a SSE wind. Debris including people ''would'' be blown back to some degree, all of it, varyingly; trajectory can only do so much when you have five miles of falling, with the breezes acting the whole time, and the lightest parts will be back a bit, whatever direction and as mentioned above, a SSE winds at some time or altitude still isn't ruled out at all). Do we know just where in that area those passengers landed, and what types of things are its far end? ? <br />
(<br />
:::I mean, you could be right and it's a bit further back, maybe with a continuation due east from there and no real wind effect except slightly back. It was only 9-12 mph, and maybe it fell halfway before starting to fall apart, which means less spread. I'm thinking about a possible left turn to explain the north aspect, or it could be wind, or being further back (more north, as well as west), or a combination. The turn has to be a certain size, the wind direction is not certain aside from east prevailin, ... whatever point best explains whatever happened ... we're down to a shrinking agreed range, and as you say, it's all within range of the one spot, so it's not ruled out after all. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 04:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
At this stay of play, I feel it will be helpful to have displayed prominently an overall map reflecting best guess on impact location as well as already flagged suspected launch sites, that is the two launch sites we have been discussing (near Snezhny ; near Chernukhino) , PLUS launch locations flagged and TIMED by released satellite data (currently only Russian data is available). I would be generous with the range here, we can find range suggested by public sources but presumably actual range depends on a number of things (height, radar range, trajectory, wind), and may exceed the "official" range. Another useful graphics piece info would be indicating the front lines, if there is a way to have those known. '''I would be extremely cautious with displaying graphics reflecting just one way of thinking (whether "worst", "best", or "middle of the way"), for the reason that any graphics is easy for human brain to absorb, more than words spread out on all our numerous pages, and ''no graphics at all'' is better than displayed ''skewed'' graphics.''' One-sided graphics may be '''inviting''' even more noise releases "supporting" some already skewed scenarios, and I feel that was already happening way too often. I feel that most helpful stance at this point would be as neutral as it gets. (Regarding trajectories, a default guess is a straight line, anything else requires an explanation. Straight line is implied so no strong need to actually display it, especially if it ends up curling in suggestive funny ways on graphics). --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 09:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::I've been doing a lot of graphics, so not all fired up for more. But if you are, I wouldn't mind making another if it helps. Maybe this is best taken to [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Map#Interception Location]] (a lot of this is redundant, and I might move it, but at least I can say let's stop piling intercept stuff here as well as there). Up to picking a certain spot around Chernukino? Some outskirts area, on a major road, it'll be a guess. A couple guesses could be mapped. Also, if it seems worth it, I can do updates and upload the new version as needed. Any timed satellite launches, let me know. Front lines, not known and IMO misleading in this case. Those who would know would try - and maybe manage - to sneak this thing behind them... the caution about leading labels, I can leave to you - you could just tell me what to put. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
:::::Would take me forever, may try later on, but not immediately; some cleanup/re-arrangement seems the easiest option. (If there are tools for collaborative mapping, may be good to start using those; but not aware of any) --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 11:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The preliminary [[Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Dutch preliminary report|Dutch report]] says the flight recorders were suddenly lost at 13:20:04 UTC at a point that almost exactly matches the 22.6 km mark. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 22:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Plume Location Re-challenged ===<br />
There is another video, essentially giving a bellingcat in voice-altered Russian. We discussed all that essentially; but he seems at least to end up with a claim for geolocation for the plume photo. Seems to be a new one (or I forgot the old one already by now). The claim is based on [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2055 unrelated panoramic photo] somebody took nearby, and [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2025 claimed to be geolocated by presenter]. Here it is on <br />
[http://maps.yandex.ru/-/CVG0nLo~ yandex map] ; it is taken from a terricon located at Lutuginskii bugor(=hill). There is a cableway from there to TsOF (remember, Khuevyi Torez tells about cableway from Lutugino to TsOF, so here they are); [http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=48.012722&lon=38.665695&z=14&m=b&show=/10590043/ru/ЦОФ-им-Киселёва TsOF is central enrichment plant]; photos from TSOF do show a similar [http://photos.wikimapia.org/p/00/00/62/81/85_big.jpg cableway] . So based on that and an audio of locals of unknown provenance and authenticity, discussing a missile-looking trail in the direction of [http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=48.041767&lon=38.741055&z=14&m=b&show=/18687650/ru/Химмаш Khimmash], our presenter [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2107 ends up] with this [http://maps.yandex.ru/-/CVG0rMnO claimed plume location] , somewhere near this Mochalino village. And apart from this, his contribution to the topic is the claim of a white spot on the other side of 3'2 Buk which he claims to match on the way out. I do not believe all those Buk sightings were taken on the same day, and so do not believe in the overall glue-up of the story, but geolocating the plume, no matter what the plume is, remains legitimate. This author gives his answer to that question. Is this geolocation correct? I do not know, it is not tight, there are lots of cableways out there I presume, and some posts nearby are not too unusual. I do not see a tight fit between Lutuginski bugor photo and the plume photo--some elements do match, but those are obviously not identical places. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 02:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Excellent. Let's keep the title. But I guess you just forgot the previous location. This is the same view. The plume could be added, but I doubt it, and it's to that view at a consistent time on a consistent day. I'm not convinced ''all'' Buk sightings are same day, but most of them being so is a good fit with this plume that way, and a plane down with damage that seems consistent to me. (I hate this case) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::Are you sure it's the same? This new one is NNE from Torez, I thought it was placed SE from Torez by [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/launch-location-detected-of-missile.html U@W ]--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::Going back to check, this is a different filming location proposed. Line of sight isn't included, but it seems to be the same line over the same area to the same place. Even before he could see the distinctive mound, Petros (U@W) had [http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-cfSqhRb2dKo/U80x2OxK1XI/AAAAAAAATNk/r42WpH-Bf-Q/s1600/missile+trail+9.jpg this lineup], which includes this spot. Right where Petros pic says "trees" is what this guy decided were the foreground trees where it was filmed. I wondered when checking but decided on the further version. And seems to be the same result either way. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::I don't think this is accurate, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2107 video at this timestamp] gives 'место пуска ракеты' (launch location) near [http://maps.yandex.ru/-/CVGgVPJN Molchalino]. I have not seen this elsewhere, I only seen the one claimed to be SE of Torez. He does not discuss filming location, but shows it on video and assumes it is in Torez near the terricon, which is close to what other sources assume. He does show the line of site on the video; it is nearly perpendicular to U@W. Lots of terricons, coalmines (so likely cableways), and power lines leading there in this area, so location now seems uncertain. As I understand, no solid evidence for either of these two being the correct geolocation (those cableways seems to be quite common) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::::I am/was confused then. I thought it showed a SW view, just from closer to the mound. Now I see at 33:45 a view from right by it, looking NE? Can't explain the other one you see in the distance in the fuller view (right ?) That's kind of towards Molchalino, but that won't explain anything I suspect. (and what a bad fake or odd coincidence to have a plume up there and a the Buk tracking imagery lead to south of Snizhne, oops!) We'll see south and west faces of buildings if looking NE, so sun will be shining from well east of south, but also quite high, like mid-day in the early AM - or maybe just earlier mid-day, like 11 am. That would be another sloppy mistake. I doubt the details will line up. BUT a couple minor things didn't quite seem to the other way, so maybe worth a try (later). --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I will send this comment also to<br />
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/01/27/is-this-the-launch-site-of-the-missile-that-shot-down-flight-mh17<br />
The US map launch location can best best and almost exactly located from the last magnified picture:<br />
https://wp4553-flywheel.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/32.jpg<br />
That location is here:<br />
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.9571993,38.7466343,488m/data=!3m1!1e3<br />
The triangulation result in the last 3 pictures of the article introduces unnecessary error and clearly does not match the magnified picture.<br />
There is a structure that looks similar to an airfield and it is just south of Chervony Zhovten (=Oktyabr), matching with a witness observation in that place ("it was flying as if from Saurivka", though not matching 2 other witnesses in the zello audio, indicating it came from government held positions further south, [2:00] "Well, it appears everybody saw where the missile has flown from." [2:04] "Well, where you are, everybody saw it, but the Ukrainian media, as usual, will say, will say that that were us.")<br />
It would be outside the range of the plume picture geolocation bounds, which may be either an error given the long distance, or, the plume picture was taken the day before from the reported grad missile launch (as well as the burned field). (The photographer gave his camera to the SBU after twittering the first picture, so later pictures and dates can not be taken for sure).<br />
http://7mei.nl/not-buk-m1-new-video-proof/--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 19:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:(1) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkCcCmYlMZc That audio], as it turns out, was posted by Torezinfo on 24 July, and updated on 1 February. Torezinfo is a favorite posting place of Khuevyi Torez(=KT), who posted a very [https://twitter.com/WowihaY/status/489914266439671808 similar location map on 17 July already]. KT mentions zello recordings on 25 July in the follow-up, so shortly after it gets on torezinfo. With all that stuff linked to this KT poster, I would not put much trust that any of that is genuine. (Or that this KT poster is not acting as a medium for SBU). (2)[http://fr1.sidcdn.net/maps/nsdc/2014/07/large/map-nsdc-2014-07-17-uk-w3000.jpg Ukrainian map] does give us some Ukrainian held area somewhere to the South, but from that map it is hard to tell where exactly opolchenie ends and UAF begins--(I would not know) (3) Actually, going from there, not likely to hit on the left side--so having it from Artemovsk (as Bezler told, indeed) seems most probable --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 21:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:: Here is another map http://liveuamap.com/e/2014/16-of-july-saurivka-is-bombarded-over-and-over-by-rus-grad?ll=47.907137219641115;38.75392913818363&zoom=8<br />
::And here is an article which says that both Marinovka and Tarany were held by National guard. http://www.interpretermag.com/ukraine-liveblog-day-149-russian-tanks-and-artillery-reach-donetsk/#3353<br />
::I just opened bellingcat https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/01/27/is-this-the-launch-site-of-the-missile-that-shot-down-flight-mh17 and see that large parts of the article disappeared, I think they are working on it. That location given by the US photo does not really match well with the plume direction anymore, lets see what they come up with--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 21:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::I believe Marinovka was [http://lifenews.ru/news/136715 taken by opolchenie on 16 July] (lifenews report). Tarany--do not know, perhaps still Ukraine, but not totally sure. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 21:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::: other sources say attack was repelled and forced them to retreat to Stepanivka http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_in_Shakhtarsk_Raion http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/213817.html--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 22:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::: That US photo launch location differs by an angle of about 11 (?) degrees from the brown line in the bellingcat plot (measured from the photographer's location). https://wp4553-flywheel.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/101.jpg (launch location is just visible below the letter 'p' of 'the word 'suspected'). I think this a lot and puts the 'plume' into question. But then there is only the US photo, which itself could be a production based on social media (or worse).--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 22:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Well some believed this is for real, then they got a case to answer [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/22/mh17-us-intelligence-russia-separatists-report Guardian: Photograph: US intelligence community] [https://twitter.com/barbarastarrcnn/status/491559153559932928/photo/1 @barbarastarrcnn] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
In the following, I assume that most of the social media pieces and leaked audio tapes are correct and connect the dots in a different way:<br />
<br />
1. On July 14, an Ukrainian Antonow 26 airplane was shot down by a missile near the Russian border town of Donetsk.<br />
http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/what-weapon-was-used-to-shot-down-ukraine-air-force-antonov-26-at-july-14/<br />
The video in above link showed the missile flying for 39 seconds until it hit. Only a BUK can fly that long, a manpad or Pantsir, also claimed to have been used, not (see first comment in link).<br />
<br />
2. According to a recorded audio tape published by the Ukrainian Secret Service SBU, rebels possessed a BUK ('BUK3x2') in the Donetsk area at least since July 14 ('we already have BUK'). At that date it may have been either on Russian or already rebel held territory.<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVAOTWPmMM4<br />
<br />
3. A social media search discovered only one other system in the area, capable of shooting down AN26 - a Pantsir. However, a Pantsir can't fly for 39 seconds. Based on a max.speed of 780m/s and max range of 20km, it can only fly for about 25s.<br />
http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.co.nz/2014/11/unnoticed-video-of-26-downing-confirms.html<br />
Therefore and because of the crew's intent to engage in the civil war, it is likely that AN26 was shot down by BUK3x2. Afterwards BUK3x2 had only 3 missiles left.<br />
<br />
4. On July 16, Ukrainian and rebel statements both confirmed the shoot down of a SU-25 plane near the "Marinivka border crossing", which is only a few kilometers south-south east of Pervomaiske, the destination of BUK3x2. Ukraine's defence ministry said: "It is likely that [the hit] was carried out by air-to-air rockets from the Russian air force which were patrolling the border in a pair." <br />
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-28345039<br />
This may have been another reason to install a BUK system in this area on the next day, leaving room for an accidental Ukrainian shoot down, apart from an accidental rebel shoot down and a willful Ukrainian false flag shoot down.<br />
<br />
5. On July 16, rebels fired grad missiles from a location near Pervomaiske. The plume may have been photographed as well by an SBU informant in Torez and twittered on the next day, claiming to show the launch of the missile hitting MH17.<br />
http://7mei.nl/not-buk-m1-new-video-proof/<br />
<br />
6. On July 17, BUK3x2 was seen in rebel territory on its way to Pervomaiske, south of Torez. Ukrainian SBU knew about the arrival latest since July 14 and about its destination latest July 17 morning, allowing a false flag operation from positions held nearby.<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVAOTWPmMM4<br />
<br />
7. There was an ongoing battle in the region with "fluent" contact lines. Marinivka and Tarany, about 8 kilometers south-east and south of Pervomaiske, were controlled by Ukrainian National Guard as well as all of the border region. Marinivka would match well with the direction of the Torez plume photo.<br />
http://liveuamap.com/e/2014/16-of-july-saurivka-is-bombarded-over-and-over-by-rus-grad?ll=47.907137219641115;38.75392913818363&zoom=8<br />
http://www.interpretermag.com/ukraine-liveblog-day-149-russian-tanks-and-artillery-reach-donetsk/#3353<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_in_Shakhtarsk_Raion<br />
<br />
8. The Russian Defense ministry claimed in a news conference, that on July 17, Ukraine installed several BUK system near rebel held areas.<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bNPInuSqfs#t=1567<br />
<br />
9. In a popular 'zello' audio recording, witnesses in the area were talking about the launch of the missile hitting MH17. A witness from "Oktyabr" (Chervony Zhovten) claimed "it was flying as if from Saurivka". <br />
Two other witnesses said:<br />
[2:00] "Well, it appears everybody saw where the missile has flown from."<br />
[2:04] "Well, where you are, everybody saw it, but the Ukrainian media, as usual, will say, will say that that were us."<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkCcCmYlMZc<br />
<br />
10. A Reuter's witness also claimed that the missile was fired from Kiev held territory. Reuters, however, said, "off camera, he said that it was launched from a nearby rebel site. Asked why originally he said the opposite he said it was because he was afraid of the rebels."<br />
In a new interview this witness claims that "off camera comments were just made up by the [Reuters] journalist".<br />
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=497_1427729491<br />
<br />
11. BUK3x2 was again photographed in Lugansk with its 3 missiles, no missile fired since July 14.<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4HJmev5xg0<br />
<br />
12. The US presented a very low resolution satellite photo with the track of a missile added. The launch location does not match well with the direction geolocated with the Torez plume photo, it deviates by about 11 degrees in angle, hence either or both appear to be incorrect.<br />
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/01/27/is-this-the-launch-site-of-the-missile-that-shot-down-flight-mh17/#comment-12493<br />
<br />
13. Award winning investigative journalist Robert Parry reported about leaked US intelligence "that U.S. intelligence agencies do have detailed satellite images of the likely missile battery that launched the fateful missile, but the battery appears to have been under the control of Ukrainian government troops dressed in what look like Ukrainian uniforms."<br />
https://consortiumnews.com/2014/07/20/what-did-us-spy-satellites-see-in-ukraine/<br />
And later Parry wrote: "But I’m now told that U.S. intelligence analysts ... are concentrating on the scenario of a willful Ukrainian shoot-down of the plane, albeit possibly not knowing its actual identity."<br />
https://consortiumnews.com/2014/08/03/flight-17-shoot-down-scenario-shifts/<br />
<br />
14. During the coming months BUK shrapnel may have been collected from the AN26 wreckage and planted in the MH17 wreckage.--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 00:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Photographer Statement===<br />
[http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com.au/2014/12/interview-with-eyewitness-who-made.html Reported to say] : "That day did not foretell anything special would happen. In the morning I woke up and went to my work. At four ó clock in the afternoon I arrived home. And at 16:20 we heard an explosion. The first explosion was not very heavy. 15 seconds later, something like that, there was a second explosion, which was louder and it made the windows shake."<br />
: Did not foretell --an ass, --is this lawyer-written? 'We heard". --Took till December to polish up ? --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 16:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:: Agreed. 'I did not know in advance this would happen.' Uh, who said you might? And 15 seconds must be rocket travel. Did he hear the firing from there? Could be, not that far. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Time delay consideration ===<br />
Photographer reported two sound booms td=15 seconds apart; an interpretation may be launch and impact sounds arriving to him in Torez. If P=(0,0,0) is photographer cordinates, I=(d,0, h) is impact, with d ground distance between Torez and Rozypnoe, h is the height of flight at 10 km , and L =(x,y,0) is launch location, dist(A,B) is Euclidean distance between A and B, c is peed of sound, and n (about 2.5) is missile speed in Machs, then<br />
<br />
(1). dist (P,L) = dist(L,I)/n + dist (I,P) - td*c <br />
<br />
(2). dist (P,L) >= h/n + dist (I,P) - td*c <br />
<br />
(1) is a biquadratic equation for y given x (square enough times for square root to disappear); plotting that gives a closed 'ellipse-like' curve on (x,y) plane; once on that curve, time delay is exactly td seconds (doing this involves solving quadratic equations and removing spurious solutions not satisfying (1) ) . That curve is at distance about 13 km in NW direction from photographer in Torez, and about 22 km in SE direction from him on the Southern ( Saur Mogila side). <br />
<br />
(2) gives a simple estimate that distance between photographer and launcher is greater than the known right hand side; that distance is more than something like 13 km<br />
<br />
(3) Requiring launch withing the range, --launch is not more than 20 km horizontally from the impact-- selects a NW arc of the curve described in (1) ; that arc is to the NW from Torez, and goes slightly NW from the impact point (meaning its ground projection). <br />
<br />
Conclusion, based on the above, is that launch is too far from the photographer, to match the photo. <br />
<br />
(Knowing exact time delay can tighten the argument. With what's actually known, and objection can be raised that whatever actual time delay was, it appeared to be 15 seconds to the photographer. Graphics of the curve may be supplied if needed). --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Ooh. That kind of math could really come in handy with recorded audio cues, for example. But based on '15 seconds, something like that,' from memory months later, I wouldn't put any weight on it. If that turns out correct and pretty exact, there's a good point. Otherwise, the photo and other stuff is more solid, and says it's just about where it should be, as far as I've seen anyway. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Contrail ==<br />
This is what an "impressive launch contrail" of a big missile might look like.<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3lLwP1y0w8 АТО. Запуск двух ТРК Точка-У. Артемовск.] (ATO. The launch of two TRK Tochka-U. Artemivs'k.) – August 28, 2014<br />
-- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 22:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Something happens in the sky. This is the people's reaction:<br />
* ''20/09/2014 Over many parts of the DPR and LPR were seen circles in the sky.'' [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7310 1,] [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7311 2,] [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7312 3,] [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7313 4,] [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7314 5]<br />
-- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 03:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
Tochka U missile is single stage solid fuel, which is a mixture of ammonium perchlorate with rubber and aluminum powder (Russian [http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/tochka/9ch151.shtml "ДАП–15В" fuel] ).<br />
I could not find information on Buk with a comparable level of detail. Buk missile is single stage, solid fuel of some type, "dual-mode solid propellant (total work time - about 15 seconds)" [http://www.webcitation.org/67kZeZxeh] , [http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-9K37-Buk.html]<br />
Earlier "Куб" ("Cube") missile used [http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/kub/kub.shtml 'ballist' fuel,] [https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%85#.D0.91.D0.B0.D0.BB.D0.BB.D0.B8.D1.81.D1.82.D0.B8.D1.82.D0.BD.D1.8B.D0.B5 gunpowder] + plasticiser type (Russian "ВИК-2") at the start, followed by some sort of ramjet ("direct flow rocket engine") at final stage. It is not clear, but possible, that fuels and contrails of Tochka U and Buk are different. Here are some videos with Buk launch: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDXScnEKaP0] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EAtNpsXrgWs], and [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSXMhaFntrU a longer with stupid music version]. Those videos appear to be shot from a closer distance than Tochka U video; and a contrail on them does look quite impressive. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 10:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:The amount of smoke is highly dependant om Alumin(i)um loading. In general more aluminum is more 'oomph' and also more smoke.<br />
:On the other hand, it's common to alter the loading for other reasons. I refer to the Syrian Volcano (122mm variety) that started out as high Al-load and quite smokey but recent versions have low Al load but perhaps similar characteristics? --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 10:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Here is something that might be a BUK: Ukrainian AN-26 shot down from Russian border area on July 14th. Ukraine@war claims it as a BUK. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 10:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
* [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.fi/2014/11/unnoticed-video-of-26-downing-confirms.html Unnoticed video of AN-26 downing confirms shot down from Russian territory] – Ukraine@war, November 27, 2014<br />
** Video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoS4kgHxPnE Ukrainian Military Aircraft Su-25 Downed After Russian Attack Near Izvarino, July 16]<br />
:::Does not look like Buk, short contrail, --not all the way to the ground like on Buk video launches. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::It was a BUK. It flew 39 seconds in the video, a Pantsyr can't do this, see also first comment in this link http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/what-weapon-was-used-to-shot-down-ukraine-air-force-antonov-26-at-july-14/. Easy maths - at Mach 3 (1020m/s) it can fly for about 42 seconds (range 42 km, bit more because initially it is slower). According to the audio tape, BUK 3x2 was in the area on that day! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVAOTWPmMM4 Ukraine@war needed 5 months to find something else in the area, but the Pantsyr can't fly that long. This is how BUK 3x2 likely lost a missile.--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 21:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::::Well, yes, it does takes 42 seconds to fly 42 km at 1000 m/s , but that does not mean what we see '''must be''' a Buk. They start discussing that plane caught fire at 0:03 on the video already. We do not see what on hell is going on until some 30 s later. This plane likely was brought down by Igla or similar modern MANPAD. Possibly two hits, at 0:03 and another at around 0:30. Or it got on fire at the start of the video and than eventually went down (It is unlikely to have SU 25 pilot bailing out after Buk strike; or particularly likely catching fire as it's not aiming at the engine; contrail is weak for a Buk, too). Pantsir claims are much later from what I have seen,--- and no need for Pantsir to shoot SU 25. ---If something is there on SBU audio and some murky photo, does not mean it's all for real, and that what we do actually see all have to be linked to all that murky SBU stuff. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 22:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::::There may be some confusion here, just a recapture<br />
::::::First video https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xTT6BDRA8_k<br />
::::::0:03-0:11 buring object <br />
::::::0:17-0:33 contrail making a half looping<br />
::::::Second video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoS4kgHxPnE<br />
::::::0:29-0:39 contrail making a half looping + detonation.<br />
::::::ukraine@war http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/11/unnoticed-video-of-26-downing-confirms.html<br />
::::::says both videos show AN26 shoot down on July 14 (second video with wrong label SU-25)<br />
::::::says 2nd video impact at 0:39, claims missile has been burning for at least 39 seconds--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 06:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::::::After reconsideration, I would say ukraine@war is right, both videos show AN26 shoot down, but wrong, people were initially watching AN26 with engine burning and a second missile was fired. That missile was seen burning about 16 seconds in first video, and time has to be added to reach that altitude/location, so likely over 20 seconds. That would exclude man-pad, Pantsir (?), likely BUK, R73 air-to-air, ...--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 06:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Actually, it is interesting to know how contrail of Buk on a long haul launch looks like. It is said that it fires engine for some 15 seconds only (and unknown will it do less, if it can do away with less). That 15 seconds need to put it at a spot where it can reach the target with little, if any, engine work and doing turns only. It is not very clear how much targeting happens in the first 15 seconds, likely it does some; and it is self-guided and doing proportional navigation later on. Knowing details here allows to find exact trajectory, short of that thinking it goes straight to the collision point is a sensible idea. In any case, heavy contrail '''raising from the ground''', perhaps higher than the target is. Contrail is white, and stays put for a while. Seriously heavier than the stuff we see on social media. There are youtube videos of Buk launches giving an idea --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:These 15 seconds are wrong. Here is a video (start at 2:00) showing a SA-11 burn fuel for 35 seconds until its too far to distinguish. It is detonating at 42 seconds. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBlU2hHYJMg (I just copied the comment from here http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/what-weapon-was-used-to-shot-down-ukraine-air-force-antonov-26-at-july-14/ )--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 23:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::That video probably shows a modern version ('over horizon' capability was mentioned somewhere regarding modern developments; this one seems to be showing us something like that). 15 sec is coming from Russian sources [http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/buk/buk.shtml Зенитная ракета 9М38 выполнена с применением двухрежимного твердотопливного двигателя (общее время работы - около 15 секунд)]. Older versions also had shorter listed range. 22-25-35-42 km range, going through modifications. (Would be happier without 15 sec engine limit actually-easier to know trajectory) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::Actually what goes off is [https://digitalempire.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/9m38m1.jpg 9M38M1], the one supposed to have [http://pvo.guns.ru/buk/buk_02.htm 15 sec engine run], but the video lasts for 40 sec. This appears to be edited video, around 2:30 we got two tracks, than one slides right unreasonably for a natural recording. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 02:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::Since this is a point we haven't already covered around that I know of, I'll pop in for it. 42 seconds I gather is the time for the fuel to burn out and the thing to fall, like a grad rocket or the like can only do. But this is a missile with guidance, set to intercept a moving airliner. Therefore, app. 40-45 seconds is the longest, not the shortest, it can fly (or am I just confused?) But 15 seconds is plausible, depending. Still might be untrue, not trusting people saying stuff. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::::After the engine is off it is high up and and at high speed, still can fly until gravity acceleration brings it down, and is on guided flight -unlike Grad-because fins can move causing it to turn. Issues here are visuals (contrail all the way or only about 15 km in flight), and trajectory. With engine on for 40 +secs it will go straight to collision point doing proportional navigation all the way (exploding earlier if it needs to be). If it is only 15 sec, trajectory is less clear, it may for example use engine to climb high up, than do guided fall and proportional navigation to the target from a spot where engine delivered it (for low and close-by target, that may potentially end up with a hit from another side--some drawings from unclear sources were showing opposite side hits at under 1 km and direct hits at 10-15 km). Or it may use engine to end up on a ballistic trajectory hitting target (no side changing than). This is solid fuel engine so there is not much control on how quickly it burns off, that time is a set design feature. What we see on launch video is 40+ seconds of engine work-- will go direct to collision point in that case. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 12:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::::That's another clue that plume of smoke photo is not a Buk launch, that would give at least some 10-15 km worth of contrail, not a plume; with 40+seconds engine, contrail all the way to impact...(or else, launched from far away, over 40 km distance) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 12:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==About accents==<br />
<br />
[http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29109398 This report,] released one day before the preliminary official report, recycles visual imagery already discussed on this page, and attempts a new claim that a BUK crew spoke with Russian-'Muscovite' accent. The claim is made by (British-accent) actors representing 'eyewitness(es)', with a visual imagery of a car at unknown night-lighted location in the embedded video, and some text, provided in English. Regarding 'Muscovite' accent, first it is not easy to tell, for example [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBCfmlMkYMg this video] is Mr. Poroshenko speaking in Russian to a resident of Crimea, replying in Russian, and commented by a presenter, who is speaking 'Muscovite'. Although Mr. Poroshenko has a slight southern accent, there is little difference between the three speakers in practice. Moreover, actors and presenters can easily switch from Southern to Muscovite as required. <br />
<br />
Secondly, if somebody speaks 'Muscovite', this does not mean this person works for Russia or the rebels,--- he can work for any side (PS. No change of condition to the blue dumpster on Zuhres video was reported in this latest update). --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Thanks for bringing this. What a stupid report. "Three eyewitnesses, all civilians, separately told Panorama that they saw a missile-launcher in rebel-held territory a few hours before the Boeing jet was hit." Yeah, video shows the same. It was there. It probably shot down the plane. Accents, as you note, aren't the best indicator of anything, and even the reason sounds vague: the G thing, which even I know about (back to Olga/Olha). The "Russians" might even be Russian dissident mercenaries right from Moscow, for all we know. Who paid them? Their going up to the media and saying "you didn't see us" was not a good plan to stay secret. The witnesses: chosen at random? Directed to them? <br />
::''If correct, the Kremlin has to explain to the relatives of the 298 passengers and crew who died - including ten Britons - why Russian military personnel were allegedly seen in the area escorting a BUK shortly before MH17 was shot down.''<br />
:I think Russia could come up with a reason or two such allegations are made. Those ten Britons' tax dollars fund it. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: Hmm, this foreigner is confused by dat BBC talk: "If correct" ... doesn't that mean it ''wouldn't be'' merely "allegedly" but, well, correct? ;oP --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 23:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::It means "If {made up vague allegation) is correct....then "SHOCK HORROR CONCLUSION IS TRUE". this lets them be as wild or wide off the mark as they like and the magic "if correct" turns it true. Without any effort to check if it IS true in our understanding of that word.[[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 03:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::Another BBC weapon in its arsenal of innuendo and dissimulation is the quotation mark. Whenever they are dealing with something of dodgy provenance, or something of good provenance they want to weaken they put it in quotation marks. e.g. - ISIS beheaded 20 Syrians. becomes ISIS 'beheaded 20 Syrians' or 'ISIS' beheaded 20 Syrians or ISIS 'beheaded' 20 'Syrians' or ISIS beheaded '20' Syrians. No need for corrections later. Any version can be retrospectively justified or otherwise. --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 03:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== If Buk 3x2 Was in Russia ==<br />
Previously, it seemed quite likely the Buk launcher associated with the shoot-down was one of those owned and operated by the Kiev regime, simply snuck into separatist territory, maybe with some cover to make them even invite it in like a Trojan Horse. Then, I saw the November Bellingcat research on "Buk 3x2." As covered [[#Bellingcat and 3x2|above,]] this claims to match that unit with a distinct one seen three weeks earlier, driving in a military convoy well inside Russian territory. This is widely taken as clear proof the Russian military supplied the weapons, and it is strongly indicative of that. However, the general possibilities are worth laying out at this point.--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
All options below share these presumptions: <br />
* MH17 was brought down by the missing SA-11 missile AND/OR (in some cases) at least the launcher's appearance was coordinated to give that impression and is a clue to the plot <br />
* The videos and photos in question are genuine and not manipulated (my usual presumption, same here)<br />
* The Russia geolocations (many of them, making sense in context) are correct - Buk 3x2 as seen was seen in Russia, between Kurk, Stary Oskol, and a bit south of there (not verified but most likely correct) <br />
<br />
Presuming all that:<br />
* Buk 3x2 (seen in Russia) and the mystery one are not the same - this require paint job match and matching damage to the lip above the track to make a Kiev-owned unit look like that one. It's possible, but not the most compelling.<br />
* The two units are the same - it was in the convoy in Russia and also towed around Donetsk oblast July 17. <br />
<br />
If the unit is the same, there are a few possibilities for the nature of that connection, some of them silly or just there for logical fullness:<br />
* It was Kiev's unit and they snuck it over and into this convoy, and...<br />
** ... got it back later<br />
** ... the Russians kept it and used it for their own operation<br />
* It was Kiev's but some other way lost to the Russians <br />
* It was Russia's but Kiev managed to sneak over and steal it out of the convoy and then use it for the false-flag event<br />
* Same, but Donbass rebels then stole it from Kiev <br />
* It was Russian, and someone on the Russian side drove it over and then it was stolen by Kiev forces <br />
* Someone on the Russian side drove it over and it stayed in their control or handed over to their chosen parties, or transferred at the border - that is, no Kiev interference.<br />
<br />
So far, I'm inclined to call Bellingcat's reading (the last option, the widely accepted one) the single most reasonable one, though maybe outweighed by the ''combined'' alternatives. It's not fun to feel almost swayed to a view so close to Kiev's problematic narrative, but this is what I see, pretty basic. Some combined maybes go against the straightforward reading. As for other thoughts I might be missing, well, that's partly why it's here. Let me know, I'm all ears. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Starting from that reasonable if unproven last option, not one but three final types of possibility remain. If it was freely moving in convoy inside Russia, it probably belongs to Russia at the time. Presumed. However, it could be that...<br />
* '''A rogue officer''' at Kursk - maybe a closet Nazi who sympathizes with Kiev, hates Putin, or just took a bribe - provided this unit to Kiev. He would set up this convoy to anchor the thing in Russia, then send the shady unit on, with his own guys or to hand off to Kiev's, who took it from there as I've speculated. The strangely obvious manner it was displayed - on both sides of the border, with its number slowly fading away - is consistent with this motive + intelligence. <br />
* '''It happened as reported''' (one way or another) Putin's military signed off on the loan, apparently with a sent crew or maybe given to local handlers, who for their own purposes did fire that shot. The strangely obvious manner it was displayed is consistent with this + stupidity/sloppiness, providing proof that probably wasn't even needed, just helpful, to start the punishment. At that point, it would be a real problem about as trumpeted, and still I would suggest we consider what the real crime is under the circumstances, if the solutions pursued are fair, or if this is all just geo-politics and warfare by other means cloaked in a cynical disguise of concern for justice. ^ <br />
* '''Koo-koo (?):''' "as reported plus" - a mega conspiracy theory: it goes all the way to the top, and Putin is that rogue general selling the nation out, to demonize himself and Russia and be sure to get caught, in an elaborate staged play - Putin (or whoever's running things presumed to be run by HIM) is somehow controlled, his opposition scripted and ultimately geared towards provoking and achieving an expansion of "The West" into "The North." (I've always considered this possible, and one that's occurred to me more lately, and seems worth listing ... but I don't buy it. I'm going with "rogue officer" with a second bet on one of the other divergence points listed before that - unspecified. Third choice is "as reported.")--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::^ Not to apologize for egregious behavior if it really is that, but let's please compare this to the shoot-down of Iran Air 655 by the USS Vincennes in 1988. A US Naval ship illegally in Iranian waters shot down an Iranian passenger plane with 290 people aboard, despite all the safeguards and sensors working correctly (the consistent clues the ship's computers gave them saying "do not shoot" can only be overridden so totally by choice). But it was deemed by the US to be no crime, just accident and Iran's fault for being provocative, and useful in the effort to compel them to quit the war with Iraq they were just starting to win. In Ukraine, repeated Air Force attacks on rebel-held cities, often hiding their jets behind civilian airliners, might both justify arming the rebels with such defensive weaponry, and invite an honest mistake from a team running this machine in stand-alone mode. The SBU version however overrides this all: it was an accident, but the Russians' intent was never defensive, always planning to kill an airliner, just meaning it to be a different one. That would clearly be criminal in all regards, and it's a sub-set of "as reported" - not a very good one. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Sorry, I can't help you here as I don't share your presumptions. I consider it a waste of time and energy to connect dots that are laid out by "sources" like the SBU and Brown Noses - proven liars and at least in case of the former producers of fraud "evidence" - and therefore I didn't even read your logical chains based on them. Just saying to not make it appear that I agree. ;o) --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 10:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:Poking at specific presumptions could be helpful, but it all could go on and on and remain inconclusive anyway. And I take back what I say about leaning this way or that - I keep leaning different ways and on balance I'm feeling sort of weightless here. I think that comes through in the text... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I don't see the numbers matching, getting close is not good enough, and I quit it there. Yes, it is weird that they are close, and that this murky business is covered by Spiegel, but can't really help with any of that. There is lots of murky weird stuff going on all the time, can't change the whole world to stop it. (Also: the Russian Government would be fully capable of doing a painting job properly if deciding to starting painting at all, their food trucks are all nicely painted, etc; just too sloppy for them to be behind) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:The paint being what it is, between that and the bend and light patch below all lining up, I think we're down to the same unit, or faked to match, and the possibilities branching off those two. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::As discussed earlier, the dot is shifted off the middle, more on Russian video than in PM photo; in Russian video, number 2 has well-curved semi-circle; in PM, it is almost straight segment. Bad photos for comparison but it's off, as far as it's possible to tell. As for the skirt bend, too blurry and distorted on PM to tell; Russian video, I think it is actually dirt, not a bend. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Also, looks like two squares , a bit darker than background, over first digit in PM photo. Unclear is it paint or digital camera effect. Any sane person hiding something will paint over everything, not paint just specifically over the first digit. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::I think I got everything linesd up - it has to be de-skewed the same, and all ines up. You might be scraping bottom on this one. The curve is there, at its elongated part, at an angle. The dent/dirt looks the same, same place, relative to the light patch and all else. It's too much for coincidence by a couple of degrees. BUT I just shifted back to option ... should have numbered them. ... the middle starting option - image authenticity. I hardly ever call digital image fakery, and not calling it here, but... I still haven't checked the new (to us) June videos, so I'll stay presuming it might be okay - video's harder to fake than a photo. But on the other end, it all comes down to the one photo. That I noticed, no other views are close enough to say if these matching clues are present. (the bend, maybe). The squares you noticed, maybe a paint clue or just artifacting. It may too pixelly. I cannot really analyze the technicals properly to say. It looks okay, but possibly fishy too. Maybe the dirty windshield helps hid the painted in pixels to make this thing - just once - or maybe again in other images - look like that Russian 3x2 unit, exaggerated and going into rebel hands... Some kind of coincidences setting that up to work, but it's possible, and an expert should look closer at this picture. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC) <br />
::::I, --at the very start of discussion,-- zoomed picture on screen (by a lot), and measured length ratios (to the dot/ total panel length), parallel to the 2 sides of the panel, using ruler (millimeters one) over screen. I ended up with ratios in horizontal side of panel directions were off, by more than blurring; in vertical, could not tell-within blurring. This is not sensitive to skewing or zooming. So I don't think it's the same. May double-check measurement when have time; or somebody else can. Did not have time to try doing digital version of the same/similar method. Did not look carefully at comparison the 2 after de-skewing , but have an impression this is different; not that much skewing there; it looks essentially straight line on PM, skewing will not make circle into a line. May look at 2's some other time. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::::Finally took a closer look and PM was still off a bit on rotation and vertical-to-horizontal - in line with your observations. Still working out the adjusted graphic. The white is shifted a bit left of lining up perfectly... I think it's still close enough it's the same or is supposed to be, and not far enough off I'd call a bad fake - probably just pixel shift. Will see tonight. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 00:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Okay, I don't have a comprehensible graphic handy yet, but Maybe Resup is seeing what I am now. I was having a hard time aligning it all, so focused just one the one rectangle panel with the number. Still, on the PM photo I trace apparent edges, best line of dark pixels ... it lines up, proportion-wise, with the white spots on or a hair to apparent left. But when the whole image is placed by lining up that center, the rest of it doesn't line up - both sides seem shifted right, or the middle shifted left. (also the track areas appear far to the left, but they stick out a bit, and from the back angle flattened like this, that's why. Each difference in relief from "true flat" plane of the side will cause this... maybe I'm just not correlating it right, and maybe it's a clue the photo is messed with. possible offsets in both white patches as well, but maybe too in the natural fuzz zone. ?? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
If the launcher was driven over the Russian border, fired once then driven back again after it had carried out its mission, the part of the story that doesn't make sense is the sighting on a stolen flatbed truck outside Donetsk. If the Russians were prepared to supply a launcher but not a truck, the stolen truck would have had to be driven to the border to be loaded and there'd be no reason to risk a journey back to Donetsk. The west to east journey is more consistent with CL's original suggestion of a launcher from the Ukrainian base north of Donetsk. If this was a false flag, there would have had to be a paint job to give it Russian markings (maybe to match one in a recent video). Otherwise the videos would point to separatists with a captured Ukrainian BUK, leaving the Ukrainian government liable for failing to close its airspace when it knew that a BUK had gone missing. [[User:Pmr9|Pmr9]] ([[User talk:Pmr9|talk]]) 16:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:Now this sounds engaged, thanks P. Yes, why drive it to Donetsk? (Other than to be seen in the smoking-gun rebel capitol, before getting seen in Lugansk too) And I never thought of that why it had to be Russian. Indeed, for liability reasons, it had to be a snuck-in surprise, not captured (unless they could come up with a reason why they didn't learn about it, and I suppose they could). The suggestion has problems and was slow to gain adherents, but maybe this kind of thought has swayed people to realize Kiev "must be right" about that... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Sunday Times story: original is behind paywall but reprint [http://malaysiandigest.com/news/531506-ukraine-ignored-warning-to-close-malaysia-airlines-flight-mh17-airspace-before-tragedy.html here]. Eurocontrol's experts "spoke privately to their Ukrainian counterparts" about their concerns but Ukraine refused to close its airspace. "Ukraine intelligence sources said they had been made aware that several anti-aircraft systems had crossed from Russia into Ukraine at least a week before the MH17 incident. But they claimed the intelligence was not “100 per cent reliable” and could not have been used as grounds for 'drastic moves' such as shutting airspace". [[User:Pmr9|Pmr9]] ([[User talk:Pmr9|talk]])<br />
:::Okay, well there's a train headed this way then. Several units? The whole June convoy? We do have this alleged maybe-Buk launch just before on July 14, an associated loader seen later, etc. And Ukie intel somehow did point to this number "312" you can't see on the unit they tracked so quickly. Did they already have that obscure Russian video everyone missed until now? And more yet showing the "1" still there? That early on? (that's all very speculative, but interesting). It has to be snuck in, maybe, but then it helps that you can vouch for it - so they fudge and average this aspect. Main point then seems to be, whatever failures they mumble out on their own end, it has to implicate both Russia (provided weapon) and the rebels (held the space needing demonized).--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references /></div>Antidyatelhttps://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17/BUK_Tracking&diff=22564Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/BUK Tracking2015-06-06T07:26:56Z<p>Antidyatel: /* Bellingcat and 3x2 */ BUKS WITHOUT LABELS</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:MH17]]<br />
==Who Has the BUK Launchers in Ukraine?==<br />
=== Kiev's Holdings ===<br />
<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3MomxNHnUA#t=288 Ukrainian Buk in ATO area], 16 July 2014. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 23:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CBQbFC9loc#t=350 Captured map] of 1 battalion of UAF 95 air-mobile brigade, dated beginning of July 2014, show location of 2 positions of Ukrainian Buks. Basurin points them on the map; but video resolution is insufficient to see those. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 05:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Maps can be faked, but still I'm curious what it shows. I imagine there might be a flat image of the map somewhere. Resup, could you maybe have a look? It's too slow for me to try an image search with translated words. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
::I have not seen the map in news reports mentioning the finding; and now I see it says explicitly that they are not going to make it public, [http://real-info.info/novorossiya/13429-vlasti-dnr-ne-budut-obnarodovat-karty-vsu-do-okonchaniya-rassledovaniya-krusheniya-mh17 until MH 17 investigation is completed]--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 23:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::Here is a press conference report--with video but not the map --[https://vk.com/strelkov_info?w=wall-57424472_57351 (Basurin press conference)]--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 23:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
-Antidyatel June 6, 2015.<br />
It is possible to understand what it means when they say Ukr army controlled territory. But what us rebel controlled territory. Even if we take the maximum estimate for rebel numbers in July 2014 of 10,000 fighters, it gives a fraction of a rebel per square km, if we assume uniform distribution. In reality rebels very concentrated in Lughansk, Donetzk, Saur Mogila, 2 cauldrons. So everything else is free for all territory. When MSM declares rebel controlled territory, they just rely on Kiev's maps. Very reliable source.<br />
<br />
<br />
----Antidyatel <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==== BUK 312 and comrades ====<br />
[[File:Buk 312 sbu.jpg|thumb|left|BUK 312 on a trailer. Photo shown on SBU website and later removed. – ''[[:File:Buk 312 sbu.jpg|more...]]'']]<br />
Part of the material the Ukrainian SBU released to suggest that "rebels" shot down MH17 with a BUK, was photo material showing a BUK TELAR numbered 312 on a trailer, alleging it has been photographed on its way back to Russia. This was quickly shown to be extremely questionable as evidence surfaced showing number 312 in Ukrainian hands. The SBU then removed the photos from their website while other material like a suggestive photo showing a "plume" remained there. <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Buk 321.png|thumb|TELAR 321 as posted by @MOR2537 to illustrate what he alleges to have witnessed]]<br />
This was outlined (and a screenshot saved) in more detail [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/07/21/the-mh17-investigation-and-buk-312/ over at Human Rights Investigations]. A [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bj-VZB0ZdEA video embedded there] shows BUK 312 in Ukrainian hands back in March. The other two TELAR's seen in the video are numbers 323 and 321. BUK 321 [http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Ukrainian+government+forces+maneuver+antiaircraft+missile+launchers+they+transported+north+west+from+Slavyansk+eastern+Ukraine+Friday+July+2014+Photo+Dmitry+Lovetsky/10004193/story.html has been seen] in Ukrainian hands just two weeks before MH17 crashed, transported close to "liberated" Slavyansk. <br />
<br />
Interestingly enough, one of the tweets [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com/2014/07/reconstruction-of-whereabouts-of-buk.html spoon-fed by Ukrainian loyalists to imaginative Dutch blogger Ukraine@War] to suggest that there have been eyewitnesses for a "rebel" BUK, is then [https://twitter.com/MOR2537/status/489709431467171841 followed-up by the alleged eyewitness] with a picture of BUK 321 to illustrate what he has seen. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::yep, he is a conduit for Kiev but seems to have outside info, too. Like originals of photos he can get geolocations off (he says). But also has good collection of very early photos etc which have since become hard to find.Not sure I trust him though. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 15:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::I hadn't seen that before, thanks. I'll be considering... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 22:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: More photos: [http://www.armyrecognition.com/images/stories/east_europe/russia/missile_vehicle/sa-11_gadfly/pictures/sa-11_gadfly_anti-aircraft_missile_to_armoured_tracked_vehicle_Russian_army_russia_011.jpg 321] - [http://rt.com/files/news/2a/b1/40/00/640x480.jpg 312] - [http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1870560.1405614701!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_970/correction-ukraine.jpg 321] --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:Buk 312 in Lugansk.png|thumb|left|According to alleged former operator "A", this is BUK 312 after relocation sometime in Spring 2014 in Metallist settlement of Lugansk, with Yubileynaya mines in the background]]<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmI2KCOt_sA Anatolii Sharii] version of events, shows that Buk blamed on Russia has number 312 and was earlier photographed as part of Ukrainian convoy. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 20:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Sharii interviewed a Ukrainian soldier who served on Buk 312; this can be found on [http://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/1947657.html Cassad]. The guy does not know about MH17; but recalls SBU claiming it was this Buk 312 responsible. From this interview, meaning of 312: 3 is division number, 1 battery number, 2 unit number in a battery (there are loading and command vehicles, not just launchers). This UAF Buk is initially from Luhansk; than relocated to Kramatorsk; than places in a field. A serviceman took it on a ride with hand break on, leading to a small fire affecting electrics and requiring repairs. So it was traveling on a trailer at some point. It was than moved to Dnepropetrovsk, village of Novogrigorievka (apparently for repairs, and after trailer photo was taken, but exact date was not given). Buks from Luhansk which were not broken were moved by UAF elsewhere (and according to the soldier, were photographed in variaous places including Gorlovka; while 3 broken Buks remained in Luhansk) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: Interesting. I see that the "[http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Ukrainian+government+forces+maneuver+antiaircraft+missile+launchers+they+transported+north+west+from+Slavyansk+eastern+Ukraine+Friday+July+2014+Photo+Dmitry+Lovetsky/10004193/story.html has been seen]" link to the Montreal Gazette is dead by now. If anything I'm surprised that it lasted that long. Minitrue at work. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 04:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: [http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2014/12/17/shooting-down-mh-17-buk-312-story-false- Here] (and mirrored [http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2014/12/17/buk-312-crew-member-says-rebel-shoot-down-of-flight-mh17-story-is-false-transcript/ here]) is an English translation of the interview. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: And [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2rRCSNp33I here] is the video itself with English subtitles. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 20:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:What you said about the accident and the photo showing the damaged BUK on a trailer is about the very photo the SBU showed on their website as "evidence" and later removed. Also adding that he says friends in Lugansk saw "rebels" trying to repair the units they had left behind, but he knows that "whole equipment units" were lacking so the remaining stuff was "unusable". And that he says that he asked his ex-comrades still operating the BUK if they dunnit, and they said they didn't. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Good to see this section expand. Interesting additions from the alleged operator, and reasonable-sounding (the photo might show smoke stains to the back left side). But in the end, this issue might be not so relevant. I doubt it was Kiev's unit 312 that was used, and seeing how Kiev always was eyeing a supposedly Russian unit 3x2, maybe 312 ... In fact, if the middle number connotes unit number, and it's done the same, the launcher is always 1 and it would be 312 (or is that mixed-up?) So maybe all this really shows is how Kiev knew but didn't want to say all along, implausibly picking their own 312 to illustrate that knowledge with an embarrassing but harmless "error", while awaiting ... as it turns out, the independent Bellingcat investigation that finds 3x2 somehow in Russia... That tracked this ludicrous Buk field trip, as presented and followed on this page, which almost seems tailor-made for them, but Kiev wants us to know they they were secretly on the ball too from the start. (all thoughts in progress, a bit distracted too) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::::If SBU wanted to point out they knew the TELAR had number 312, why would they publish the photo in [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmI2KCOt_sA such a low resolution] that the number could not be read? -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 21:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: As Resup summarized, 1 is the battery number. The leading 3 means it's from the Lugansk division. If this is true, the fact that 312, 321 and 323 have been seen together on video in March perfectly fits with what the alleged operator said: That they were removing units in usable state from (all batteries of the division) Lugansk early on, leaving the crap behind. And the view that the SBU just published everything they could find to fit their tale that the "rebels" used a BUK to down the plane, including this photo, cut-together and taken out of context audio tapes and that ridiculous "plume" pic, and the 3x2 bellingcat nonsense from lately is meant to distract from these facts, is much simpler and straight forward than what you tried to come up with here on the fly. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::Ah, I see it now, not when I was typing, sorrys. Middle number could be anything, bust mostly we always see low numbers, so odds are good it was a "1". 3 means from Lugansk if that's true (presuming so) and it's Ukrainian. Diff. number paintjob though, as noted below. But I'm sure the Ukies just faked this exact 312 to a different style of 312 and then painted it out partly, and just let it slip with the one photo of how it looked before...? We'll have a hard time agreeing here, as the stuff you just dismiss as "nonsense" looks kind of like possible evidence with details I'm sort of trying to consider. I don't see how you can just ignore it as if it must be wrong somehow, and all made up to distract from ... this 312 disguised as 3x2 theory? Where it wasn't even at the end of that fake plume anyway and might be totally irrelevant or entirely fake? Or, what am I missing? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::Didn't you say that you haven't even watched the videos and checked the geolocation/origin yourself, if they really are from Russia etc.? Well, I certainly won't. Because I have no reason to believe that the sources are more truthful with the "evidence" than they have been before, and that track record is well established. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::::Yeah, which is why I'm neither in a good position to say they aren't wrong/fake, nor to go against my usual presumption it will be sound (has been so far, on this subject anyway) And by the supposed stills compare to supposed satellite imagery, it looked like a good match (I did skim the site once I could). I don't like the implication either, and I want it to be wrong. And it may well be, but I'll want to see how. And hey, there's a whole other section or two about this below... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
:::: I watched the video [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bj-VZB0ZdEA with the Ukie BUKs in March] again. There are actually more than the three I mentioned earlier. It starts with 323, which is not a TELAR. Followed by the two TELARs 321 and 312. Then comes what is also not a TELAR but what looks differently than 323: Number 301. Followed by two more TELARs, 331 and 332. So they could all be from the Lugansk division, parts of batteries 0 to 3. But one would suspect that the batteries are internal always numbered the same way. "A" says:<br />
::::: ''BUK is a complex of 4 specialized military vehicles: command post, mobile target detection and assignment station, loading and starting station, self-propelled fire installation.''<br />
::::So if 1 and 2 are TELARs, why are there two of them and why is 301 what could be the detection station with a radar? Is 323 a loading station? --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::::Too rusty, but good questions. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::: Ah, I think we can sort this out [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SA-11 thanks to wikipedia]:<br />
:::::''A standard Buk battalion consists of a command vehicle, target acquisition radar (TAR) vehicle, six transporter erector launcher and radar (TELAR) vehicles and three transporter erector launcher (TEL) vehicles. A Buk missile battery consists of two TELAR and one TEL vehicle.''<br />
:::: So our "A" didn't mean that a battery consists of 4 vehicles, but that the whole BUK consists of 4 different kinds of vehicles, some more than once. From this I deduce that "0" is for command and detection units (here our main radar 301) of the Lugansk division 3, and the batteries 1,2 and 3 each consist of two TELARs (numbered 1 and 2, here 312,321,331 and 332) and one TEL (numbered 3, the first vehicle in the video, 323). Makes sense? --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 13:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::Russia said Ukraine had 27 BUK launchers in the crash area, i.e. one brigade, or what ever comes in the hierarchy above battalion. If all units are numbered the same way, from 101 to 333, then one TELAR in 18 should be numbered 312. Maybe [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:9K37_Buk_of_the_Ukrainian_military,_Independence_Day_parade_in_Kiev.JPG not.] Russian numbers seem to reach higher. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 01:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::::Good find. The existence of 114 and 115 makes it more complicated. The [http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buk_M1 German Wikipedia article] says, contradicting the English one, that one battery consists of one command vehicle, one main radar, four TELARs and four TELs. But if that's true, there's no logical place for Radar 301, and why would one TEL be number 3 and the other three TELs numbers 6 to 8? --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 10:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
How to read BUK numbers<br />
This is how you decipher 312:<br />
<br />
3 stands for the third (Lugansk) division,<br />
1 stands for the battery number, ours was no. 1,<br />
2 stands for one of the 2. service units in each battery, ours was no.2<br />
<br />
according to a Ukrainian who explains it was "his" bUK (but not in his hands at the time)that shot down MH17. One of th many reports [http://www.opednews.com/articles/Shooting-Down-MH-17--BUK-by-Michael-Collins-Buk-312_False-Accusations-Of-Terrorism_False-Flag-Attacks_Mh17-Airline-Crash-141217-104.html about this interview] This claim is now superceded by the Capt Voloshin air-to-air claims. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 15:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
That solder knew nothing about who shot the Boeing. He was talking to Sharii, who previously made a video showing that Buk shown on SBU website is actually Ukrainian Buk 312. Later, the soldier emerged, saying that Buk 312 was his. (Claim of this one shooting Boeing is not his, it is SBU early claim) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 16:48, 26 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
While Voloshin story may be a play on destroyed by SBU evidence. There is supposed to be a log of flights, missiles fired, likely those logs no longer exist. Also before they claimed SU 25 were lost on 16 of July, but SBU denial of Voloshin story had SU 25 shot on 17 of July. And that Dnepropetrovsk airport traffic control lady vanished without a trace. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 16:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Supposed 321 belonging to KIEV<br />
::video shows three BUk sets [http://eurazya.today/2015/04/11/about-the-buk-312-who-allegedly-shot-down-mh17/ from 0.31 mark] but I can't really pick the number, they say it is 321. at Gorlovka in March. One on a white lowloader. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 12:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== Russian claims ====<br />
As part of their July 21 presentation of evidence, the Russian Ministry of Defense published satellite images allegedly showing Ukrainian BUK positions around Donetzk ([http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ RT report]). It's no secret the Ukrainian military maintains a base with anti-aircraft units. The facility shown in the Russian presentation (best seen [http://rt.com/files/news/2a/9a/00/00/4.jpg here]) I located - it's south of Avdeyevka, 3 km north of the airport, about 5 km north of Donetsk like they say. Visual match first, then noticed the label could have found it for me ... [http://wikimapia.org/#lat=48.0999781&lon=37.7578908&z=16&l=0&m=b&show=/16956839/ru/Зенитно-ракетный-дивизион-в-ч-А-1428&search=Donetsk on Wikimapia]. Labels, translated: Anti-aircraft missile battalion (in / h A-1428) One of the three anti-aircraft missile battalions ("Buk-M1"), located in Avdeyevka, Mariupol and Lugansk." BUK-type launcher photos included. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The counter-arguments to this at least sometimes fail. [http://www.interpretermag.com/mh17-and-moscows-magical-mystery-jets/ Interpreter rag] decided "the presence of Ukrainian government air defense systems is something of a red herring, not least given the clear evidence that the separatists had deployed at least one Buk system in the area." The side with a ''motive'' and clear, moving and likely operating units of the things on that day (see below) is irrelevant and shouldn't be considered because there's apparently also proof the presumed bad guys also had the units they needed to be so presumed. The very fact that separatists aren't ruled out means the other side should be free of any danger of being ruled in, and the separatists should ruled in just as automatically as they were ''before'' this social-media verification came in. This is clearly an irresponsible suggestion. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC) and --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Kiev's Buks Shuffled?===<br />
<br />
* From Russia's military press conference: [http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ RT, 10 Questions] - [http://www.ruaviation.com/docs/1/2014/7/22/83/ in more detail]<br />
:''3. Why was a large group of air defense systems deployed to the militia-held area if the self-defense forces have no planes?''<br />
:“As far as we know, the Ukrainian military had three or four air defense battalions equipped with Buk-M1 SAM systems deployed in the vicinity of Donetsk on the day of the crash. This system is capable of hitting targets within the range of 35 km at the altitude of up to 22 km.”'' <br />
:''4. Why did Kiev deploy BUK missile systems on the edge of militia-controlled zones directly before the tragedy?''<br />
:''“We have satellite photos of the places where Ukraine had its air defense units deployed in the southeastern parts of the country. The first three photos were made on July 14. The first photo shows Buk launchers 8 km northwest of Lugansk. You can clearly see a TELAR and two TELs. The second photo shows radars 5 km north of Donetsk. You can see two TARs along with other equipment and technical structures. The third photo shows air defense systems north of Donetsk. You can clearly see a TELAR launcher and about 60 military and auxiliary vehicles, tents for vehicles and other structures.''<br />
<br />
:''“Here’s a photo of the same area made on July 17. Please note that the launcher has disappeared. The fifth photo shows a battery of Buk missiles at the village of Zaroshchenskoye 50 km east of Donetsk and 8 km south of Shakhtyorsk on the morning of the same day. The sixth photo shows the same area on July 18. As you can see, the battery has left.”''<br />
<br />
Note: the <s>latter</s> fourth photo of July 17 has substantial cloud cover, but unless they happened to hide the launchers in those areas (or Russia's satellites waited until the area was covered) it appears the noted vehicles have left to go do something - on/by the 17th, where they say launchers appear and then disappear in a town closer to the crash on the 17th. Zaroshchenskoye [http://maps.yandex.com/?text=Ukraine%2C%20Donets'ka%20region%2C%20Shakhtars'kyi%20district%2C%20Zaroshchens'ke%20ville&sll=38.446008%2C47.98844&ll=38.517419%2C48.048098&spn=0.810242%2C0.300187&z=11&l=map on Yandex maps] - 13 miles SSW of the crash sitel, 9 miles W-SW of Torez..--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
On July 30, Vitalyi Naida, head of Ukrainian Security Service SBU’s counter-intelligence, came up with a series of slides ([http://euromaidanpress.com/2014/07/30/russia-fakes-mh17-crash-site-satellite-images-says-sbu/ short article], [http://www.sbu.gov.ua/sbu/control/en/publish/article?art_id=129610&cat_id=35317 announcement on SBU website] with link to [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ut1JExQKV-0 youtube-video showing the slides (presumably Ukrainian language)]) allegedly showing that the Russian material was "faked". He points to a patch of trees, claiming they had been cut down shortly before the 17th, while Russia's images show the trees intact. On August 1, the Russian Ministry of Defense published [http://eng.mil.ru/en/analytics.htm a rebuttal] advising that<br />
:''Instead of presenting hastily doctored evidence to the international community, the SBU could do with better control over all the mercenary units in the areas around Donetsk and Lugansk organized by Kolomoisky, Lyashko, Yarosh and others, who shell Ukrainian territory without any control from those in charge of the anti-terrorist operation.''<br />
<br />
The trees probably are cut down by now, but we'll have to wait for the true details of just when they were and when the image showing that was taken, or if the image shown is even of any one day and not a composite - "doctored" as Russia says. Other clues suggest launchers moving out of this area at that time: The [[#Paris Match Photo]] - ostensibly from the morning of the 17th - shows the infamous launcher-loaded truck seen in Lugansk, or one just like it, being carried on a truck belonging to a company just south of the missile base in northern Donetsk. That was seen carrying the launcher east out of town at 11:15 AM, purportedly on July 17 (and with the location completely fudged to say Snizhne, when it was only headed there).--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Zaro redeploy.png|left|600px]]The Russian military press conference said "The fifth photo shows a battery of Buk missiles at the village of Zaroshchenskoye 50 km east of Donetsk and 8 km south of Shakhtyorsk on the morning of the same day. The sixth photo shows the same area on July 18. As you can see, the battery has left." (#5 inset) The Ukraine@War blog's analysis decided this image as well was fake. That's mentioned [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com/2014/08/ukrainian-sbu-comes-with-conspiracy.html here] if not elsewhere. The reason: "the shadows of these BUKs have a different direction for all three of them. It means these were pasted into the image." I have to admit, it looks a bit like that. The trees have consistent shadows to the west, in a morning image. The furthest vehicle to the left has a visible shadow about like that. The other two don't seem to, and the one furthest right seems to have a shadow on the wrong side (looks like early PM). I wracked my brain just a little thinking of other explanations aside from just low resolution. Nothing much came up. Anyone else? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br /><br /><br />
<br />
<br />
: '''New video proves UKIE BUKS ACTIVE'''<br />
: video has surfaced, posted to Youtube on July 16, taken a few days before, showing a Ukie BUK radar [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3MomxNHnUA being rotated]. The reporter is taken somewhere in a helicopter and proudly shown the BUK. Segment starts around 4.17 in the chopper, BUK shown briefly at 4.45. Label does not say where exactly, just reads "Officers of Ukrainian Armed Forces patrolling in the ATO zone". <br />
: This ties in with claims that they were doing anti-aircraft exercises, probably in response to claims/fears the Antonovs were brought down not by the rebs but by aircraft from Russia. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 10:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::Thanks! We had this July 16 video [[Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17/BUK_Tracking#Kiev.27s_Holdings| elsewhere]], but here is a good place... The other video, from March, was not seen. There were few more early sightings of Ukrainian Buks, uncertain locations, with those 3** numbers; maybe should get a good place to keep them all --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::: Location of sighting is unclear. But according to some reports ([http://lifenews.ru/news/136731 LifeNews]), on July 16 UAF SU 25 was shot down from a height of 6 km by opolchenie MANPADs. That was near Russian border, --reports say the plane actually crossed into Russia, not far from Marinovka. It could be suspected by Ukraine that a Russian plane was involved, so it will be plausible to have Ukrainian coverage of the accident area by BUKS. On July 14, it was reported that [http://m.rosbalt.ru/ukraina/2014/07/16/1292690.html AN 26 was shot down in Luhansk] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Separatist Holdings===<br />
While much certainty has been shown it was a separatist BUK system responsible, everyone seems to acknowledge that ordinarily, they didn't have any, that were known of. Fresh sighting of them in the field, supposed admissions, and existing presumptions remain the strongest evidence. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;June 29 Seizure?<br />
The Open Newsroom team have latched onto a June 29 message from a Twitter account associated with the Donetsk People’s Republic, @DNRpress claiming separatist forces had conquered a base with anti-air BUK missiles. This is apparently the A-1402 base, as an Itar-Tass report specified. That report noted ... It seems to just cite the tweet which, it was found, used a dated photo online since mid-2013. In essence, there's no good evidence they ever did seize this place. But it was referred to by some as "Deleted DNR tweet confirming Russian rebels indeed have a BUK-M1." The crew at large seems a bit vague on the status of this base:<br />
:'' It appears that the A-1402 military unit was moved into the Donetsk region in 2007 from Odessa, and reports note that the unit was based near Donetsk airport. Local reports from June 29 cited ATO spokesman Alexei Dmitrashkivsky as stating that separatists had attacked the military unit.'' <ref name="Story1" /><br />
As we just found with geo-location, it's 3 km north of Donetsk airport, and it's the same place Russia believes is firmly government-held. It's the place they say at least one BUK-type launcher was removed from on July 17 for some reason, by Kiev's forces who run it. If [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Donetsk_Airport this basic Wikipedia article on the battle for the airport] is correct and/or in line with [[Attack on Donetsk Airport|our page on it]], the airport and anything military-related north of it would probably be government-held continuously to the present time. It's possible some launchers could have been lost during a brief seizure of the base, but this too seems doubtful. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
:Social media published many photos of the "liberated" Buk missiles. I searched for them on Google Image Search; all were old photos from more peaceful times. I have no idea what really happened. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 23:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Thanks. I hadn't looked into it myself, but recycled images made sense given the other clues that they never did take that base, or at least get anything out of it. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 00:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Something in English [https://www.facebook.com/TruthfromUkraine/photos/pb.1452285018328179.-2207520000.1409095455./1515506872005993/ on Facebook,] with links to Russian souces. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 23:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Your geolocation is wrong. The former [http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-SAM-Site-Configs-A.html SA-2 launch site] to the north of the runway is called A-1428, at least according to the [[:File:Donetsk Airport battles 5 Oct 2014.jpg|map by Komsomolskaya Pravda]]. The site was rebuilt sometime between 2002 and 2009 with new garages covering part of the SAM ring. Tactical maps say today it is still held by Ukraine, but may have been in NAF hands earlier. Base A-1402 is located south of the new terminal building along Stratonavtiv Street.<br />
<br />
When looking at the latest airport battles I noticed that Military Maps already shows structural damaged to the new terminal building. I did not expect Google to provide any relevant satelite data. In Libya we had almost daily satellite images of Tripoli, but in Syria we have seen no new photos of the battle-effected areas.<br />
<br />
I opened Google Earth to see what has changed during the war. It seems that the war has had no effect on either base. There is still a lot of military hardware parked on both bases. Most of the trucks and whatever are parked just where they were last year, or on many cases in 2007. I did not see anything that I could identify as a BUK launcher. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 02:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;Held by July 14?<br />
The US embassy in Kiev said in [http://ukraine.usembassy.gov/statements/asmt-07192014.html a press statement of July 19]:<br />
:''Intercepts of separatist communications posted on YouTube by the Ukrainian government indicate the separatists were in possession of a SA-11 system as early as Monday July 14th. In the intercepts, the separatists made repeated references to having and repositioning Buk (SA-11) systems.'' (also quoted [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/20/malaysia-airlines-mh17-videos-missile-launcher-torez-snizhne at the Guardian])<br />
As "Corporal Frisk" [http://corporalfrisk.wordpress.com/2014/07/21/comment-on-the-us-assessment-of-the-downing-of-flight-mh17/ aptly responded:]<br />
:''Having perhaps the world’s best intelligence network, and then using easily faked videos of separatist communications posted on YouTube as evidence sure has a degree of ridicule attached to it, but is also an inidcation that US intelligence believes at least some of these transcripts are real.''<br />
That's totally apt if one suspends the usual definition of "believe" (to include "wants to appear to believe," etc.) In the same piece, the author apparently gives more "credibility to the charges that the Buk-M1 is indeed Russian supplied (and possibly crewed), as opposed to stemming from captured Ukrainian stocks." As covered below, this I can agree with if we suspend the usual definition of "Russian" (to include "allegedly Russian villains," "the Ukrainian version of [http://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2011/07/african-mercenaries.html Libya's African Mercenaries] and [http://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/wiki/The_Shabiha:_Ghost_Stories%3F Syria's Shabiha]," etc.) this would be spot-on. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:54, 10 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
(more allegations to cover?)<br />
<br />
;The One That Matters<br />
Whatever the evidence rebels had Buk systems by the 14th, Kiev also has suggested, and many have accepted, that ''the one that mattered'' at least - the launcher unit that shot down MH17 on the 17th - wasn't theirs at all, but brought in and operated by Russians for the day only. If only for that reason, all the above is likely moot. See next section. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Russian Buk Field Trip? ===<br />
The Kiev regime's narrative also suggests separatists had no BUK systems of their own. Rather, someone else brought one in to their area, took it on some kind of tour through several towns thought accessible only to rebels and allies, and got it seen in each place. Then these people '''shot the airliner down themselves on the separatists' behalf.''' That party is the Russians, they say. This is perhaps best encapsulated by "counter-terrorism" chief Vitaly Nayda's early assessment. AP's July 25 report summarized it, saying "the account was based on information from intercepts, spies and resident tips."<br />
:''Nayda laid the blame fully on Russia: He said the missile launcher came from Russia and was operated by Russians. ... According to Nayda, at 1 a.m. on July 17 the launcher rolled into Ukraine across the Russian border aboard a flatbed truck. He cited communications intercepts that he would not share with the AP. By 9 a.m., he said, the launcher had reached Donetsk, the main rebel stronghold 125 miles (200 kilometers) from the border. In Donetsk it is presumed to have been off-loaded from the flatbed and started to move in a convoy on its own.''<br />
:''Nayda said the Buk turned back east toward Snizhne. Townspeople who spoke to the AP said it rolled into Snizhne around lunchtime.''<br />
:''...As for the Buk, Nayda said, intelligence suggests it went back on the move shortly after the attack. That very night, he said, it crossed the border, back into Russia.''<br />
<br />
This is full of details that don't line up with the emerging record, but the gist including a grand-circuit tour including both separatist stronghold/capitols Donestk and Lugansk plus the disaster zone, seems about right. But the evil they allowed came from and returned to Russia.<br />
<br />
This does however jibe with the Kiev allegation (I learned of through [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/07/25/snizhne-mh17-and-rebel-held-territory/ this excellent and relevant HRI article] that '''Russian jets''' violated Ukrainian airspace to '''bomb an apartment building in Snizneh on July 15th, killing 11 civilians.''' This all makes a bit of sense in context; that false flag attack was blamed by locals on Kiev'a noble Air Force - almost understandably! It "created the conditions" by which people ''might'' accept apparent a team of apparent Russians with a Buk launcher in their town two days later. The best guess for any single firing location is a field just southeast of that town (see [[#Possible Launch Sites|below]]). The locals might smile at, and later even cover for, this poisonous gift. But a trojan horse is a trojan horse, of course. They should have looked it in the mouth better, and been more aggressive with their questions. Because Russia has it in for the separatists, Kiev implies, using its skilled and well-documented team to murder 298 people in a horrific way on the separatists' behalf. This is not an accident, Kiev must know, but proof that Russia and its "inhuman" terrorists they must hate (and who do not seem to have any Buk launchers of their own, BTW) are the new global menace du jour. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Markings and the Mystery Launcher ===<br />
[[File:MH17 Buk 321 Parismatch comp.png|right]]A serial number on the launcher's side is apparently standard in Ukraine's arsenal (see [[#BUK 312 and comrades|above]]). Inset, an image comparing the side of the unit seen in [[#Paris Match Photo]], the one blamed for the shoot-down on the 17th, to TELAR unit 321. The side panels are easy enough to correlate and see the unit in the photo lacks a number, but does have a sliver of white paint (or similar) in one corner. Whoever was moving this painted it it out before this, so there is some attempt at concealment. Is this color of paint only available in Russia? The white sliver here could be part of the number, if it were painted higher up/larger than Ukraine usually does. I can't say yet how they do it. I did a Dogpile Photo search, lots of pictures, context unclear, different vehicles from different sides, mainly Vitaly Kuzmin photos so app. Russian military parades and such: --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
* Number shown, diff. vehicle: [http://military-vehicle-photos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/9881.jpg #1(loader?)] - [http://pix.avaxnews.com/avaxnews/8a/6f/00006f8a_medium.jpeg #2 same?] <br />
* Launchers with no visible numbers: [http://77rus.smugmug.com/Military/May-5th-Parade-rehearsal-2014/i-t7RjrzP/0/M/5may14-33-M.jpg #1] - [http://77rus.smugmug.com/Military/12-April-Parade-2013-rehearsal/i-KHVD3Tv/0/M/12aprilrehearsal_33-M.jpg #2] - [http://livedoor.blogimg.jp/gunzichannel/imgs/b/e/be60ae58.jpg #3] - [http://military-vehicle-photos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/9880.jpg #4] - [http://77rus.smugmug.com/Military/13th-April-rehearsal-Alabino/i-fKQdjW4/0/M/13April-Rehersal-Alabino-26-M.jpg #5] <br />
* Same vehicle, Buk TELAR launcher with numbers: not found. <br />
<br />
At the moment, the lack of a number almost makes it look Russian. The next panel over seems to have smaller numbers, or characters anyway. Nothing yet tells me the Russians add a smaller number on the panel behind that, with or without special stencils available only in Russia. Is that even a number, or does it say return to Putin? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== Bellingcat and 3x2 ====<br />
:''moved from [[#Paris Match Photo]]''<br />
<br />
Adam: somebody's favorite Bellingcat is now saying, I understand, that he is capable to read off the number of this Buk from this blurry low resolution Paris Match photo, using unspecified colored magic and some expertly fitted proprietary boxes. Well actually this is so proprietary that he can ONLY read the first number 3, and the last number 2, but is completely unable to read the middle one. Because, he does not want this to be this Ukrainian [http://uainforg.livejournal.com/1811500.html Buk 312] , nah, noway. He rather want it to be the Russian Buk 3 X 2, where X stand for Russian, and for secret, as somebody is said to unearth this dirty monster in Russia, as he says (I guess). This looks too much baloney as far as I am concerned; you can read any number you set in advance from this blurry photo, and fit there any other crap, boxed-shaped or wiggly, all essentially at will. Just recording this latest saga page in case somebody has more enthusiasm to chase it than myself. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 00:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
:No, you didn't quite understand, but thanks for the tip. An interesting twist I wish I'd caught sooner. First, this helps the West at large get in synch finally with Kiev - it was Russia, not the separatists, who owned and perhaps ran that unit. Second, it seems to me the match is at least as good as they say, but there's at least one aspect of it I think is hilarious and I wouldn't be surprised if they managed to miss it. I'll be back - this one deserves a quick blog post. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: I agree with Resup, this stinks of baloney designed to divert attention from the [[#BUK_312_and_comrades]] story. The worst thing about Brown Noses and cohorts is the amount of coordinated promo they get in pre$$titute media. SPIEGEL today [http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/jan-fleischhauer-ueber-wladimir-putin-und-mh17-abschuss-kolumne-a-1004898.html has a op-ed piece by a particularly douchebaggy example] on those independent genius investigators as well. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::I need to brush up on what that 312 story is... because it looks like this used to say 312. Ultimately I suspect its some kind of baloney, but just where it breaks down I don't know. It is amazing how they get such praise for investigating the right things (never did get back to the Houla Massacre) and finding the right truth... Daily Fail says "The authors said that 'our investigation was made possible by the examination of open source material overlooked by other organisations'." Oh goodness, that technique they must have invested ... maybe if we started doing that we'd get praises too! --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/11/08/origin-of-the-separatists-buk-a-bellingcat-investigation/<br />
The report and whole site was not coming up when I tried (might be a problem on my end), so I don't even know what's behind their pay-wall. In the interim I checked around. [http://thetruthserumblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/an-open-and-transparent-investigation.html Here's a critical blog article I like] that mentions another article praising the report. But what was useful was [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2827853/Russian-military-supplied-missiles-ahead-MH17-shooting-says-new-independent-report-evidence-points-Russian-separatists-responsible.html the Daily Mail's Australian promo article] with the cover and a few images from the report as well as a summary. The 3x2 ... This lets me quickly see what 3x2 refers to. And actually, it looks like a good description and even a good match. The number is not from Paris Match photo but from footage I haven't noticed, they say from inside Russia - presumably a Russian unit then - seen conspicuously moving towards Ukraine in late June. (the source of these images and details might be worth checking into) ... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 3x2 Comp.png|right]]Bottom is Paris Match, skewed to match. Top is the new (to me) Bellingcat June 23 image As I just put together [http://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2014/11/how-russians-covered-up-truth-partly.html here,] they seem to be onto something here. It's something silly. But it's something strongly suggested by real paint in recognizable patterns.<br />
<br />
Implied: Russians wanted to hide this thing's identity, maybe because they were about to do something secret with it. So first they painted out the number in the middle - I think it was a one. Except they left one little corner of white visible. Just got tired. It's identifiable (in both images). <br />
<br />
Then before it appeared in Ukraine, it was rendered totally unidentifiable: they boldly blacked out the 3, and perhaps at the same time even, the 2 - except for a larger identifiable sliver. Just got tired. It's next to the other dot. <br />
<br />
Haha, no way to connect these now! Also a light patch next to the small number (and the number, as far as we can see) matches, as does a light patch along the lip below that. My guess: this is the same suspect vehicle seen gettin' hauled all over on the "stolen" truck with the phone number left on. Was it actually in Russian territory as well as near so many rebel checkpoints around dawn? For how long was it there? Bellingcat cannot confirm that Russian unit 3x2 ever returned to its base in Russia ... nor, I guess, that it ever actually left, or was ever Russian, or didn't have its truncated paint job simulated and expanded on another vehicle... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
::He got some photos of an actual [http://www.kavicom.ru/news-view-12861.html convoy], almost certainly in Russia, fairly hi-res photos, no 3*2 there. Than out-of-a-blue-or-elsewhere, he gives photos from convoy made by 'local residents', now with discolored 3*2 photo(s) there; I could not spot details where this photo is now coming from. He claims it "shows on 8 out of 16 videos", but I do not know where is a single one. He also compares tank track and plate above profiles for these 2 photos; details are blurred (and also those profiles change from use), can't say how much they match each other by eye; don't trust his fitted lines, or his conclusion accepting those, but did not try matching myself (no tools to do it quickly; or enough photo resolution to feel strongly motivated). This is doable but doing it tool-free takes time; and not knowing that second photo is definitely in Russia, I am not convinced spending a lot of time is worthwhile. This is clearly a well-supported operation, so the burden of proving their own version is on them; and they did not bother even linking the videos, no clue where are those. His report downloads without problems at this time. <br />
::Also details such as dirty rear skirt and a bend there likely are common; dirt is because exhaust is through the opening above; skirt likely is bent when there is servicing, or example changing tracks or doing something else, like maybe servicing engine. Buk 321 above on this page has dirt and bend, for example. This bend is something which can be easily produced, same goes with the painting job, both things together can be done in well under 1/2 hour. If they had an example of how something in Russia looks like, not difficult to do it for a blurry photo. Clearly, with phone well-displayed, etc, the purpose of all this is a demo job. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Here is a publication [http://censor.net.ua/video_news/274823/ukraina_zaschischaet_donetsk_ot_napadeniya_rossii_zenitnoraketnye_kompleksy_buk_zanimayut_pozitsii_fotovideo Ukraine defends Donesk from Russiam attack, missile complex Buk takes positions], with photo, video of Ukrainian BUks, numbers 323, 321, 312, 301, 331,332. (Some of them have dirty skirts, e.g. 301 looks dirty and bent...). Ukrainian radio is playing on the video. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 21:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Thanks, and I get the lack of motivation, and the ambiguity. That #312 I'll compare later ... looks like a different number style (thinner) with vehicle color less clear ... I guess this could be innocent dirt instead of black paint, but it's some thick dirt, and by the end almost totally covering the numbers on this particular unit ... or two that can seem the same. (?) So it still seems most likely paint, that is deliberate obfuscation - that was also comically slow and incomplete (with clean edges to the white parts and no visible parts of gray half-covered numbers) . It must be a problem with my system (updating soon) but I still can't connect to the site or get the report. I'm not mad motivated myself, but will want to check the alleged video source and geolocation eventually. Before I was seeing this as a Kiev unit simply snuck across the internal line. So the big wrinkle of course is it being in Russia. Options if the geolocation of June 23 is right: <br />
* it wasn't there (faked match-up - As you say, all matching features ''could'' be faked, not just the paint) <br />
* or Ukraine snuck theirs across (with a whole convoy?) just to get it seen there <br />
* or they snuck over and stole this one while it was near the border <br />
* or Russia willingly sent it over, with or without a subsequent theft by people intent on misusing it on the separatists' behalf. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
There is actually a 3*2 Buk in Russia, he put links to videos on his [https://www.mapbox.com/labs/bellingcat/index.html map], I looked at 06/23 Troitskiy (Odnoklassniki) goroskop odnoklassniki ru/video/14723648043?fromTime=25 . But I doubt it can be concluded that Paris Match is a match (number itself can't be read, this is just bogus). For example, that dot in the Russian version appears to be a bit further to the right (60 % of total panel length) , while Paris Match is closer to 50 (I got 52 %). Also, in Russian version, it is almost level with protruding to the right part of number 2; in Donetsk photo, I'd say it's a bit lower (but blurriness creates problems to measure) . Panel to the left of number panel appear to look very different; in Russian case, clear horizontal line above the main bottom line; not so in Donetsk, a messy lower line. As for the skirt, it it dirty but actually does not look broken in the Russian version, just some frames create such impression. In Donetsk, hard to know (to blurry to tell crack from dirt) but there is serious change in angle there somehow; (could be the windshield playing some tricks). (Also, in Donetsk, it is dirty windshield, not actually certain what makes the dot; but it is roughly where expected, so I can go with this being paint assumption). <br />
:No point for the rebels to display it prominently in Donetsk (not far from UAF BUK base), than go towards Snizhne; this just has no point at all. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 00:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
:I'm the one, ironically, claiming to see things in that griny mess. I'd never do it unless I saw t spot well whiter than the others AND seen in another view ... didn't even notice until then. To note, your descriptions are of the first version of the graphic, now updated. Becuase of overall problems, I cut what seemed just the number panel (including shadowed edge) and put it on top of where it should be. Same proportions, within a pixel or two, "find edges" to mark the white patches, and it remains lining up. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 3x2 comp 2.png|right|420px]]At right: it can't be the embarrassingly misrepresented Ukrainian 312 they're hiding, unless that was painted over before this other one .... FWIW, the middle dot would still line up with the serif on that "1." As the updated blog article notes, if "the Russians" were smart, they would have painted this slender 312, or other recognizable number and style, on there. Instead, this nonsense.... <br />
<br />
I suppose that Ukraine ''might'' have known about this 3x2 video and match in advance (and never mentioned it?) and that's why they found a photo of ''a Buk 312''' (not checking what it actually showed, and just claimed they knew was en route to escape into Russia, after parking for yet another photo?) No, that doesn't make much sense. But I sense a link. Maybe that's because I'm seeing 312 when maybe it's 872, for all we really know. Maybe instead of partly painted out it was just left never fully painted in. Too many unknowns and now I'm unenthusiastic about it. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Whatever one thinks of this graphic comparison and interpretation, the strange and suspect thinking it implies is consistent with what else we know about how this "secret" operation was carried out. If true, it would fit this broader pattern (real or reported clues left by whoever, all open to interpretation, and here couched in the terms of allegations by Kiev and supporters):<br />
<br />
* Recalling that this whole weapon itself would have no normal business in the area and would be denied later, it should have been kept secret. Instead, it was driven around in broad daylight on the same day as the crime, just partly covered with a tarp but revealing all clues needed to identify it, its hidden ID number, and its full rack of missiles.<br />
* The truck it was so displayed on was stolen in Donetsk, and kept with the huge sign on its side with the apparent owner's phone number on it. When the media called that number, little surprise, the owner told them pro-Russian "fighters from Slaviansk" who took over his whole trucking company on July 8 (see [[#The Truck Owner's Story|here]]) Put lightly, this is a stupid way to secure a rig one intends to use for a secret operation like this was supposed to be.<br />
* They loaded the truck in Donetsk, likely at the commandeered site in the north of Donetsk, near the Ukrainian base with Buk launchers, in a coincidence. This truck then got seen leaving Donetsk on the 17th, parked pointing east at the east outskirts, then seen driving in convoy (a couple civilian cars with the operational crew moved with the truck) past Zuhres and then through Torez to the east. They were seen arriving in Snizhne around noon, then the Buk unit seen off the truck and driving in stand-alone, and it was then seen again driving south out of Snizneh, towards the apparent launch location.<br />
* The people running the convoy made sure AP journalists saw them in Snizhne just before the shoot-down from a bit south of there. The convoy stopped, and a man in unusual uniform "approached the journalists. The man wanted to make sure they had not recorded any images of the missile launcher. Satisfied that they hadn’t" filmed that secret missile launcher there, but had noticed it, and their intention to remain sooper seekrit "the convoy moved on." All this was made quite clear to the media and apparently published even before the news that MH17 was shot down. ([http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/what-happened-the-day-flight-17-was-downed/2014/07/25/716c36e4-142b-11e4-ac56-773e54a65906_story.html AP Via Washington Post]) <br />
* After the disastrous attempt to secretly provoke a Russian invasion, with utmost discretion the operators put the smoking gun, its rack of one-less missiles left uncovered, back on the same truck and drove it and the phone number back to Russia - by a strange detour on a long route towards the other easily-recognizable smoking gun rebel capitol, Lugansk ... when government ATO forces had just battled their way to the edge of Lugansk ... and got seen there passing at dawn on the main highway south, apparently having come from the center of town, and then presumably drove to Krasnodon (rebel-held) and to Russia....<br />
<br />
The fail delivery here is almost flawless, with no mistake left unmade and hardly any reasonable gaps to call for deduction. Letting multiple camera views on both sides of the porous border capture and track the gradual move to this stealth mode seems pretty consistent to me.--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Note: the implications of this contested finding, and the visual basis for it as well, is continued below under [[#If Buk 3x2 Was in Russia]] --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
--Antidyatel <br />
<br />
I think one point is still not discussed here. Look at this video from 26 June 2014. You might have seen it before. But what is striking, all the Buks shown do not have numbers painted on them. Not only it will allow to paint new numbers or any clumsy painting on the side, using video of a known BUK, it also means that those BUKS were not accounted for when Ukrs presented evidence, if they ever presented, about the location of all the existing and operational BUKS <br />
[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BBEYZHOT0bQ]<br />
<br />
-- Antidyatel 6 September 2015<br />
<br />
=== General Observations === <br />
*It is clear that pro-Kiev side produced early and persistent stream of fakes, misrepresentations, or selective half-truths, all aimed to place the blame on Russia and/or "separatists" as a part of well organised and supported information warfare. This information warfare did not establish an objective to prove the blame of Russia or "separatists", as any of those media creations will not survive a rigorous scrutiny, and there is nothing to bring to court in particular. However it successfully altered Western perceptions in early days past the catastrophe, and helped to impose sanctions and other 'increased costs' on Russia, bringing the world on the brink of another cold war. It brought situation in Ukraine closer to perpetual chaos, and kept closely related people to continue killing each other every day. Although those fakes and misrepresentations were later realized to be such, those costs and calamities were not reversed. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*After moving equipment close to border, why would Russia send just a single TELAR to Ukraine in a highly visible manner as it was alleged? For meaningful operation of Buk, one would send at least 1 TELAR, 1 TEL (to be able to load missiles), and 1 command vehicle (as radar on TELAR gives only poor basic operation)? There are also lots of support vehicles seen, in case of something meaningful all that is needed. So moving single TELAR is all but pointless from military standpoint. Single TELAR is mostly for a show of sort. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Reported SIghtings == <br />
(consider along with the visual sightings below) <br />
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/what-happened-the-day-flight-17-was-downed/2014/07/25/716c36e4-142b-11e4-ac56-773e54a65906_story.html AP via Washington Post] <br />
shows the separatists strategy to not be seen as they rolled the murder weapon around:<br />
:''Even before the plane was downed, the AP had reported on the presence of the missile launcher in the town July 17. Here is what that dispatch said:''<br />
:''“An Associated Press reporter on Thursday saw seven rebel-owned tanks parked at a gas station outside the eastern Ukrainian town of Snizhne. In the town, he also observed a Buk missile system, which can fire missiles up to an altitude of 22,000 meters (72,000 feet).''<br />
:''AP journalists saw the Buk moving through town at 1:05 p.m. The vehicle, which carried four 18-foot (5.5-meter) missiles, was in a convoy with two civilian cars.''<br />
:''The convoy stopped. A man in sand-colored camouflage without identifying insignia — different from the green camouflage the rebels normally wear — approached the journalists. The man wanted to make sure they had not recorded any images of the missile launcher. Satisfied that they hadn’t, the convoy moved on.''<br />
<br />
That kind of pro-Russian sooper-seekrisy aimed at the media in front of the media should stop them being seen, right? No, oddly, it didn't. See below. The clumsy bastards could hardly have implicated themselves any more thoroughly than they did that day. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
One interesting post at the Ukraine@War blog mentions two tweets, both from July 17 and before the crash, mentioning this BUK launcher on a trailer at places consistent with the video record. [https://twitter.com/MOR2537/status/489702736766586880 One of them] (translated) sounds perhaps ''too'' informed, and says "Was driven missile system on the tractor cover + two cars after Thorez (Torez) in snowy (Sniznoyeh) in 12-10 (at 12:10? Too early...)." [https://twitter.com/_StradivariuS_/status/489704260045910016 The other one] says "(someone this) morning wrote that (the truck) stood (parked for some time) on b.Shahtostroiteley not intersection with Ilchicha, aside (heading towards) Makeevki. waiting to see (to be seen?) If that's an intersection named, it's a different parking spot identified as being [https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=48.002515,37.854917&spn=0.010222,0.02444&t=h&z=16 here on Google Maps,] one km west of the spot it was parked for the "Paris Match" photo. Otherwise, it refers only to the same place. The contributor noted "Another interesting detail in that tweet is that “it was standing” and “they were waiting”. My understanding of that phrasing is that the #Buk was actually parked there for some time. Meaning there might be witnesses." <ref name="UWD">[http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com/2014/07/reconstruction-of-whereabouts-of-buk.html CONFIRMED the BUK that shot down MH17 has indeed been in Donetsk] P. Martin, Ukraine@War, July 23, 2014</ref> There was a witness with a camera, and a photo sent to the Western media. That almost seems to have been the idea - to get witnessed like that. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== SBU Wiretap Clues ==<br />
I just had a look at the SBU wiretap transcripts, ones released July 19. In it is a segment tying in with the above stop or stops in Donetsk, the exact spot of the [[#Paris Match Photo]], and the general orders to drive east with the launcher. I'm not up on the wiretap stuff - if this is the same material said to be corroborated by the US as the real people talking. But briefly, know that parking spot in just past a roundabout, by a motel and a bus station, well short of a crossing Hornostaivska street halfway to Makiivka. Important clue to why it was here this thing had to get seen and talked about: one source claims this roundabout at the edge of town is "a big separatist checkpoint established on Jun 3 at the road circle." <ref name="UWD" /> This is supposed to all be pretty damning, and I must say it's at least looking like a pretty slick plan may be going on here, with pre-scripted parts that come into play later, etc. From Kiev mouthpiece UaToday, parts of a transcript they ran with the video and other allegations, on the 19th - How credible is this evidence?<br />
:''Khmuryi: Sergei Nikolaevich Petrovskiy, year of birth 1964, officer of Main Intelligence Directorate of Russian Federation, Deputy Chief of Ihor Girkin on Intelligence, at the time of the interception he was in Donetsk.''<br />
:''“Buryat” – militant of terrorist organization “DNR” (to be indentified).''<br />
:''Buryat: – Where should we load this beauty, Nikolaievich?''<br />
:''Khmuryi: Which one? This one?''<br />
:''B: Yes, the one I’ve brought. I’m already in Donetsk.''<br />
:''K: Is it the one I’m thinking about? “B…,”M” one?''<br />
:''B: Yes, yes, yes. “BUK”,”BUK”.''<br />
:''K: Is it on a tractor?''<br />
:''B: Yes, it’s on it. We need to unload it somewhere, '''in order to hide.'''''<br />
:''K: Is it with a crew?''<br />
:''B: Yes, with the crew.''<br />
:''K: '''Don’t hide it anywhere.''' She’ll go there now.''<br />
:...<br />
:''Khmuryi: – Tell me, have you brought me one or two?<br />
:''Buryat: One, one. Because they had a misunderstanding there. They didn’t give us a tug. We loaded it and went at their own pace.''<br />
:''K: Did it go on her own or on a tug?''<br />
:''B: It crossed the line (border).''<br />
:''H: And now have you brought it on a tug? Don’t put in anywhere… I’ll tell now where it should go, it will go together with “Vostok” tanks.''<br />
:...<br />
:''K: Sanych, the point is that my “BUK–M” (modified Russian SAM system) will go with yours, it is on a tug. Where should I drive it to put in a column?''<br />
:''Sanych: There, behind “Motel”, not reaching Hornostaevka.''<br />
:''K: Just after the Motel, right?''<br />
:''Khmuryi: Listen to me carefully, behind the circle near “Motel” there will be you know what. Call to “Bibliotekar” (Librarian).'' <br />
The next part, to me, suggests that as far back as the 19th or earlier, people talking on tape were seeding, or working by, the SBU-proposed Aeroloft plot with the town mix-up. In that light:<br />
:''...Bring inside only those, who just came back, only as much as you need for the convoy. Leave everyone else here. Not far away '''there is Pervomaiskoe, look at the map.'''''<br />
:''DNR militant: I got it.'' (Or did he not quite get it?) <br />
:''Khmuryi: Settle somewhere in that area, bring there those who are left. Your task is reserve, plus protection of this piece (BUK–M), which you will drive now. “Giyrza” will come there too. If anything, I’m on line.'' <ref name="Trans">[http://www.uatoday.info/?p=2579&lang=en SBU releases more conversations implicating Russia in shooting down Malaysia Airlines flight (VIDEO, TRANSCRIPT)] UAToday, July 19, 2014</ref><br />
--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The veracity of that recording needs challenged well now ... the day too early claim [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17#SBU wiretap video|did not pan out,]] so it won't be that easy. Has anyone really done a good analysis tearing it apart some other way? Could it even be half-legit, with some local rebels tricked by some undercover (wire-wearing, not wire-tapping) supposed defector delivering it "with a team" coming "from Russia" (meaning Parubiy et al.)? Who knows? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Imagery Mapping ==<br />
[[File:MH17 Storyful video mapping.png|right|330px]]There have been quite a number now of photos and videos showing BUK launchers ostensibly in separatist strongholds, on July 17. The geo-location of these in such towns by social media networks has been the subject of some recent media commentary. These purported placements are worth collecting and considering here. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
One somewhat comprehensive and updated/evolving page: [http://blog.storyful.com/2014/07/19/how-social-sleuthing-uncovered-evidence-of-anti-aircraft-missile-system-in-eastern-ukraine/#.U9oY_Ua3498 How Social Sleuthing Uncovered Evidence of Surface-to-Air Missile Systems in Eastern Ukraine] Inset is a small preview of the interactive map they made of all placed images (as it stands at the end of July - [https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=200399683004956931329.0004feca5d1fbab0a1d25&msa=0&ie=UTF8&t=h&source=embed&ll=48.206371,38.968506&spn=1.281328,2.334595&z=8 full-size presentation with links, on Google Maps]) <ref name="Story1" /> <s>Note that one of them is way up in Lugansk - which one is a little unclear at the moment - the site may be wrong</s>) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;List of Scenes, placed or not<br />
* Billboard Video: released by Interior Ministry, filmed in Krasnodon before dawn, the Interior Minister says. Russian military analysis places it in Krasnoarmeysk, and the Open Newsroom crew contradicts both and decided "collaborative geo-location was able to place the footage in southwestern Luhansk.'' <ref name="Story1">[http://blog.storyful.com/2014/07/19/how-social-sleuthing-uncovered-evidence-of-anti-aircraft-missile-system-in-eastern-ukraine/#.U9oY_Ua3498 How Social Sleuthing Uncovered Evidence of Surface-to-Air Missile Systems in Eastern Ukraine] Storyful blog, July 19, 2014 and onward (updated)</ref> <br />
* Surveillance Video: located to Snizhne by Eliot Higgins, date unclear. <ref name="Story1" /><br />
* Zuhres video: Pre-geo-located by the uploader [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=48%C2%B0+1'1.38%22N++38%C2%B018'6.04%22E&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=48.034019,38.391724&spn=0.629958,1.564178&gbv=2&hnear=H21,+Zuhres,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&gl=us&t=h&z=10 here in Zuhres.] Higgins confirms, 100% sure, and others concur. Driving east. <ref name="Story1" /><br />
* Torez square photo - located by an associate of Higgins - filmed app. 11:40 AM in central Torez. See below. <br />
* Another photo placed: Snizneh, nearest the shoot-down area (f/c)<br />
* [http://www.parismatch.com/Actu/International/EXCLU-MATCH-Un-camion-vole-pour-transporter-le-systeme-lance-missiles-577289 Paris Match photo] - allegedly Snizhne, reportedly placed '''in northern Donetsk city.''' See below. <br />
<br />
===Billboard Video===<br />
(to be condensed) <br />
A video released by the Ukrainian Interior Ministry is highly dubious and worth some analysis. It shows what seems to be a BUK launcher loaded on a truck driving some direction in some town at what seems to be early twilight (or pre-dawn, depending). The [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4HJmev5xg0 original posting] (with almost 2 million views already) gives no details: "Militants take out missile system "Buk" to the border with Russiam" the title translates. "No description available," it says below, and no comments allowed.<br />
From what I've seen no one knows where this is filmed. Daily Mail says it's a "separatist stronghold," unnamed, and headed south, back towards Russia. "Ukrainian spies reportedly filmed the launcher used in the attack being smuggled to Russia - with two missiles missing." Eliot Higgins was cited by [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/20/malaysia-airlines-mh17-videos-missile-launcher-torez-snizhne the Guardian] with his new team of fundraistigators as geolocating some video and photo but not, apparently, this one. As explained at [https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1278239551/bellingcat/posts/919158 the kickstarter link] they give, Higgins writes:<br />
:''In the above video, posted by the Ukranian Ministry for Interior claiming to show the Buk missile launcher being driven towards Russia it was possible to match the transporter in the video to the transporter in Torez, details of which... (you have to subsidize their operation to see)'' --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== Avakov's Placement: Krasnodon or Lugansk ====<br />
Interior Minister Arsen Avakov said in [https://www.facebook.com/arsen.avakov.1/posts/670837696339673 a Facebook post of July 18] Google-translated: <br />
:''Covert surveillance units of MIA of Ukraine today July 18 at 4.50 am was recorded caterpillar tractor loaded with missile complex, moving in the direction through Krasnodon, toward the border with the Russian Federation. The video can be seen uncovered missiles. Two missiles in place - the average is not visible. ''<br />
:''There is an analysis of this and other information gathered. Presumably this is the missile system "Buk" that made a last shot at a civilian plane from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur .. ''<br />
:''Criminals try to hide the traces of this heinous crime. Not succeed. Security Service and Interior Ministry of Ukraine has collected and collects more irrefutable facts and evidence, the author points out the tragedy of the terrorist organization DNI / LC and its Russian backers Putin.'' <br />
:''The investigation of events MIA issue a comprehensive report on the information. This fragment consider it necessary to publish immediately.''<br />
<br />
By the 22nd, "online sleuths" had placed it in Lugansk (see below). Avakov then confirmed this - he was wrong the first time. One article makes it sound like he wasn't just echoing the sleuths:<br />
:''On July 22, Ukraine's Minister of Internal Affairs, Arsen Avakov, gave the exact coordinates of the video’s location: separatist-held Luhansk, about a 45-minute drive from Krasnodon. Locals quickly verified this claim by photographing the scene, which perfectly matches the landmarks seen in the video.'' ([http://globalvoicesonline.org/2014/07/29/russia-ukraine-mh17-conspiracy-buk/# article by one of the sleuths])<br />
<br />
====Krasnoarmeysk====<br />
One source venturing a guess is [http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ the Russian government and RT witrh their 10 intriguing questions:]<br />
:''“For example, media circulated a video supposedly showing a Buk system being moved from Ukraine to Russia. This is clearly a fabrication. This video was made in the town of Krasnoarmeisk, as evidenced by the billboard you see in the background, advertising a car dealership at 34 Dnepropetrovsk Street. Krasnoarmeysk has been controlled by the Ukrainian military since May 11.”''<br />
[[File:MH17 Billboard Vid Russian Analysis.png|right|250px]]There is a sign, but I cannot make it out just yet, if ever. Can they really? Even if that's so, surrounding towns might be good places for a dealership in Krasnoarmeysk to advertise. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
At right now is a still from a video claiming to show this, I still don't see it. They seem to think the gray span says that, perhaps from seeing a clearer view of this ubiquitous sign elsewhere. Opps. There's no reason to say a dealership in one town can only have billboards in that town. This alone fails. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 14:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Krasnoarmiis'k,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&hl=en&ll=48.323387,37.919312&spn=1.252829,3.128357&sll=48.226502,37.386475&sspn=0.627601,1.564178&oq=Krasnoarm&t=h&doflg=ptk&hnear=Krasnoarmiis'k,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&z=9 on Google Maps as Krasnoarmiis'k] - ''not'' to be confused with the Krasnoarmeisk not far away in Russia. Distance: about 100 km almost due west of the crash site. Panorama, possiblt location, directions/implications forthcoming. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Dnepropetrovsk Street is the main street of Krasnoarmeisk, leading northwest to Dnepropetrovsk. It tried matching this to the street corner where the car dealership is located. Yandex Maps did not provide a street view. It could be there, but too few details to make a positive match. Whatever this is, it is not evidence for anything. The least the SBU could have done is provide the location and some corroborating photographs.<br />
:The same applies to all so called "evidence" provided by Ukraine and the US State Department. As far as I can tell it is only cut-and-paste of unrelated footage to ''illustrate'' the claims made. A perfect example of this illusion is the "satellite photos" of Russian artillery shelling Ukraine released on Sunday morning. A photo of Russian GRADs on some unidentifiable field was placed next to a satellite image with an arrow pointing "Here Be Monsters!" Purely illustrative and no proof. There is a difference between legerdemain Hocus Pocus and outright forgery. The Russian video presentation displayed screen capture recording from the ATC radar, usually stored for two weeks. For this to be a hoax, Russia would need to create a forged tape of the radar data. Highly unlikely, as the the claim of authenticity had support of the full authority and prestige of the Russian Armed Forces. If the US presentation turns out to be hoax, State Department will claim the photos were never meant to be evidence. Some internee was told to prepare a presentation using stock images for some facts they ''knew'' to be true – trust us! -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 14:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: You must have missed [https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BtZSVQrIMAARzKr.jpg:large this], Petri! ;oP --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 18:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
::: That is an awesomely perfect picture for this sorry episode so far. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 14:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
::It would be neat though if we could show where this is and thus which way its's headed. The Kiev authorities, I think, know what happened. They say it was this exact launcher missing two missiles. It could be. Where is it at filming time and where headed? If it's true this same one was in Torez (dubious but possible) we'd have a direction traveled until that point also, and a rough time, 8:30 or so. [http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jul/27/mh17-storyful-social-media-twitter-youtube The Guardian again] citing Storyful's open-source investigation: <br />
::::''“There are now four pieces of content – three pieces of video and one image – which, in the case of three, conclusively show a Buk [surface-to-air] missile within rebel-held territory and in the case of the fourth, almost definitely in their territory,” says Storyful executive editor David Clinch. “Of those four pieces, individual groups or companies probably verified in or around the same time one or another of them.”''<br />
:''Open Newsroom verified three pieces of content and is investigating the fourth, thanks to its 900-strong network of journalists and experts. ''''<br />
:The fourth is this video. Wouldn't it be a coup if we were the first to place it? Force that intern excuse and then laugh at it. That said, it's not the most likely to place but you, Petri, especially, might be able to. I think I might. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 22:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* [https://plus.google.com/118234537318646233652/posts/LZV1XZD854E James Miller Google + July 21] "Was a Buk sighted in Krasnoarmeysk or Krasnodon (continued analysis)? We've taken a new look at this video which has been debated since it was posted days ago. We're fairly confident, though not 100% confident, in this geoanalysis, but we're making significant progress. Any more information would be extremely helpful. " Cited: [http://www.interpretermag.com/russia-this-week-lurid-anti-ukraine-propaganda-broadcast-on-state-tv/#1753 Russia This Week: Defense Ministry Claim on Buk in Billboard Video Doesn’t Add Up]<br />
:''...As we reported on our Ukraine Liveblog, the Buk was spotted before the shoot-down of the Malaysian airplane and ultimately geolocated to the town of Torez, near the location of the crash in Grabovo. Then the video, taken early the next morning on 18 July, showed a scene in Krasnodon,... <br />
--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Google Earth has one photo [http://www.panoramio.com/photo/55329278 from ул. Днепропетровская.] The street has about the same width. The streetlights are not quite the same. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 14:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
::That image doesn't help a match, especially since by now it looks like Lugansk. For the record, there was a go by pro-rebel social media people at identifying a spot in town to explain the video scene, but it didn't do that either. [http://wikimapia.org/#lat=48.276196&lon=37.176087&z=18&l=0&m=b this spot on Wikimapia] is what they pointed to - filmed from the marked building, they say, looking southwest to the mall. No matching anything. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 02:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== Placed in Lugansk! ====<br />
[[File:MH17 Billboard Vid-Lugansk Match.png|right|800px]]Storyful's rundown states of this video:<br />
:''The footage is not the original, however we believe that the first instance of this footage was removed by the uploader and the version below is the earliest we can find. Ukrainian Interior Minister, Arsen Avakov, made early claims that the video was filmed in the Ukrainian town of Krasnodon near the Russian border, however collaborative geo-location was able to place the footage in southwestern Luhansk.'' <ref name="Story1" /> <br />
It links to "Bellingcat," which you have to pay to see much of. [https://plus.google.com/118234537318646233652/posts/bMdeBzY8yty James Miller] passes on that it's "Mystery SOLVED: Video released by Ukraine's Interior Ministry does in fact show a Buk, possibly missing several missiles, in Lugansk headed east from the MH17 crash site and in the direction of Russia." The spot they think matches the video (better panorama coming) is [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=48%C2%B032'44.7%22N+39%C2%B015'52.6%22E&ie=UTF8&ll=48.545926,39.265147&spn=0.002436,0.00611&t=h&cid=0&z=18 here on Google Maps]. Was that a highway? Where's the cross-street? I see elsewhere they have a high view showing the same basic billboard there, but that's going to be true of several spots in this area. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
My impression of the scene - based on the panoramic view below - is far from matching with this. That does not look like a highway, and it just seems like a small town. However, I finally saw some of the supporting images (see [http://news.bigmir.net/ukraine/827864-V-Lygansk-vehala-kolonna-voennoi-tehniki--SMI here] and [https://twitter.com/djp3tros/status/491651820188860416/photo/1 here] - source of the inset image.) It seems a likely match after all. I won't say I confirm it with any certainty, but I don't think I'll be challenging it like I was preparing to do. Note the different billboard in the right spot, and the matching one over there. There are other images, apparently more current, showing that that they moved the one sign over to the right spot They don't point to the pinkish roofed building beyond the red-roofed one, but that adds to the match (compare to below). Whenever this video was made and whatever it really means, it seems quite likely it was at this spot in Lugansk shortly before dawn. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
There is another video from June 2014 showing the same billboard with the same car ad:<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ez8cZ3nqjCs Луганск 02 07 14]<br />
The video shows a column of BMPs with one 9K35 Strela-10 short-range surface to air missile system passing the intersection in Lugansk. I suspect they came from Russia, as [https://www.facebook.com/groups/IOUCO/permalink/584402078339517/ I specifically asked] for Putin to send in the Russian tanks that morning. They passed exactly when I expected them to, at 6 minutes past 4 am. (I estimated it would take 2 hours 6 minutes from the border.) -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 17:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== ACLOS Review ====<br />
As noted above, my review agrees with the placement agreed by the others. For what it's worth, the huge panorama I made (the middle is full-resolution) and starting notes from before I realized no work was needed. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 03:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
[[File:MH17 Billboard Video Pan.png|center|880px]]<br />
It seems to be filmed near the edge of town, or edge of a hill anyway, with a clear view ahead, two vague homes/buildings seen down the slope. Otherwise, very non-descript. The angle of intersection will be one of the better clues - it looks to me not 90 degrees ( |- ), but with the road the truck is on either slanting or curving somewhat towards the camera ( /- ). One important observation: '''there's no logical reason he should have been just happening to film this area''' unless he knew something interesting would drive by at just this odd time. That's clarified by how he zooms in just before it enters frame - he was waiting for that truck. How did he know about it? Informants on the other side of town phoning ahead makes enough sense, I suppose. <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 launcher truck composite.png|left|480px]]Another issue: If this is dusk (sunset 8:20 PM local), isn't this facing roughly northwest? If so, this vehicle is driving roughly north, not south. And we might start looking on the west edge of town. There's a highway out to the northwest, back towards Kiev. This street is too narrow and unmarked to be the highway, obviously, but it might be driving that way, for example. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
:Or, alternately, he's facing towards the sun about to rise, early on the 18th, as alleged by the Interior Ministry) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
::That he happened to be filming just before dawn is even less likely than dusk. He clearly knew this was coming, whatever that means. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 03:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Above is the composite scene without truck. At left is the truck without background. Besides lightening the scene, it seemed worth getting the clearest details from different frames into a composite view of the truck and its load. This helps compare to the launchers seen in other areas and different times. So far, they all seem to look the same and perhaps be the same. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 03:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br /><br />
<br />
==== HRI ====<br />
Pretty good points [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/08/05/mh17-the-lugansk-buk-video/ from Human Rights Investigations]:<br />
:''To sum up, the statement of Avakov, the film and its location suggest the Ukrainian authorities had advance knowledge of this BUK and trailer’s movements or control over it. It is also extremely strange that this BUK, allegedly after shooting down MH17, is supposedly filmed by a Ukrainian surveillance team in ostensibly rebel territory, with its covering missing, as if to show the world a missile is missing.''<br />
--[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Paris Match Photo ===<br />
[[File:MH17 Paris Match.png|770px]]<br /><br />
* [http://www.parismatch.com/Actu/International/EXCLU-MATCH-Un-camion-vole-pour-transporter-le-systeme-lance-missiles-577289 Originally published by Paris Match] on July 25, with the claim the picture was taken by their own reporting team near Snizhne at mid-day on the 17th. Note the prominent, apparent, telephone number prominently centered in the picture - (050) 471-41-80. The truck and launcher, as far as can be seen, are quite similar to or the same as the one seen in the billboard video anyways. How many of its missiles the unit has at this moment is unclear. <br />
<br />
* [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/07/28/why-is-paris-match-on-the-location-of-a-buk/ Human Rights Investigations:] "it turns out to have been taken in Donetsk, 75km away" (citing someone else's geo-location - [https://www.google.com/maps/@48.004592,37.87265,3a,75y,63.38h,82.21t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sRGnHwZ5YZnuGO-n_VvruWg!2e0 site link given.] <br />
:''We know this because the phone number on the truck panel (050 471 4180) leads straight to this hire place (photo):<br />
:''According to Paris-Match, the proprietor of this establishment claimed “rebels” had stolen a number of his vehicles earlier in the month. If we go from here to towards Snizhne we find the location of the Paris-Match photo, near a car dealership on Makiivske Highway on the outskirts of Donetsk:''<br />
:''After informing Paris-Match of the mistake regarding the video location, the author of the article Alfred De Montesquiou has now got back and explained:''<br />
:''Hello, indeed, it appears there was a mixup in caption : the picture was taken leaving Donetsk on road to Snijne, not in actual Snijne'' <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Donestk Buk Map.png|thumb|right|480px|Map: this truck location, the company's apparent headquarters ([https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Molodykh+Shakhtariv+St,+19,+Donetsk,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&ll=48.044923,37.783184&spn=0.079187,0.195522&hnear=Molodykh+Shakhtariv+St,+19,+Donetsk,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&t=h&z=13 GM link]), and the A-1402 missile base relative to each other.]]<br />
<br />
'''Questions:''' Was it a caption mix-up, or did their team really not know where it was taken, and just believed the real source when he said Snizneh? Who is the true photographer who knew to catch this picture near the company's base, apparently at the outset of a rather epic journey? Why did the rebel thieves leave the prominent phone number on the stolen truck used for such an important task? It wound up leading to man who pointed right to the rebel thieves, and prove yet again separatists, not Kiev allies, were the ones driving BUKs around. Was that so hard to foresee? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''To Do:''' Verify the geo-location - set a time, presuming July 17, by sunlight and that location - establish which way it's traveling relative to the government-run anti-aircraft base just a few km north of here and relative to the other places and times this truck and others were spotted rolling around prominently and getting filmed a lot by the right kind of people, in areas presumed to be impenetrable to any such frame-up operation - look into this company, etc. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''Location:''' I can't confirm it with certainty, but it's extremely consistent. Two standard but distinct pole types that close together on the right with a pull-over lane ending at the blue one, and consistent-scale foliage behind. Proceding on the location as likely enough to warrant the work. The stretch of highway identified runs northeast, heading 33 degrees. The truck is most likely not driving at the moment, as it's in the pull-over lane. But it's pointed as if ready to leave Donetsk as soon as they finish doing something in theis spot. All we can see they're doing is getting filmed, and maybe that's just what they're waiting for. Ahead would be the an industrial area, the eastern suburb of Makiivka, then Khartsyzk, etc. and further east Torez and Snizhne (driving times unsure, date also unsure. Russia claims the one launcher left the northern base sometime between in August 14 and 17 images. <ref name="RT10">[http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ 10 more questions Russian military pose to Ukraine, US over MH17 crash] RT. July 21, 2014</ref><br />
<br />
'''Time:''' I'm not sure how exactly to set this up, but the shadows appear to stretch almost right across the highway, with only a slight northern shift. The azimuth thus appears to be fairly close to to 140˚ (reached at 11:09 AM). As for solar altitude, trying to line up the launcher's corner with its shadow gives a reading of app. 56˚ (= 10:50 AM, with azimuth 133˚) or perhaps 59˚ (= 11:18, az 143.5). The graphic shows both readings. Which is better? I used [http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/solcalc/ NOAA solar calculator], with coordinates: lat 48.017102 long:37.9037626 time=GMT+2, DST +1 --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
There is more to consider about this truck, its company, its owner, and his story. But other than this photo's extra-clear view of the phone number and apparent proximity to headquarters, those are better covered in the section below [[#The Truck Owner's Story]].<br />
<br />
==== Time? ====<br />
[[File:MH17 Paris Match elev.png|right|220px]]<br />
Bellingcat was originally claiming that photo was taken at 9 am. [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/09/08/images-show-the-buk-that-downed-flight-mh17-inside-russia-controlled-by-russian-troops/] [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/11/08/origin-of-the-separatists-buk-a-bellingcat-investigation/]<br />
<br />
Then they were claiming 11 am as an obvious time without retracting previous 9am claim. Seems like 9am was more comfortable for them to match to photos from Zuhres and Torez. <br />
<br />
Sorry, using smartphone. Not very easy to comment --[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 01:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:<small>Looks like you put the same link twice, -it says 11 a.m.--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)</small><br />
::Antidyatel, welcome! Resup, thanks! I'd like to see any 9 am citation. But otherwise they agree on it being around 11? Good. The significance below is if the Zuhres square photo was taken at 11:40 AM as they say, it's basically impossible these images are from the same day as alleged - 69 km, 1 hour 14 mins drive between the spots, when there's only 20-40 minutes between the images. However, fudging it - let's say this is 10:50 and the other is 12:00 as I read it - that's 1:10 between, almost a perfect match. So maybe this isn't a great lead (I was never convinced it was). But 9:00 is way off and suggests they were fudging it to fit at that point. Would be good to document. BTW, on talk pages you can sign with <nowiki>--~~~~</nowiki> or the sign/scribble button. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: [https://web.archive.org/web/20141109132514/https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/11/08/origin-of-the-separatists-buk-a-bellingcat-investigation/ First archive.org snapshot] from the day after publishing (edit: a good three months after you called it :o)) says 11 am already. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 10:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: Okay, the links were fixed once or twice and [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/11/08/origin-of-the-separatists-buk-a-bellingcat-investigation/ the November report] says 11 am, not citing an azimuth or anything, just Paris Match saying it was "about 11 am," which doesn't count much for verification. The [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/09/08/images-show-the-buk-that-downed-flight-mh17-inside-russia-controlled-by-russian-troops/ earlier report from Sptember] might be based on something else when it mentions "a well known image from Paris Match, which shows a Buk in Donetsk at 9am on July the 17th." Neither one sounds like a firm final version. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== Screenshot from dashcam video? ====<br />
It it possible to identify if the photo was made by dashboard camera, smartphone, or other type of camera. Paris Match claimed that they made the photo. There are no date markings on the photo, which is strange. Position of the camera is such that it was either dashboard camera or the driver was making a photo (front and left side of the car). Paris Match was also implying in their report that it was a group of people in the car. "A sytem BUK missile launcher is photopgraphie by the team of Paris-Match in the suburbs of Donetsk, on the road to Snizhne the morning of July 17, hours before the flight Malaysia Airlines MH17 crash."[http://m.parismatch.com/Actu/International/EXCLU-MATCH-Un-camion-vole-pour-transporter-le-systeme-lance-missiles-577289]<br />
<br />
Why would they ask driver to make a photo? Dangerous or uncomfortable - illogical. If it was a dashboard camera, why not to release a video? And most importantly it would have a time stamp. <br />
<br />
Also in this report [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/01/17/new-images-of-the-mh17-buk-missile-launcher-in-ukraine-and-russia/] gives a new, a bit extended photo. Surprisingly the back of the BUK is nicely in focus, same as the truck cabin. While middle of the BUK is defocused. No wonder Paris Match cropped it. Bellingcat, that likes being so strict about photos, totally ignores this part. <br />
-- [[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 23:55,, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Yes, I agree. The two photos are crops from screenshots from a dashcam video. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 00:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
::Those must be two different shots at close-by time --look at position of street lamppost with respect to the truck cabin, one has it over black pipe, and the other more to the right from there. Can't think of a natural way for camera to focus on two different distances (maybe dirty and curvy windshield can be blamed but on tricky side here)-- FWIW. Usually dashboards have short focal length so that anything appear to be in focus; don't know why not the case here --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
RESUP, you are right. Those are two different shots. There is cable reflection from the windshield. Probably the cable is another indication of the dashboard camera.--Antidyatel<br />
<br />
=== Torez Square Photo ===<br />
[[File:MH17 Torez Buk Analysis.png|left]]This is another image geo-located by the Brown Moses network (ally Aric Toller) to central Torez, [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Donetsk&hl=en&ll=48.023472,38.614014&spn=0.004923,0.01222&hnear=Donetsk,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&t=h&z=17 here on Google Maps.] Like others, it was initially stated as in another locale - Snizhne - and that had to be corrected. I can agree the location pointed to is either the photo's site or one strangely like it. [http://mashable.com/2014/07/23/citizen-journalists-mh17-spies/ Mashable noted] "Toler and Higgins were able to establish that the photograph was shot around 11:40 a.m. local time." I tried a quick azimuth measure, eyeballed relative only to the blue car, and got 165 degrees (yellow line, read backwards). This equates to a time of almost exactly 12:00 noon (about 30 minutes before solar noon, and 20 minutes later than their estimate). Seeing they're close to right, I'll presume they're closer than me and defer to 11:40. <br />
<br />
If this photo is taken at 11:40 AM, and it's the same truck seen leaving Donetsk around 11-11:20 AM, it's impossible these images are from the same day as alleged (Gmaps says it's 68.8 km, 1 hour 14 mins drive, when there's only 20-40 minutes between the images). That would mean multiple mobile launchers with multiple "Titan" trucks, or just one but with some date fudging. The company says a number of its trucks were stolen, so matching multiples are entirely likely. But so is date fudging, multiples or not. If that's so, I suspect the Donetsk photo was from July 15 or 16, and this one more likely from the day of the crime. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 04:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br /><br /><br /><br />
=== Zuhres Video ===<br />
[[File:Buk Zuhres Vid.png|right|480px]]Again, a truck of that same type loaded with the same apparent weapon is briefly seen driving east (detail at right). This one was never reported wrong and was in fact pre-geo-located by the uploader [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=48%C2%B0+1'1.38%22N++38%C2%B018'6.04%22E&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=48.034019,38.391724&spn=0.629958,1.564178&gbv=2&hnear=H21,+Zuhres,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&gl=us&t=h&z=10 here in Zuhres.] Higgins confirms, 100% sure, and others concur. <ref name="Story1" /> Zuhres location: on highway H21 halfway between Donetsk and the general disaster zone - 36 km east by road from the position of the truck in the Paris Match photo. I agree with the location, refined below as I lined up in the still used here - the blue line runs between the blue thing and the building corner (footprint, not roofline) to the front of the truck as it passes. <br />
<br />
The sky is fairly overcast, so solar angles can't be measured precisely; the differences in facet lighting are clear but not massive. A broad and inclusive azimuth range of 167˚ to 214˚ (rounded) is shown by the yellow arrows below. This yields a range (to the nearest minute) of 12:09 PM and 1:45 PM. The best middle is a bit early - 185 degrees. That would be 12:44 PM. Altitude, at solar noon, helps little. 12:09, 12:44, and all times between round off to 63˚. if that simply looks too high, we're forced to the later end of the time frame. - 57˚ at 1:45. My super broad-estimate: 12:45 +/- 50 minutes. Weather at this time on whatever day - as noted, it partly overcast, and it's windy. The clouds are moving fast, with slight lighting changes visible in just these few seconds. Winds by the swaying trees are from the southeast, perhaps, blowing northwest - at least at the building with a face running that way.<br />
[[File:Buk Zuhres analysis.png|center|680px]]<br />
<br />
==The Truck Owner's Story==<br />
The apparent owner of the white truck so important to the MH17 operation was of course tracked down via the giant phone number for his compant on its side. Interviewed at least twice now, first by Paris Match, then by Lithuanian agency Alfa, this businessman has been anonymized as Vassili (then Vasilijus). Thorough summary of the related, alleged facts, from each (translated) report:<br />
* [http://www.parismatch.com/Actu/International/EXCLU-MATCH-Un-camion-vole-pour-transporter-le-systeme-lance-missiles-577289 Paris Match, July 25:]<br />
:''Photographs of Paris Match showed that the rebels had failed to remove the billboard on the truck they had stolen. Thus we joined the owner of the vehicle. Vassili said the rebels occupied warehouses on the outskirts of Donetsk since July 8. "They are fighters Slaviansk. They landed and told me they loved my premises and we had to escape. They shipped me a dozen large vehicles, including the white truck. I do not know what happened to them, "admitted Vassili, distraught.'' (that was actually just what they published, aside from context material) <br />
<br />
* [http://www.alfa.lt/straipsnis/472203/alfa-lt-isskirtinis-interviu-su-raketas-buk-kuriomis-buvo-numustas-malaizijos-avialiniju-lektuvas-gabenusio-vilkiko-savininku?p=1#.U-GIxeOSyuZ Alfa.lt, July 29:]<br />
:''This person's testimony is crucial. After it becomes indisputably known that anti-missile system, which shot down a passenger plane was precisely the Kremlin-sponsored terrorist hands. ''<br />
Here, separatists are throughout called "terrorists" (Bezler is "the "People's Republic of Donetsk" terrorist gangs ringleader"). Vassili says these took over and occupied his company premises on July 8, taking the white truck - they said because it was needed He says they stayed in control of his facility for 8 days, apparently departing on the 9th day - July 17. Becuase of this, he and his staff - especially his drivers - were unable to do anything that whole time. He's entirely certain it's his truck in the videos (the phone number says so) as it's the only one of its type in that part of Donetsk (Žinoma, ji – vienintelė tokia Donecko srityje, tokios kitos nėra. Tokios „Volvo“ su tokia kabina). He says he still hasn't seen it since.<br />
:''...more and more irrefutable evidence that Russia supported the terrorists shot down over the temporary control of the territory in the east of Ukraine aboard passenger "Malaysia Airlines plane, and later sought to hide evidence.''<br />
But as Paris Match noted, they couldn't be bothered to detach the phone number to the guy with the whole dang story. <br />
:''Alfa.lt knowledge of the personal data, company name, knows his responsibilities and phone numbers (one is (050) 471-41-80), but because of '''the danger to his life''' that can not be published. "Stop saying my name, and I already have enough problems," said new horrific crime witness Vasilijus.'' <br />
This is valid; of course his best defense would have been to simply ''not'' implicate the separatists mostly running Donetsk, but it's too late now. DPR authorities might want him for questioning. And especially now that he's been publicized as a "crucial witness," others will want him to '''appear to have been brutally murdered by them''' (he will have served his main purpose by now, perhaps). I hope someone's able to arrange protective custody quickly enough, or that he can arrange his own vacation, or convince his friends (he'll know the ones) of his continuing usefulness to them alive. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Titan Gate blurry.png|left|380px]]Further bits on the business: Wikimapia has labels. One for the front building is generic. In English writing: [http://wikimapia.org/#lat=48.0399571&lon=37.794637&z=16&l=0&m=b&show=/24479492/Ochakivska-vulytsia-19 Ochakivska vulytsia, 19]. Beneath: Category: safety, '''private security company.''' Around this, a bigger labeled area including the back building and surrounding lot. Label: Территория службы охраны "Титан" Translated, it says "Territory protection service "Titan" (Donetsk)." Beneath it: "Category: '''Do not display name''', fenced area." (не отображать название, огороженная территория) Below, their gate area as it appears in Human Rights Investigation's still, and three versions I've seen randomly changing over the last day or so with different parts that could be the name blurred out (most recently back to not blurred). Is that unusual? I predict further twists in this, with the truck found somewhere bolstering the Kiev story, and with the company's "outing" being manipulated somehow. Feels a little spooky. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
;Assessing "Vassili's" Story<br />
<br />
There are a number of problems with and interesting questions about this witness' story and how it meshes with other allegation (details forthcoming).<br />
<br />
In Vassili's defense, I'll say the world needs to hear more. What happened in these eight days? Were Russian officers coming and going? Poring over air charts in the side room, before closing the door with an annoyed look? A lot could have happened - this could be a gold mine of direct evidence for war crimes trials of these terrorist gang's leaders (as understood). --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
[[File:MH17 Vassili's Truck August 1c.png|right|400px]]<br />
An apparent support: as HRI found, [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/08/07/new-sighting-of-volvo-linked-to-buk/ New sighting of Volvo linked to BUK?] August 7 - One of those provocatively deleted tweets, quite recent with a supposedly same-day (dawn or sunset) photo from somewhere in Donetsk - outskirtsy, like where <s>rebel</s> I mean Kiev junta forces proudly claim to almost be. this photo (saved by HRI) shows "a truck" carrying a tank, driving behind another tank. The posted thought it was for a new roadblack/barricade (concrete slabs were also being hauled). It appears to be the same truck Vassili says he lost, or one just like it. And this does look like the type of thing seaparatists would do if they had seized it, and still didn't realize how famous it had become. This thing likes to drive at dawn, doesn't it? How are checkpoints then, a little sleepy maybe? Hmmm... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::(added later: inset image - from the photo, color-corrected and cropped on just the truck - for full view see the article or below) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: FTR I took up HRI's challenge to identify the truck on that picture and did so with almost 100% certainty. It's a Volvo FH second generation (2001-2013) with low cabin. Like [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Volvo_LKW_Fahrerhaus.JPG this one] which has a higher cabin but other than that is quite a match. Also FTR, I noticed that the twitter account has "Donbass Bandera" as location, which can but must not mean anything. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: Bandera might mean something, in context, but no time to puzzle too much. Good ID work there. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Vassili's Truck August 1 Loc.png|left|380px]]The article passes on a geo-location I can confirm: [https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Makiivka,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine/@48.04073,37.967479,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m5!1e2!3m3!1s78165143!2e1!3e10!4m2!3m1!1s0x40e08e984a0db9a9:0xe4e52efde2e0641c Here on Google Maps,] photo taken, as described, from "opposite the Vostochno-evroppeyskiy restaurant & lounge “Atrium” in Makiivka on the H-21." A site photo of the "Atrium" is included. The graphic I made at left shows the approximate view, including the stairwell (to a subway station?), though the billboard is less clear. The view is roughly towards the rising sun northeast - a rough azimuth measure suggests the sun is shining from about <s>66</s> 71 degrees from north, for a time of around <s>5:24</s> 5:52 AM (elevation: <s>1.8</s> 6 degrees). --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC) and corrections --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
FWIW, I went over to militaryphotos.net and scanned [http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?236005-Situation-in-the-Ukraine-Crimea-*Photos-Videos*-ONLY/page200 the thread about Ukraine starting on page 200] in very early July, up until page 225 when all the known truck/BUK info and disinfo was posted. Watched countless military convoys, including a whole bunch from Donetsk in the time between. Not a sign of the truck in question. If it was in "rebel" hands since July 8 like the alleged owner claims, they used it only for "special ops", alone in the early morning or so, not in their larger relocation operations. Two things remotely interesting: in an operation [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0JdcC324Ek reactivating a WWII tank from a war museum in Donetsk], a similar trailer is used, but the truck is a different one. And in [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2eGNPJlkMo this video from July 5] but without given location, the Ukie army does some operations and two BUK TELARs are seen. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Possible Launch Sites ==<br />
*Launch site discussion here is based on a photo of disputed provenance, said to be made '''near [[Category_talk:Ukraine#Torez|Torez]]''', showing a plume of smoke (see on the right and below). Exact date is disputed, but it was posted shortly after the accident. A late update or second version of the photo emerged in December 2014; this is further discussed in the [[File_talk:MH17_Launch_Plume.png|talk page for the photo]]. A different launch location in '''Artemovsk''', based on Bezler account, is discussed elsewhere [[Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17#Bezler_Account|(link).]] . <br />
<br />
===What do we know? ===<br />
Questions about the photo, --if it is genuine-- include:<br />
<br />
*What is shown on the photo? (Likely a missile launch, but can be MANPAD, or some other launch; raising fire smoke not excluded though less likely) <br />
*When was the photo made? (Claimed to be couple of minutes after the MH 17 shootdown launch; but could be made on earlier days)<br />
*Where was the photographer, and where is than the 'launch site" Photograph claimed to be made in Torez (4 microdistrict?) . Claimed launch sites locations are [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/launch-location-detected-of-missile.html SE] or [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2107 NE] from the photographer. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
A site, or maybe a couple of locations, have now been forwarded, based on compelling evidence, as likely SAM launch sites of July 17 or thereabouts. This is worth careful consideration here. To start:<br />
<br />
* [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10984530/MH17-the-clues-which-may-lead-to-missile-launch-site.html UK Telegraph, July 22] This report with some detail and a photo visits a few areas where signs of possible BUK launcher movement and firing occurred recently. Caterpillar tracks, mostly light, signs of burning, various debris left behind, all or mostly "in the area of the town of Snizhnoye." These details might suggest whoever did this had multiple launchers set up in different areas that left as soon as the operation/accident was done. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
::So far, signs are saying it was just the one. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Below: The site shown on video, stitched panoramic view (with confusing curve). This helps get the fullest set of geo-location clues. I may even check if this is the same spot identified by Ukraine@War, below. It should be, or we might have two firing locations pretty near each other, which would be odd. The firing direction from here would be northwest, almost directly along MH17's flight path. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
[[File:MH17 Telegraph site.png|center|940px]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Launch Plume.png|right|340px]]Ukraine@War: [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/launch-location-detected-of-missile.html Launch location detected of missile that brought down MH17] The photo at right, cited by Kiev as proof of a BUK launch in the right area, July 17. The anlysis here looks good on first blush and lines the filming to northern Torez, plume on a line including a supposed patch of cat tracks just revelaed by fresh Google/GeoEye images of some fields [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Donetsk&hl=en&ll=47.989347,38.773155&spn=0.078813,0.195522&t=h&hnear=Donetsk,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&z=13 here] by Snizhne. As traced, the tracks look realistic to me. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: There is (a disappeared) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUvK5m2vxro BBC video ] suggesting that smoke is from a direction of Saur-Mogila (= constant fighting) and a coal mine. <br />
::Thus smoke may be unrelated to the launch. Also timing of photo is unclear. <br />
:: Buk trail from unrelated launch videos appears considerably [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDXScnEKaP0 more impressive than on the photo] , and traces well visible trajectory, likely attracting attention of many people . But there appears to be no witness reports. <br />
::Buk appears to use [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_navigation proportional navigation method], and if so, its navigation control will try to guide it on a straight path to impact.<br />
::Unless it was doing something else (but can it??? the answer requires expert knowledge), it was most likely on a straight line trajectory which can be deduced from the impact direction.<br />
--[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 00:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Yes, an odd video. I'm not certain they even picked the right view, but it looks about right - I think she and Oliphant (Telegraph) point to the same monument as a landmark - a place of fighting. Seems like they got close, but didn't have a specific spot like U@W picked, and didn't find anything. As for angle, I think it can maneuver around, but would prefer to fly straight (not an expert, don't know what "prefer" means here). And if it was hit head-on like the impact marks suggest, then it probably did fly just about straight into the jet. Obviously if it came over the wing, and was fired from here, it would have to curl around, but I don't think that's the case. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
<br />
The satellite images cited at Ukraine@War are available if you have Google Earth. As explained [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/satellite-images-reveal-how-buk-has.html here,] there's a .kmz package you can download [https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxEeOqcjSE5uQXlkWkxKeVhDaEk/edit here] that loads on Google Earth new, murky images from July 20 (but the display still says August, 2013). The tracks he highlights are visible, faintly. There are a couple sets perhaps connecting - some could be local paths - there's no recent enough images to say there weren't there July 16. One important missing thing is a patch of burnt grass it seems should show up up differently - it's not identified there, and not evident right around these tracks. From this, it's not a great fit, except that line of sight pointing here. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Plastic Debris 1.png|left|280px]]So is the Telegraph site and the Ukraine@War site the same thing? Well, the Telegraph article says they went to the spot identified on a blog, but found, as the image suggests: Two possible launch sites – a rundown collective farm and a nearby wheat field – showed some track marks but no sign of any rocket launch whatsoever." It was a farmer plowing his fields there who pointed them to ''a field nearby'' that burned the other day, and that 's the unclear site they show. "The location of the fire lies on the supposed flight path of the rocket, and track marks – though indistinct – are present. Some unidentifiable bits of green plastic littered the site of the fire." There were also discarded bottles (type unclear) and apparently this oddity, shown in a photo but not mentioned - soft bakelite-type plastic ... thing, with years in the 1980s and 1990s stamped in it. It's all near enough to the rebel town, the Russian border, and concealed rebel positions that they think only rebels could operate there. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
First, let's note that author "P. Martin" connects these possibly relevant tracks with the surveillance video showing the Buk launcher driving south The Telegraph spot, from the burnt grass, must the spot the exhaust pushed off from, and the burn line should probably be to the northwest. There's no sign of that alongside these track marks found on that visual line. That's a problem, as the exhaust never said a luncher was driving around thataway, but rather launching from thataway. <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Telegraph Spot Mapped.png|right|380px]][[File:MH17 Telegraph Spot Cleared.png|right|320px]]Rather, it's the nearby "Telegraph spot" - not quite on his line but close - that [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com/2014/07/exact-location-pinpointed-of-mh17.html Martin thinks is the EXACT location] That, he thinks, is in the next field south. It should be visible in the updated imagery, but it turns out this is just off the edge of the area they provided, so it can't be verified or ruled out based on that. The inset graphic shows this cut-off line, his previous possible firing locations (track-based, seemingly un-burnt, in yellow) The spot yields a best placement with coordinates already noted by Petri in a section [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Map#Buk locations and flight paths|here.]] (I picked out the spot myself, best guess, and got the same but 3 seconds east) It can't be checked like that for the telltale stripe to the northwest, but it looks pretty likely to me. The main view down the tracks (left half of the panorama above) would be looking south, and the near line of trees on the right running west. The pretty obvious tracks he identifies as likely launcher tracks, and they do seem to curve in where it stopped. Otherwise, to me, this has more the look of a pre-travelles semi-road on the line between fields. Either way, it probably drove that way, and fired from here, and not from the un-burnt spots north. All the tracks he notes, none certain in themselves, are supported in their possible relevance by this being what's at the end of the trail. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC) and [[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Added in November, the image below that. I noticed Google Maps had new post-crash imagery up, and re-checked the spot for burn marks, since it was just off the grid before. This replacement - overlayed with translucence - seems too late. The strip most likely to show the signs has apparently been harvested/cleared before this image Some will say that constitutes a coverup. And it might, but probably just out of stupid reflexive nervousness. I just wanted to measure its angle and stuff. There is a nice track right up to the spot, likely pre-existing and just unclear before, and what they used to get there. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Location Challenged ===<br />
<br />
The above stuff, as of now and as I've been running it mainly, seems to bear out the vaunted "social media sleuths" placing the launcher and probably the launch in "separatist-held territory." I agree with all locations provided, and times too. Everyone acknowledges date is less sure. There are compelling clues pointing to concrete firing spot, that seems to be lined up the hit the jet head-on, as it's starting to seem the airliner was hit. In this narrative, the questions people should be asking is who was really running that. But readings differ, and some differing views can be considered here. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* [https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByibNV3SiUoobnpCVDduaHVORHM/edit?usp=sharing MH17 Analysis] – CDN <br />
<br />
Petri posted this to the front page, a 25-page report with many graphics and explained reasoning. One of its conclusions, based on range to impact, mainly, meant that "the missile that downed MH17 was not fired from Snizhne." At the moment, I disagree. Petri, who is CDN, and are they soliciting feedback? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::The anonymous PDF was published via Saker's blog: [http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/08/detailed-expert-analysis-of-mh17-downing.html Detailed expert analysis of the MH17 downing] "CDN" has [http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/08/detailed-expert-analysis-of-mh17-downing.html?showComment=1407347983141#c8862773971299986141 responded] [http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/08/detailed-expert-analysis-of-mh17-downing.html?showComment=1407350196815#c7564049628743605813 twice] in the comments. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 00:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
I think these might be part of what threw the author(s) off:<br />
# the heading seems to be off, too southerly to trace back like that. At the end, maybe close enough<br />
# possibly too-wide debris field starting too early - final breakup likely E-NE of their spot (ie closer to in range)<br />
# Wrong presumed angle of impact <br />
# Lack of knowledge, specified on page 23, of this contrail image or, obviously, the supporting clues pointing to what might be "the Telegraph site" excluded here. "Why are there no images of the rebel missile and its impressive launch contrail?" Oops, there is and it point there. <br />
--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: I just skimmed it before coming here. It was posted [http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.de/2014/08/detailed-expert-analysis-of-mh17-downing.html over here] where you can join the discussion (which I haven't read yet just saw that Petri is there chiming in in comment 2 of currently 93). I think it's first valuable in presenting the known capabilities of the Buk etc. If your stuff above is true and it is one single truck with one single TELAR that was seen in the different locations, then it shows quite conclusively that the Telegraph position can not be the launching point, because even if the Ukie claim of disappearance from Radar 50km from the Russian border is not true, due to the position of the debris it could only be further away, not closer, which adds to the argument. My 2 cents for the moment. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
: Oh, not directly related to the critique, but driving around with a huge phone number that leads to a Titan security of all places is more than a bit suspicious, I'd say. ;o) --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: "the Telegraph position can not be the launching point" if my "stuff above is true and it is one single truck with one single TELAR that was seen in the different locations" - how? "because even if the Ukie claim of disappearance from Radar 50km from the Russian border is not true, due to the position of the debris it could only be further away, not closer, which adds to the argument." Huh? I think the field is placed really vaguely in that report, and that's what sets the impact point - it looks maybe kilometers off, to the west. Placed right, the implied impact point is further east, ie closer to the launcher. It is a valuable report, but that point should be re-checked more carefully before I could be convinced to write off all the other evidence pointing there. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::: Take a careful look at pages 9 and 10 of the PDF. Place the spot to where you think it's "right". Think how that would change the picture. The argument is based on the empirical location of the debris and unless I've missed some serious flaw in the numbers and basic calculations made on the pages leading to that, I think it's by rule of thumb a very sound argument. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 13:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::: I'll do my own soon - I can say it would end further east, relative to the border there, and probably start further east too, but maybe I'm unaware of some outlying debris - but first a though on the debris field I just had, even more relevant than size and placement - what does it actually say re: the plane? He presumes it would follow the trajectory east. Not much, really. With only so much momentum and breaking up, with five miles to fall, the main factor will be wind. Even a breeze has five miles to act on it. That was so with PA 103 - the wind was about perpendicular to the path, and that determined just where stuff scattered on a line across the borders area right to the north sea - only the cockpit and a few things were off much from that line. Here, if it blewa along the flight path, the reasoning would work fine. If it blew back, to the west, the plane was probably shot further east than the field suggests. Ie, closer yet to in range. The Zuhres video above shows wind apparently to the northwest, and pretty strong. Worth a review and re-think in that light. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 14:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::: With an initial speed of 907 km/h I see no reason to take wind into serious account. I see no reason at all for going into more detail in this rule of thumb argument, not on the debris, not on the alleged launching point. But I'm as always looking forward to what you can come up with. ;o) --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::: btw there's no exact calculation of the traveled distance of the falling pieces, it's just found plausible resulting from other data. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::::: There's good reason. [http://martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/PA103_debris.gif past precedent.] I did read it wrong - the blue oval is about right, I thought the scale by it, which is way off. That's the 20 km drift - if the wind was blowing due east at the right speed... to the near edge of the oval and 30 km to the far edge... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 15:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 four last points.png|center]]<br />
<br />
Debris fields as shown in MH17 WSJ data combined.jpg. The two tracks, 118 per Flightradar24 and other sources, and 111 from a Russian graphic (see label C), just in case. They cross at point E just to look cool - superimpose wherever to visualize a track-back on these or any line between. <br />
<br />
The four red "last points", eyeballed onto the map as shown in the various graphics used here (all pretty approximate): <br />
<br />
A: last return, flightradar 24 (erred, I think, way too far along - I suspect some inherent offset...)<br />
<br />
B: Russian ATC last return, '50 km' from the border (vague description, likely close to accurate)<br />
<br />
C: end of 111 track shown in MH17 radar 1.png (maybe arbitrary, lower resolution)<br />
<br />
D: report, deduced point of impact (presuming 20-30 km flight due east after impact, wind app. not considered at all)<br />
<br />
E: My guess for breakup point, where the damaged front came apart (should maybe be further east, right over the south part of the first orange blob). Actual impact point, an unclear distance back. probably not very far - downward flight could start anytime after that, decreasing the lateral distance traveled) . <br />
<br />
The cockpit, aerodynamic, shows the most like forward trajectory of this, relatively minimal wind complication. The heavy forward parts had more drag, wound up NW of there. A bit further NW, the light, high-drag, punctured upper fuselage. That these parts aren't spread further out suggests the jet managed to descend some ways before the front totally fell apart, and/or that the wind was fairly light. From there, most of the plane remained together, kept more momentum and little wind effect, and crashed kilometers east. The last part of this plummet, about one minute seen on video, it was nose-free and essentially nose-diving. A slight north trend, perhaps curtailed eastward progress, largely just down, leaves it all hitting together by Hrabove, scattering woth the fireball trajectory and wind deciding where these bits landed. That it only got so far from the forward parts again suggests this breakup was fairly low in the fall - maybe just before the start of the one video. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I'd say forget point D, it is way too far west, this plane was not going to fly 25km once hit. On debris, I'd put breakup where the "f" is in your word "forward" and impact not very far NW of that, lifting the whole 118 line a little northwards. You can't bring breakup below impact and count on wind pushing wreckage "uphill" because that first group of wreckage included 37 bodies, which would not "sail". The impact would be enough to knock the course slightly south, to drop the cockpit at Rozspyne, where it turned NE to end up at Grabovo. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 03:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Thanks. D is the presumed point used to rule out this launch location, the original point of this sub-section. That dot fails by a good margin. My E and your guess are both north of the flight path, along which all the red dots are (this graphic is confusing, needs updating, if I didn't flatten it). I was thinking a NNW wind did the north and west spreading, but the records say the wind was flat "east" (to the west). I'm left suspecting now the plane banked hard left just before it started breaking up. Actual impact, just before that. The "C" label is pretty arbitrary, but it keeps seeming about right. On the imagined red line 1t 117-118, I dunno, maybe 20-30 pixels back. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::Winds are described as 'from' not 'to. So a wind blowing to the NNW is reported as a SSE wind.<br />
::::A slip - I'm trying to say it that way now. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::Getting on to the wind. The actual breeze direction is usually a function of altitude - veering or backing from ground level observation. It can easily be 90 degrees out from ground level. You need to look at the vertical profile used in aeronautical soundings to see where debris will in the main blow to. --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 11:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::Sounds like a real headache to map. There's also changes over time, where east at 5:00 may change briefly ten minutes later, or 10,000 feet up. All that seems can be counted on is easterly winds in general - no exception to that. And generally, even if they measure it at the airport, it must extend up to the clouds, which can be seen swirling east over the area. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::No it doesn't extend to the clouds except by accident. Major direction change can happen in hundreds of metres altitude especially at night. Examples of wind shift between ground level and 700 millibars (9800 ft) in day time can show a direction change of 90 degrees - e.g. North to West. This is significant with MH17 where the breakups occurred between 33,000 feet and probably a few thousand feet for the final disintegrations. --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 11:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::FYI Here is all about [http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/48/ Veering and Backing] --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 11:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::As for the spread issue, I'm re-thinking it. As for the bodies, it depends on a few things but I take your point - bodies are dense. And I didn't know that detail - worth considering. Also a sad side-note: most bodies would be alive and aware, from what I learned looking at Lockerbie. Lack of O2 would black them all out at first, but gravity makes it so there's enough in that final stretch those not dead already (the lucky few) would probably "wake up" in time to both feel their injuries and their fall, and to see the "separatist-held" fields rushing up to kill them. :( ---[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::: My indications are they were all dead when they hit the ground. That's not to say some didn't suffer from the first blast up there. Using my (very long ago) rescue triage training, I examined all the body photos for type of injury. The main findings were (a) almost no blood (as the separatist intercepted call rightly claimed) (b)a lot of legs at angles suggesting hip/pelvic fracture (a very common injury in air crashes to people wearing seat belts) and (c) all the bodies appear swollen (in first-day photos). We are thinking of what happened as a decompression, a low-pressure event. But that was preceded by the blast detonation of the missile just outside... a high-pressure event. The very high pressure shock wave compresses the blood vessels and severely damages the lungs. Blood pressure and heart rate go sky high trying to compensate. In 1/2 a second the blast wave is gone and they are in decompression.The heart can't adjust fast enough. The lack of blood flow makes the brain and liver swell up, too, so normal blood circulation cannot be re-established even if the heart recovers. The Lockerbie bomb, and various exploding fuel tank cases, were lower pressure explosions; sadly many would have survived those until ground/water impact.[[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 20:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::So there is evidence of blast wave, not _just_ decompression alone? But no shrapnel wounds? --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 21:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::(cut my comment - I had misread - taken to [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Debunked topics#Bloodless bodies – fake Facebook profiles?|bloodless bodies spot]] FWIW - but I disagree with both the lack of blood and the validity of many "separatist" communications, but if we're not arguing a planeload of corpses being shot down, I won't argue it much.) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
More to the point, leaving the above graphic aside, would be this newer one I should finally add. Basic straight path, 118 and placed as agreed by most sources. Alleged launch location, measures app. My best guess is a 2 km range from 22.75 to 24.75, weighted to the center. Or most likely about 23.75 km out (irrespective of actual projectile flight path, that's where it made contact, but this helps visualize how the alleged launch site might line up with [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Forensics#Direction of projectiles?|the directional forensics]]). --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
[[File:MH17 missile intercept distances.png]]<br />
::Straight line from launch is okay. But impact has to be further north, ie before the most westerly debris. You've used the map which assumes that debris to be blown back by wind. That can't be right, as it included bodies (too dense to blow back) and witnesses saw them and plane sections falling straight down. This only makes about 1 mile difference to the missile range, so does nothing to exclude that launch location. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 01:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::The map of spread is only app., some orange area I made. The pink dot and lines are from a map, Russian analysis, as you say apparently presuming a SSE wind. Debris including people ''would'' be blown back to some degree, all of it, varyingly; trajectory can only do so much when you have five miles of falling, with the breezes acting the whole time, and the lightest parts will be back a bit, whatever direction and as mentioned above, a SSE winds at some time or altitude still isn't ruled out at all). Do we know just where in that area those passengers landed, and what types of things are its far end? ? <br />
(<br />
:::I mean, you could be right and it's a bit further back, maybe with a continuation due east from there and no real wind effect except slightly back. It was only 9-12 mph, and maybe it fell halfway before starting to fall apart, which means less spread. I'm thinking about a possible left turn to explain the north aspect, or it could be wind, or being further back (more north, as well as west), or a combination. The turn has to be a certain size, the wind direction is not certain aside from east prevailin, ... whatever point best explains whatever happened ... we're down to a shrinking agreed range, and as you say, it's all within range of the one spot, so it's not ruled out after all. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 04:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
At this stay of play, I feel it will be helpful to have displayed prominently an overall map reflecting best guess on impact location as well as already flagged suspected launch sites, that is the two launch sites we have been discussing (near Snezhny ; near Chernukhino) , PLUS launch locations flagged and TIMED by released satellite data (currently only Russian data is available). I would be generous with the range here, we can find range suggested by public sources but presumably actual range depends on a number of things (height, radar range, trajectory, wind), and may exceed the "official" range. Another useful graphics piece info would be indicating the front lines, if there is a way to have those known. '''I would be extremely cautious with displaying graphics reflecting just one way of thinking (whether "worst", "best", or "middle of the way"), for the reason that any graphics is easy for human brain to absorb, more than words spread out on all our numerous pages, and ''no graphics at all'' is better than displayed ''skewed'' graphics.''' One-sided graphics may be '''inviting''' even more noise releases "supporting" some already skewed scenarios, and I feel that was already happening way too often. I feel that most helpful stance at this point would be as neutral as it gets. (Regarding trajectories, a default guess is a straight line, anything else requires an explanation. Straight line is implied so no strong need to actually display it, especially if it ends up curling in suggestive funny ways on graphics). --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 09:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::I've been doing a lot of graphics, so not all fired up for more. But if you are, I wouldn't mind making another if it helps. Maybe this is best taken to [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Map#Interception Location]] (a lot of this is redundant, and I might move it, but at least I can say let's stop piling intercept stuff here as well as there). Up to picking a certain spot around Chernukino? Some outskirts area, on a major road, it'll be a guess. A couple guesses could be mapped. Also, if it seems worth it, I can do updates and upload the new version as needed. Any timed satellite launches, let me know. Front lines, not known and IMO misleading in this case. Those who would know would try - and maybe manage - to sneak this thing behind them... the caution about leading labels, I can leave to you - you could just tell me what to put. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
:::::Would take me forever, may try later on, but not immediately; some cleanup/re-arrangement seems the easiest option. (If there are tools for collaborative mapping, may be good to start using those; but not aware of any) --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 11:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The preliminary [[Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Dutch preliminary report|Dutch report]] says the flight recorders were suddenly lost at 13:20:04 UTC at a point that almost exactly matches the 22.6 km mark. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 22:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Plume Location Re-challenged ===<br />
There is another video, essentially giving a bellingcat in voice-altered Russian. We discussed all that essentially; but he seems at least to end up with a claim for geolocation for the plume photo. Seems to be a new one (or I forgot the old one already by now). The claim is based on [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2055 unrelated panoramic photo] somebody took nearby, and [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2025 claimed to be geolocated by presenter]. Here it is on <br />
[http://maps.yandex.ru/-/CVG0nLo~ yandex map] ; it is taken from a terricon located at Lutuginskii bugor(=hill). There is a cableway from there to TsOF (remember, Khuevyi Torez tells about cableway from Lutugino to TsOF, so here they are); [http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=48.012722&lon=38.665695&z=14&m=b&show=/10590043/ru/ЦОФ-им-Киселёва TsOF is central enrichment plant]; photos from TSOF do show a similar [http://photos.wikimapia.org/p/00/00/62/81/85_big.jpg cableway] . So based on that and an audio of locals of unknown provenance and authenticity, discussing a missile-looking trail in the direction of [http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=48.041767&lon=38.741055&z=14&m=b&show=/18687650/ru/Химмаш Khimmash], our presenter [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2107 ends up] with this [http://maps.yandex.ru/-/CVG0rMnO claimed plume location] , somewhere near this Mochalino village. And apart from this, his contribution to the topic is the claim of a white spot on the other side of 3'2 Buk which he claims to match on the way out. I do not believe all those Buk sightings were taken on the same day, and so do not believe in the overall glue-up of the story, but geolocating the plume, no matter what the plume is, remains legitimate. This author gives his answer to that question. Is this geolocation correct? I do not know, it is not tight, there are lots of cableways out there I presume, and some posts nearby are not too unusual. I do not see a tight fit between Lutuginski bugor photo and the plume photo--some elements do match, but those are obviously not identical places. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 02:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Excellent. Let's keep the title. But I guess you just forgot the previous location. This is the same view. The plume could be added, but I doubt it, and it's to that view at a consistent time on a consistent day. I'm not convinced ''all'' Buk sightings are same day, but most of them being so is a good fit with this plume that way, and a plane down with damage that seems consistent to me. (I hate this case) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::Are you sure it's the same? This new one is NNE from Torez, I thought it was placed SE from Torez by [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/launch-location-detected-of-missile.html U@W ]--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::Going back to check, this is a different filming location proposed. Line of sight isn't included, but it seems to be the same line over the same area to the same place. Even before he could see the distinctive mound, Petros (U@W) had [http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-cfSqhRb2dKo/U80x2OxK1XI/AAAAAAAATNk/r42WpH-Bf-Q/s1600/missile+trail+9.jpg this lineup], which includes this spot. Right where Petros pic says "trees" is what this guy decided were the foreground trees where it was filmed. I wondered when checking but decided on the further version. And seems to be the same result either way. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::I don't think this is accurate, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2107 video at this timestamp] gives 'место пуска ракеты' (launch location) near [http://maps.yandex.ru/-/CVGgVPJN Molchalino]. I have not seen this elsewhere, I only seen the one claimed to be SE of Torez. He does not discuss filming location, but shows it on video and assumes it is in Torez near the terricon, which is close to what other sources assume. He does show the line of site on the video; it is nearly perpendicular to U@W. Lots of terricons, coalmines (so likely cableways), and power lines leading there in this area, so location now seems uncertain. As I understand, no solid evidence for either of these two being the correct geolocation (those cableways seems to be quite common) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::::I am/was confused then. I thought it showed a SW view, just from closer to the mound. Now I see at 33:45 a view from right by it, looking NE? Can't explain the other one you see in the distance in the fuller view (right ?) That's kind of towards Molchalino, but that won't explain anything I suspect. (and what a bad fake or odd coincidence to have a plume up there and a the Buk tracking imagery lead to south of Snizhne, oops!) We'll see south and west faces of buildings if looking NE, so sun will be shining from well east of south, but also quite high, like mid-day in the early AM - or maybe just earlier mid-day, like 11 am. That would be another sloppy mistake. I doubt the details will line up. BUT a couple minor things didn't quite seem to the other way, so maybe worth a try (later). --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I will send this comment also to<br />
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/01/27/is-this-the-launch-site-of-the-missile-that-shot-down-flight-mh17<br />
The US map launch location can best best and almost exactly located from the last magnified picture:<br />
https://wp4553-flywheel.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/32.jpg<br />
That location is here:<br />
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.9571993,38.7466343,488m/data=!3m1!1e3<br />
The triangulation result in the last 3 pictures of the article introduces unnecessary error and clearly does not match the magnified picture.<br />
There is a structure that looks similar to an airfield and it is just south of Chervony Zhovten (=Oktyabr), matching with a witness observation in that place ("it was flying as if from Saurivka", though not matching 2 other witnesses in the zello audio, indicating it came from government held positions further south, [2:00] "Well, it appears everybody saw where the missile has flown from." [2:04] "Well, where you are, everybody saw it, but the Ukrainian media, as usual, will say, will say that that were us.")<br />
It would be outside the range of the plume picture geolocation bounds, which may be either an error given the long distance, or, the plume picture was taken the day before from the reported grad missile launch (as well as the burned field). (The photographer gave his camera to the SBU after twittering the first picture, so later pictures and dates can not be taken for sure).<br />
http://7mei.nl/not-buk-m1-new-video-proof/--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 19:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:(1) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkCcCmYlMZc That audio], as it turns out, was posted by Torezinfo on 24 July, and updated on 1 February. Torezinfo is a favorite posting place of Khuevyi Torez(=KT), who posted a very [https://twitter.com/WowihaY/status/489914266439671808 similar location map on 17 July already]. KT mentions zello recordings on 25 July in the follow-up, so shortly after it gets on torezinfo. With all that stuff linked to this KT poster, I would not put much trust that any of that is genuine. (Or that this KT poster is not acting as a medium for SBU). (2)[http://fr1.sidcdn.net/maps/nsdc/2014/07/large/map-nsdc-2014-07-17-uk-w3000.jpg Ukrainian map] does give us some Ukrainian held area somewhere to the South, but from that map it is hard to tell where exactly opolchenie ends and UAF begins--(I would not know) (3) Actually, going from there, not likely to hit on the left side--so having it from Artemovsk (as Bezler told, indeed) seems most probable --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 21:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:: Here is another map http://liveuamap.com/e/2014/16-of-july-saurivka-is-bombarded-over-and-over-by-rus-grad?ll=47.907137219641115;38.75392913818363&zoom=8<br />
::And here is an article which says that both Marinovka and Tarany were held by National guard. http://www.interpretermag.com/ukraine-liveblog-day-149-russian-tanks-and-artillery-reach-donetsk/#3353<br />
::I just opened bellingcat https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/01/27/is-this-the-launch-site-of-the-missile-that-shot-down-flight-mh17 and see that large parts of the article disappeared, I think they are working on it. That location given by the US photo does not really match well with the plume direction anymore, lets see what they come up with--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 21:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::I believe Marinovka was [http://lifenews.ru/news/136715 taken by opolchenie on 16 July] (lifenews report). Tarany--do not know, perhaps still Ukraine, but not totally sure. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 21:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::: other sources say attack was repelled and forced them to retreat to Stepanivka http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_in_Shakhtarsk_Raion http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/213817.html--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 22:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::: That US photo launch location differs by an angle of about 11 (?) degrees from the brown line in the bellingcat plot (measured from the photographer's location). https://wp4553-flywheel.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/101.jpg (launch location is just visible below the letter 'p' of 'the word 'suspected'). I think this a lot and puts the 'plume' into question. But then there is only the US photo, which itself could be a production based on social media (or worse).--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 22:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Well some believed this is for real, then they got a case to answer [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/22/mh17-us-intelligence-russia-separatists-report Guardian: Photograph: US intelligence community] [https://twitter.com/barbarastarrcnn/status/491559153559932928/photo/1 @barbarastarrcnn] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
In the following, I assume that most of the social media pieces and leaked audio tapes are correct and connect the dots in a different way:<br />
<br />
1. On July 14, an Ukrainian Antonow 26 airplane was shot down by a missile near the Russian border town of Donetsk.<br />
http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/what-weapon-was-used-to-shot-down-ukraine-air-force-antonov-26-at-july-14/<br />
The video in above link showed the missile flying for 39 seconds until it hit. Only a BUK can fly that long, a manpad or Pantsir, also claimed to have been used, not (see first comment in link).<br />
<br />
2. According to a recorded audio tape published by the Ukrainian Secret Service SBU, rebels possessed a BUK ('BUK3x2') in the Donetsk area at least since July 14 ('we already have BUK'). At that date it may have been either on Russian or already rebel held territory.<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVAOTWPmMM4<br />
<br />
3. A social media search discovered only one other system in the area, capable of shooting down AN26 - a Pantsir. However, a Pantsir can't fly for 39 seconds. Based on a max.speed of 780m/s and max range of 20km, it can only fly for about 25s.<br />
http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.co.nz/2014/11/unnoticed-video-of-26-downing-confirms.html<br />
Therefore and because of the crew's intent to engage in the civil war, it is likely that AN26 was shot down by BUK3x2. Afterwards BUK3x2 had only 3 missiles left.<br />
<br />
4. On July 16, Ukrainian and rebel statements both confirmed the shoot down of a SU-25 plane near the "Marinivka border crossing", which is only a few kilometers south-south east of Pervomaiske, the destination of BUK3x2. Ukraine's defence ministry said: "It is likely that [the hit] was carried out by air-to-air rockets from the Russian air force which were patrolling the border in a pair." <br />
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-28345039<br />
This may have been another reason to install a BUK system in this area on the next day, leaving room for an accidental Ukrainian shoot down, apart from an accidental rebel shoot down and a willful Ukrainian false flag shoot down.<br />
<br />
5. On July 16, rebels fired grad missiles from a location near Pervomaiske. The plume may have been photographed as well by an SBU informant in Torez and twittered on the next day, claiming to show the launch of the missile hitting MH17.<br />
http://7mei.nl/not-buk-m1-new-video-proof/<br />
<br />
6. On July 17, BUK3x2 was seen in rebel territory on its way to Pervomaiske, south of Torez. Ukrainian SBU knew about the arrival latest since July 14 and about its destination latest July 17 morning, allowing a false flag operation from positions held nearby.<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVAOTWPmMM4<br />
<br />
7. There was an ongoing battle in the region with "fluent" contact lines. Marinivka and Tarany, about 8 kilometers south-east and south of Pervomaiske, were controlled by Ukrainian National Guard as well as all of the border region. Marinivka would match well with the direction of the Torez plume photo.<br />
http://liveuamap.com/e/2014/16-of-july-saurivka-is-bombarded-over-and-over-by-rus-grad?ll=47.907137219641115;38.75392913818363&zoom=8<br />
http://www.interpretermag.com/ukraine-liveblog-day-149-russian-tanks-and-artillery-reach-donetsk/#3353<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_in_Shakhtarsk_Raion<br />
<br />
8. The Russian Defense ministry claimed in a news conference, that on July 17, Ukraine installed several BUK system near rebel held areas.<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bNPInuSqfs#t=1567<br />
<br />
9. In a popular 'zello' audio recording, witnesses in the area were talking about the launch of the missile hitting MH17. A witness from "Oktyabr" (Chervony Zhovten) claimed "it was flying as if from Saurivka". <br />
Two other witnesses said:<br />
[2:00] "Well, it appears everybody saw where the missile has flown from."<br />
[2:04] "Well, where you are, everybody saw it, but the Ukrainian media, as usual, will say, will say that that were us."<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkCcCmYlMZc<br />
<br />
10. A Reuter's witness also claimed that the missile was fired from Kiev held territory. Reuters, however, said, "off camera, he said that it was launched from a nearby rebel site. Asked why originally he said the opposite he said it was because he was afraid of the rebels."<br />
In a new interview this witness claims that "off camera comments were just made up by the [Reuters] journalist".<br />
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=497_1427729491<br />
<br />
11. BUK3x2 was again photographed in Lugansk with its 3 missiles, no missile fired since July 14.<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4HJmev5xg0<br />
<br />
12. The US presented a very low resolution satellite photo with the track of a missile added. The launch location does not match well with the direction geolocated with the Torez plume photo, it deviates by about 11 degrees in angle, hence either or both appear to be incorrect.<br />
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/01/27/is-this-the-launch-site-of-the-missile-that-shot-down-flight-mh17/#comment-12493<br />
<br />
13. Award winning investigative journalist Robert Parry reported about leaked US intelligence "that U.S. intelligence agencies do have detailed satellite images of the likely missile battery that launched the fateful missile, but the battery appears to have been under the control of Ukrainian government troops dressed in what look like Ukrainian uniforms."<br />
https://consortiumnews.com/2014/07/20/what-did-us-spy-satellites-see-in-ukraine/<br />
And later Parry wrote: "But I’m now told that U.S. intelligence analysts ... are concentrating on the scenario of a willful Ukrainian shoot-down of the plane, albeit possibly not knowing its actual identity."<br />
https://consortiumnews.com/2014/08/03/flight-17-shoot-down-scenario-shifts/<br />
<br />
14. During the coming months BUK shrapnel may have been collected from the AN26 wreckage and planted in the MH17 wreckage.--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 00:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Photographer Statement===<br />
[http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com.au/2014/12/interview-with-eyewitness-who-made.html Reported to say] : "That day did not foretell anything special would happen. In the morning I woke up and went to my work. At four ó clock in the afternoon I arrived home. And at 16:20 we heard an explosion. The first explosion was not very heavy. 15 seconds later, something like that, there was a second explosion, which was louder and it made the windows shake."<br />
: Did not foretell --an ass, --is this lawyer-written? 'We heard". --Took till December to polish up ? --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 16:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:: Agreed. 'I did not know in advance this would happen.' Uh, who said you might? And 15 seconds must be rocket travel. Did he hear the firing from there? Could be, not that far. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Time delay consideration ===<br />
Photographer reported two sound booms td=15 seconds apart; an interpretation may be launch and impact sounds arriving to him in Torez. If P=(0,0,0) is photographer cordinates, I=(d,0, h) is impact, with d ground distance between Torez and Rozypnoe, h is the height of flight at 10 km , and L =(x,y,0) is launch location, dist(A,B) is Euclidean distance between A and B, c is peed of sound, and n (about 2.5) is missile speed in Machs, then<br />
<br />
(1). dist (P,L) = dist(L,I)/n + dist (I,P) - td*c <br />
<br />
(2). dist (P,L) >= h/n + dist (I,P) - td*c <br />
<br />
(1) is a biquadratic equation for y given x (square enough times for square root to disappear); plotting that gives a closed 'ellipse-like' curve on (x,y) plane; once on that curve, time delay is exactly td seconds (doing this involves solving quadratic equations and removing spurious solutions not satisfying (1) ) . That curve is at distance about 13 km in NW direction from photographer in Torez, and about 22 km in SE direction from him on the Southern ( Saur Mogila side). <br />
<br />
(2) gives a simple estimate that distance between photographer and launcher is greater than the known right hand side; that distance is more than something like 13 km<br />
<br />
(3) Requiring launch withing the range, --launch is not more than 20 km horizontally from the impact-- selects a NW arc of the curve described in (1) ; that arc is to the NW from Torez, and goes slightly NW from the impact point (meaning its ground projection). <br />
<br />
Conclusion, based on the above, is that launch is too far from the photographer, to match the photo. <br />
<br />
(Knowing exact time delay can tighten the argument. With what's actually known, and objection can be raised that whatever actual time delay was, it appeared to be 15 seconds to the photographer. Graphics of the curve may be supplied if needed). --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Ooh. That kind of math could really come in handy with recorded audio cues, for example. But based on '15 seconds, something like that,' from memory months later, I wouldn't put any weight on it. If that turns out correct and pretty exact, there's a good point. Otherwise, the photo and other stuff is more solid, and says it's just about where it should be, as far as I've seen anyway. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Contrail ==<br />
This is what an "impressive launch contrail" of a big missile might look like.<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3lLwP1y0w8 АТО. Запуск двух ТРК Точка-У. Артемовск.] (ATO. The launch of two TRK Tochka-U. Artemivs'k.) – August 28, 2014<br />
-- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 22:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Something happens in the sky. This is the people's reaction:<br />
* ''20/09/2014 Over many parts of the DPR and LPR were seen circles in the sky.'' [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7310 1,] [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7311 2,] [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7312 3,] [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7313 4,] [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7314 5]<br />
-- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 03:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
Tochka U missile is single stage solid fuel, which is a mixture of ammonium perchlorate with rubber and aluminum powder (Russian [http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/tochka/9ch151.shtml "ДАП–15В" fuel] ).<br />
I could not find information on Buk with a comparable level of detail. Buk missile is single stage, solid fuel of some type, "dual-mode solid propellant (total work time - about 15 seconds)" [http://www.webcitation.org/67kZeZxeh] , [http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-9K37-Buk.html]<br />
Earlier "Куб" ("Cube") missile used [http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/kub/kub.shtml 'ballist' fuel,] [https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%85#.D0.91.D0.B0.D0.BB.D0.BB.D0.B8.D1.81.D1.82.D0.B8.D1.82.D0.BD.D1.8B.D0.B5 gunpowder] + plasticiser type (Russian "ВИК-2") at the start, followed by some sort of ramjet ("direct flow rocket engine") at final stage. It is not clear, but possible, that fuels and contrails of Tochka U and Buk are different. Here are some videos with Buk launch: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDXScnEKaP0] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EAtNpsXrgWs], and [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSXMhaFntrU a longer with stupid music version]. Those videos appear to be shot from a closer distance than Tochka U video; and a contrail on them does look quite impressive. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 10:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:The amount of smoke is highly dependant om Alumin(i)um loading. In general more aluminum is more 'oomph' and also more smoke.<br />
:On the other hand, it's common to alter the loading for other reasons. I refer to the Syrian Volcano (122mm variety) that started out as high Al-load and quite smokey but recent versions have low Al load but perhaps similar characteristics? --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 10:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Here is something that might be a BUK: Ukrainian AN-26 shot down from Russian border area on July 14th. Ukraine@war claims it as a BUK. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 10:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
* [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.fi/2014/11/unnoticed-video-of-26-downing-confirms.html Unnoticed video of AN-26 downing confirms shot down from Russian territory] – Ukraine@war, November 27, 2014<br />
** Video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoS4kgHxPnE Ukrainian Military Aircraft Su-25 Downed After Russian Attack Near Izvarino, July 16]<br />
:::Does not look like Buk, short contrail, --not all the way to the ground like on Buk video launches. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::It was a BUK. It flew 39 seconds in the video, a Pantsyr can't do this, see also first comment in this link http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/what-weapon-was-used-to-shot-down-ukraine-air-force-antonov-26-at-july-14/. Easy maths - at Mach 3 (1020m/s) it can fly for about 42 seconds (range 42 km, bit more because initially it is slower). According to the audio tape, BUK 3x2 was in the area on that day! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVAOTWPmMM4 Ukraine@war needed 5 months to find something else in the area, but the Pantsyr can't fly that long. This is how BUK 3x2 likely lost a missile.--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 21:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::::Well, yes, it does takes 42 seconds to fly 42 km at 1000 m/s , but that does not mean what we see '''must be''' a Buk. They start discussing that plane caught fire at 0:03 on the video already. We do not see what on hell is going on until some 30 s later. This plane likely was brought down by Igla or similar modern MANPAD. Possibly two hits, at 0:03 and another at around 0:30. Or it got on fire at the start of the video and than eventually went down (It is unlikely to have SU 25 pilot bailing out after Buk strike; or particularly likely catching fire as it's not aiming at the engine; contrail is weak for a Buk, too). Pantsir claims are much later from what I have seen,--- and no need for Pantsir to shoot SU 25. ---If something is there on SBU audio and some murky photo, does not mean it's all for real, and that what we do actually see all have to be linked to all that murky SBU stuff. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 22:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::::There may be some confusion here, just a recapture<br />
::::::First video https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xTT6BDRA8_k<br />
::::::0:03-0:11 buring object <br />
::::::0:17-0:33 contrail making a half looping<br />
::::::Second video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoS4kgHxPnE<br />
::::::0:29-0:39 contrail making a half looping + detonation.<br />
::::::ukraine@war http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/11/unnoticed-video-of-26-downing-confirms.html<br />
::::::says both videos show AN26 shoot down on July 14 (second video with wrong label SU-25)<br />
::::::says 2nd video impact at 0:39, claims missile has been burning for at least 39 seconds--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 06:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::::::After reconsideration, I would say ukraine@war is right, both videos show AN26 shoot down, but wrong, people were initially watching AN26 with engine burning and a second missile was fired. That missile was seen burning about 16 seconds in first video, and time has to be added to reach that altitude/location, so likely over 20 seconds. That would exclude man-pad, Pantsir (?), likely BUK, R73 air-to-air, ...--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 06:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Actually, it is interesting to know how contrail of Buk on a long haul launch looks like. It is said that it fires engine for some 15 seconds only (and unknown will it do less, if it can do away with less). That 15 seconds need to put it at a spot where it can reach the target with little, if any, engine work and doing turns only. It is not very clear how much targeting happens in the first 15 seconds, likely it does some; and it is self-guided and doing proportional navigation later on. Knowing details here allows to find exact trajectory, short of that thinking it goes straight to the collision point is a sensible idea. In any case, heavy contrail '''raising from the ground''', perhaps higher than the target is. Contrail is white, and stays put for a while. Seriously heavier than the stuff we see on social media. There are youtube videos of Buk launches giving an idea --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:These 15 seconds are wrong. Here is a video (start at 2:00) showing a SA-11 burn fuel for 35 seconds until its too far to distinguish. It is detonating at 42 seconds. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBlU2hHYJMg (I just copied the comment from here http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/what-weapon-was-used-to-shot-down-ukraine-air-force-antonov-26-at-july-14/ )--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 23:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::That video probably shows a modern version ('over horizon' capability was mentioned somewhere regarding modern developments; this one seems to be showing us something like that). 15 sec is coming from Russian sources [http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/buk/buk.shtml Зенитная ракета 9М38 выполнена с применением двухрежимного твердотопливного двигателя (общее время работы - около 15 секунд)]. Older versions also had shorter listed range. 22-25-35-42 km range, going through modifications. (Would be happier without 15 sec engine limit actually-easier to know trajectory) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::Actually what goes off is [https://digitalempire.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/9m38m1.jpg 9M38M1], the one supposed to have [http://pvo.guns.ru/buk/buk_02.htm 15 sec engine run], but the video lasts for 40 sec. This appears to be edited video, around 2:30 we got two tracks, than one slides right unreasonably for a natural recording. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 02:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::Since this is a point we haven't already covered around that I know of, I'll pop in for it. 42 seconds I gather is the time for the fuel to burn out and the thing to fall, like a grad rocket or the like can only do. But this is a missile with guidance, set to intercept a moving airliner. Therefore, app. 40-45 seconds is the longest, not the shortest, it can fly (or am I just confused?) But 15 seconds is plausible, depending. Still might be untrue, not trusting people saying stuff. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::::After the engine is off it is high up and and at high speed, still can fly until gravity acceleration brings it down, and is on guided flight -unlike Grad-because fins can move causing it to turn. Issues here are visuals (contrail all the way or only about 15 km in flight), and trajectory. With engine on for 40 +secs it will go straight to collision point doing proportional navigation all the way (exploding earlier if it needs to be). If it is only 15 sec, trajectory is less clear, it may for example use engine to climb high up, than do guided fall and proportional navigation to the target from a spot where engine delivered it (for low and close-by target, that may potentially end up with a hit from another side--some drawings from unclear sources were showing opposite side hits at under 1 km and direct hits at 10-15 km). Or it may use engine to end up on a ballistic trajectory hitting target (no side changing than). This is solid fuel engine so there is not much control on how quickly it burns off, that time is a set design feature. What we see on launch video is 40+ seconds of engine work-- will go direct to collision point in that case. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 12:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::::That's another clue that plume of smoke photo is not a Buk launch, that would give at least some 10-15 km worth of contrail, not a plume; with 40+seconds engine, contrail all the way to impact...(or else, launched from far away, over 40 km distance) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 12:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==About accents==<br />
<br />
[http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29109398 This report,] released one day before the preliminary official report, recycles visual imagery already discussed on this page, and attempts a new claim that a BUK crew spoke with Russian-'Muscovite' accent. The claim is made by (British-accent) actors representing 'eyewitness(es)', with a visual imagery of a car at unknown night-lighted location in the embedded video, and some text, provided in English. Regarding 'Muscovite' accent, first it is not easy to tell, for example [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBCfmlMkYMg this video] is Mr. Poroshenko speaking in Russian to a resident of Crimea, replying in Russian, and commented by a presenter, who is speaking 'Muscovite'. Although Mr. Poroshenko has a slight southern accent, there is little difference between the three speakers in practice. Moreover, actors and presenters can easily switch from Southern to Muscovite as required. <br />
<br />
Secondly, if somebody speaks 'Muscovite', this does not mean this person works for Russia or the rebels,--- he can work for any side (PS. No change of condition to the blue dumpster on Zuhres video was reported in this latest update). --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Thanks for bringing this. What a stupid report. "Three eyewitnesses, all civilians, separately told Panorama that they saw a missile-launcher in rebel-held territory a few hours before the Boeing jet was hit." Yeah, video shows the same. It was there. It probably shot down the plane. Accents, as you note, aren't the best indicator of anything, and even the reason sounds vague: the G thing, which even I know about (back to Olga/Olha). The "Russians" might even be Russian dissident mercenaries right from Moscow, for all we know. Who paid them? Their going up to the media and saying "you didn't see us" was not a good plan to stay secret. The witnesses: chosen at random? Directed to them? <br />
::''If correct, the Kremlin has to explain to the relatives of the 298 passengers and crew who died - including ten Britons - why Russian military personnel were allegedly seen in the area escorting a BUK shortly before MH17 was shot down.''<br />
:I think Russia could come up with a reason or two such allegations are made. Those ten Britons' tax dollars fund it. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: Hmm, this foreigner is confused by dat BBC talk: "If correct" ... doesn't that mean it ''wouldn't be'' merely "allegedly" but, well, correct? ;oP --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 23:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::It means "If {made up vague allegation) is correct....then "SHOCK HORROR CONCLUSION IS TRUE". this lets them be as wild or wide off the mark as they like and the magic "if correct" turns it true. Without any effort to check if it IS true in our understanding of that word.[[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 03:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::Another BBC weapon in its arsenal of innuendo and dissimulation is the quotation mark. Whenever they are dealing with something of dodgy provenance, or something of good provenance they want to weaken they put it in quotation marks. e.g. - ISIS beheaded 20 Syrians. becomes ISIS 'beheaded 20 Syrians' or 'ISIS' beheaded 20 Syrians or ISIS 'beheaded' 20 'Syrians' or ISIS beheaded '20' Syrians. No need for corrections later. Any version can be retrospectively justified or otherwise. --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 03:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== If Buk 3x2 Was in Russia ==<br />
Previously, it seemed quite likely the Buk launcher associated with the shoot-down was one of those owned and operated by the Kiev regime, simply snuck into separatist territory, maybe with some cover to make them even invite it in like a Trojan Horse. Then, I saw the November Bellingcat research on "Buk 3x2." As covered [[#Bellingcat and 3x2|above,]] this claims to match that unit with a distinct one seen three weeks earlier, driving in a military convoy well inside Russian territory. This is widely taken as clear proof the Russian military supplied the weapons, and it is strongly indicative of that. However, the general possibilities are worth laying out at this point.--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
All options below share these presumptions: <br />
* MH17 was brought down by the missing SA-11 missile AND/OR (in some cases) at least the launcher's appearance was coordinated to give that impression and is a clue to the plot <br />
* The videos and photos in question are genuine and not manipulated (my usual presumption, same here)<br />
* The Russia geolocations (many of them, making sense in context) are correct - Buk 3x2 as seen was seen in Russia, between Kurk, Stary Oskol, and a bit south of there (not verified but most likely correct) <br />
<br />
Presuming all that:<br />
* Buk 3x2 (seen in Russia) and the mystery one are not the same - this require paint job match and matching damage to the lip above the track to make a Kiev-owned unit look like that one. It's possible, but not the most compelling.<br />
* The two units are the same - it was in the convoy in Russia and also towed around Donetsk oblast July 17. <br />
<br />
If the unit is the same, there are a few possibilities for the nature of that connection, some of them silly or just there for logical fullness:<br />
* It was Kiev's unit and they snuck it over and into this convoy, and...<br />
** ... got it back later<br />
** ... the Russians kept it and used it for their own operation<br />
* It was Kiev's but some other way lost to the Russians <br />
* It was Russia's but Kiev managed to sneak over and steal it out of the convoy and then use it for the false-flag event<br />
* Same, but Donbass rebels then stole it from Kiev <br />
* It was Russian, and someone on the Russian side drove it over and then it was stolen by Kiev forces <br />
* Someone on the Russian side drove it over and it stayed in their control or handed over to their chosen parties, or transferred at the border - that is, no Kiev interference.<br />
<br />
So far, I'm inclined to call Bellingcat's reading (the last option, the widely accepted one) the single most reasonable one, though maybe outweighed by the ''combined'' alternatives. It's not fun to feel almost swayed to a view so close to Kiev's problematic narrative, but this is what I see, pretty basic. Some combined maybes go against the straightforward reading. As for other thoughts I might be missing, well, that's partly why it's here. Let me know, I'm all ears. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Starting from that reasonable if unproven last option, not one but three final types of possibility remain. If it was freely moving in convoy inside Russia, it probably belongs to Russia at the time. Presumed. However, it could be that...<br />
* '''A rogue officer''' at Kursk - maybe a closet Nazi who sympathizes with Kiev, hates Putin, or just took a bribe - provided this unit to Kiev. He would set up this convoy to anchor the thing in Russia, then send the shady unit on, with his own guys or to hand off to Kiev's, who took it from there as I've speculated. The strangely obvious manner it was displayed - on both sides of the border, with its number slowly fading away - is consistent with this motive + intelligence. <br />
* '''It happened as reported''' (one way or another) Putin's military signed off on the loan, apparently with a sent crew or maybe given to local handlers, who for their own purposes did fire that shot. The strangely obvious manner it was displayed is consistent with this + stupidity/sloppiness, providing proof that probably wasn't even needed, just helpful, to start the punishment. At that point, it would be a real problem about as trumpeted, and still I would suggest we consider what the real crime is under the circumstances, if the solutions pursued are fair, or if this is all just geo-politics and warfare by other means cloaked in a cynical disguise of concern for justice. ^ <br />
* '''Koo-koo (?):''' "as reported plus" - a mega conspiracy theory: it goes all the way to the top, and Putin is that rogue general selling the nation out, to demonize himself and Russia and be sure to get caught, in an elaborate staged play - Putin (or whoever's running things presumed to be run by HIM) is somehow controlled, his opposition scripted and ultimately geared towards provoking and achieving an expansion of "The West" into "The North." (I've always considered this possible, and one that's occurred to me more lately, and seems worth listing ... but I don't buy it. I'm going with "rogue officer" with a second bet on one of the other divergence points listed before that - unspecified. Third choice is "as reported.")--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::^ Not to apologize for egregious behavior if it really is that, but let's please compare this to the shoot-down of Iran Air 655 by the USS Vincennes in 1988. A US Naval ship illegally in Iranian waters shot down an Iranian passenger plane with 290 people aboard, despite all the safeguards and sensors working correctly (the consistent clues the ship's computers gave them saying "do not shoot" can only be overridden so totally by choice). But it was deemed by the US to be no crime, just accident and Iran's fault for being provocative, and useful in the effort to compel them to quit the war with Iraq they were just starting to win. In Ukraine, repeated Air Force attacks on rebel-held cities, often hiding their jets behind civilian airliners, might both justify arming the rebels with such defensive weaponry, and invite an honest mistake from a team running this machine in stand-alone mode. The SBU version however overrides this all: it was an accident, but the Russians' intent was never defensive, always planning to kill an airliner, just meaning it to be a different one. That would clearly be criminal in all regards, and it's a sub-set of "as reported" - not a very good one. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Sorry, I can't help you here as I don't share your presumptions. I consider it a waste of time and energy to connect dots that are laid out by "sources" like the SBU and Brown Noses - proven liars and at least in case of the former producers of fraud "evidence" - and therefore I didn't even read your logical chains based on them. Just saying to not make it appear that I agree. ;o) --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 10:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:Poking at specific presumptions could be helpful, but it all could go on and on and remain inconclusive anyway. And I take back what I say about leaning this way or that - I keep leaning different ways and on balance I'm feeling sort of weightless here. I think that comes through in the text... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I don't see the numbers matching, getting close is not good enough, and I quit it there. Yes, it is weird that they are close, and that this murky business is covered by Spiegel, but can't really help with any of that. There is lots of murky weird stuff going on all the time, can't change the whole world to stop it. (Also: the Russian Government would be fully capable of doing a painting job properly if deciding to starting painting at all, their food trucks are all nicely painted, etc; just too sloppy for them to be behind) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:The paint being what it is, between that and the bend and light patch below all lining up, I think we're down to the same unit, or faked to match, and the possibilities branching off those two. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::As discussed earlier, the dot is shifted off the middle, more on Russian video than in PM photo; in Russian video, number 2 has well-curved semi-circle; in PM, it is almost straight segment. Bad photos for comparison but it's off, as far as it's possible to tell. As for the skirt bend, too blurry and distorted on PM to tell; Russian video, I think it is actually dirt, not a bend. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Also, looks like two squares , a bit darker than background, over first digit in PM photo. Unclear is it paint or digital camera effect. Any sane person hiding something will paint over everything, not paint just specifically over the first digit. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::I think I got everything linesd up - it has to be de-skewed the same, and all ines up. You might be scraping bottom on this one. The curve is there, at its elongated part, at an angle. The dent/dirt looks the same, same place, relative to the light patch and all else. It's too much for coincidence by a couple of degrees. BUT I just shifted back to option ... should have numbered them. ... the middle starting option - image authenticity. I hardly ever call digital image fakery, and not calling it here, but... I still haven't checked the new (to us) June videos, so I'll stay presuming it might be okay - video's harder to fake than a photo. But on the other end, it all comes down to the one photo. That I noticed, no other views are close enough to say if these matching clues are present. (the bend, maybe). The squares you noticed, maybe a paint clue or just artifacting. It may too pixelly. I cannot really analyze the technicals properly to say. It looks okay, but possibly fishy too. Maybe the dirty windshield helps hid the painted in pixels to make this thing - just once - or maybe again in other images - look like that Russian 3x2 unit, exaggerated and going into rebel hands... Some kind of coincidences setting that up to work, but it's possible, and an expert should look closer at this picture. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC) <br />
::::I, --at the very start of discussion,-- zoomed picture on screen (by a lot), and measured length ratios (to the dot/ total panel length), parallel to the 2 sides of the panel, using ruler (millimeters one) over screen. I ended up with ratios in horizontal side of panel directions were off, by more than blurring; in vertical, could not tell-within blurring. This is not sensitive to skewing or zooming. So I don't think it's the same. May double-check measurement when have time; or somebody else can. Did not have time to try doing digital version of the same/similar method. Did not look carefully at comparison the 2 after de-skewing , but have an impression this is different; not that much skewing there; it looks essentially straight line on PM, skewing will not make circle into a line. May look at 2's some other time. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::::Finally took a closer look and PM was still off a bit on rotation and vertical-to-horizontal - in line with your observations. Still working out the adjusted graphic. The white is shifted a bit left of lining up perfectly... I think it's still close enough it's the same or is supposed to be, and not far enough off I'd call a bad fake - probably just pixel shift. Will see tonight. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 00:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Okay, I don't have a comprehensible graphic handy yet, but Maybe Resup is seeing what I am now. I was having a hard time aligning it all, so focused just one the one rectangle panel with the number. Still, on the PM photo I trace apparent edges, best line of dark pixels ... it lines up, proportion-wise, with the white spots on or a hair to apparent left. But when the whole image is placed by lining up that center, the rest of it doesn't line up - both sides seem shifted right, or the middle shifted left. (also the track areas appear far to the left, but they stick out a bit, and from the back angle flattened like this, that's why. Each difference in relief from "true flat" plane of the side will cause this... maybe I'm just not correlating it right, and maybe it's a clue the photo is messed with. possible offsets in both white patches as well, but maybe too in the natural fuzz zone. ?? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
If the launcher was driven over the Russian border, fired once then driven back again after it had carried out its mission, the part of the story that doesn't make sense is the sighting on a stolen flatbed truck outside Donetsk. If the Russians were prepared to supply a launcher but not a truck, the stolen truck would have had to be driven to the border to be loaded and there'd be no reason to risk a journey back to Donetsk. The west to east journey is more consistent with CL's original suggestion of a launcher from the Ukrainian base north of Donetsk. If this was a false flag, there would have had to be a paint job to give it Russian markings (maybe to match one in a recent video). Otherwise the videos would point to separatists with a captured Ukrainian BUK, leaving the Ukrainian government liable for failing to close its airspace when it knew that a BUK had gone missing. [[User:Pmr9|Pmr9]] ([[User talk:Pmr9|talk]]) 16:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:Now this sounds engaged, thanks P. Yes, why drive it to Donetsk? (Other than to be seen in the smoking-gun rebel capitol, before getting seen in Lugansk too) And I never thought of that why it had to be Russian. Indeed, for liability reasons, it had to be a snuck-in surprise, not captured (unless they could come up with a reason why they didn't learn about it, and I suppose they could). The suggestion has problems and was slow to gain adherents, but maybe this kind of thought has swayed people to realize Kiev "must be right" about that... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Sunday Times story: original is behind paywall but reprint [http://malaysiandigest.com/news/531506-ukraine-ignored-warning-to-close-malaysia-airlines-flight-mh17-airspace-before-tragedy.html here]. Eurocontrol's experts "spoke privately to their Ukrainian counterparts" about their concerns but Ukraine refused to close its airspace. "Ukraine intelligence sources said they had been made aware that several anti-aircraft systems had crossed from Russia into Ukraine at least a week before the MH17 incident. But they claimed the intelligence was not “100 per cent reliable” and could not have been used as grounds for 'drastic moves' such as shutting airspace". [[User:Pmr9|Pmr9]] ([[User talk:Pmr9|talk]])<br />
:::Okay, well there's a train headed this way then. Several units? The whole June convoy? We do have this alleged maybe-Buk launch just before on July 14, an associated loader seen later, etc. And Ukie intel somehow did point to this number "312" you can't see on the unit they tracked so quickly. Did they already have that obscure Russian video everyone missed until now? And more yet showing the "1" still there? That early on? (that's all very speculative, but interesting). It has to be snuck in, maybe, but then it helps that you can vouch for it - so they fudge and average this aspect. Main point then seems to be, whatever failures they mumble out on their own end, it has to implicate both Russia (provided weapon) and the rebels (held the space needing demonized).--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references /></div>Antidyatelhttps://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17/BUK_Tracking&diff=22563Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/BUK Tracking2015-06-06T04:16:07Z<p>Antidyatel: /* Screenshot from dashcam video? */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:MH17]]<br />
==Who Has the BUK Launchers in Ukraine?==<br />
=== Kiev's Holdings ===<br />
<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3MomxNHnUA#t=288 Ukrainian Buk in ATO area], 16 July 2014. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 23:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CBQbFC9loc#t=350 Captured map] of 1 battalion of UAF 95 air-mobile brigade, dated beginning of July 2014, show location of 2 positions of Ukrainian Buks. Basurin points them on the map; but video resolution is insufficient to see those. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 05:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Maps can be faked, but still I'm curious what it shows. I imagine there might be a flat image of the map somewhere. Resup, could you maybe have a look? It's too slow for me to try an image search with translated words. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
::I have not seen the map in news reports mentioning the finding; and now I see it says explicitly that they are not going to make it public, [http://real-info.info/novorossiya/13429-vlasti-dnr-ne-budut-obnarodovat-karty-vsu-do-okonchaniya-rassledovaniya-krusheniya-mh17 until MH 17 investigation is completed]--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 23:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::Here is a press conference report--with video but not the map --[https://vk.com/strelkov_info?w=wall-57424472_57351 (Basurin press conference)]--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 23:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
-Antidyatel June 6, 2015.<br />
It is possible to understand what it means when they say Ukr army controlled territory. But what us rebel controlled territory. Even if we take the maximum estimate for rebel numbers in July 2014 of 10,000 fighters, it gives a fraction of a rebel per square km, if we assume uniform distribution. In reality rebels very concentrated in Lughansk, Donetzk, Saur Mogila, 2 cauldrons. So everything else is free for all territory. When MSM declares rebel controlled territory, they just rely on Kiev's maps. Very reliable source.<br />
<br />
<br />
----Antidyatel <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==== BUK 312 and comrades ====<br />
[[File:Buk 312 sbu.jpg|thumb|left|BUK 312 on a trailer. Photo shown on SBU website and later removed. – ''[[:File:Buk 312 sbu.jpg|more...]]'']]<br />
Part of the material the Ukrainian SBU released to suggest that "rebels" shot down MH17 with a BUK, was photo material showing a BUK TELAR numbered 312 on a trailer, alleging it has been photographed on its way back to Russia. This was quickly shown to be extremely questionable as evidence surfaced showing number 312 in Ukrainian hands. The SBU then removed the photos from their website while other material like a suggestive photo showing a "plume" remained there. <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Buk 321.png|thumb|TELAR 321 as posted by @MOR2537 to illustrate what he alleges to have witnessed]]<br />
This was outlined (and a screenshot saved) in more detail [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/07/21/the-mh17-investigation-and-buk-312/ over at Human Rights Investigations]. A [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bj-VZB0ZdEA video embedded there] shows BUK 312 in Ukrainian hands back in March. The other two TELAR's seen in the video are numbers 323 and 321. BUK 321 [http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Ukrainian+government+forces+maneuver+antiaircraft+missile+launchers+they+transported+north+west+from+Slavyansk+eastern+Ukraine+Friday+July+2014+Photo+Dmitry+Lovetsky/10004193/story.html has been seen] in Ukrainian hands just two weeks before MH17 crashed, transported close to "liberated" Slavyansk. <br />
<br />
Interestingly enough, one of the tweets [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com/2014/07/reconstruction-of-whereabouts-of-buk.html spoon-fed by Ukrainian loyalists to imaginative Dutch blogger Ukraine@War] to suggest that there have been eyewitnesses for a "rebel" BUK, is then [https://twitter.com/MOR2537/status/489709431467171841 followed-up by the alleged eyewitness] with a picture of BUK 321 to illustrate what he has seen. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::yep, he is a conduit for Kiev but seems to have outside info, too. Like originals of photos he can get geolocations off (he says). But also has good collection of very early photos etc which have since become hard to find.Not sure I trust him though. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 15:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::I hadn't seen that before, thanks. I'll be considering... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 22:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: More photos: [http://www.armyrecognition.com/images/stories/east_europe/russia/missile_vehicle/sa-11_gadfly/pictures/sa-11_gadfly_anti-aircraft_missile_to_armoured_tracked_vehicle_Russian_army_russia_011.jpg 321] - [http://rt.com/files/news/2a/b1/40/00/640x480.jpg 312] - [http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1870560.1405614701!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_970/correction-ukraine.jpg 321] --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:Buk 312 in Lugansk.png|thumb|left|According to alleged former operator "A", this is BUK 312 after relocation sometime in Spring 2014 in Metallist settlement of Lugansk, with Yubileynaya mines in the background]]<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmI2KCOt_sA Anatolii Sharii] version of events, shows that Buk blamed on Russia has number 312 and was earlier photographed as part of Ukrainian convoy. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 20:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Sharii interviewed a Ukrainian soldier who served on Buk 312; this can be found on [http://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/1947657.html Cassad]. The guy does not know about MH17; but recalls SBU claiming it was this Buk 312 responsible. From this interview, meaning of 312: 3 is division number, 1 battery number, 2 unit number in a battery (there are loading and command vehicles, not just launchers). This UAF Buk is initially from Luhansk; than relocated to Kramatorsk; than places in a field. A serviceman took it on a ride with hand break on, leading to a small fire affecting electrics and requiring repairs. So it was traveling on a trailer at some point. It was than moved to Dnepropetrovsk, village of Novogrigorievka (apparently for repairs, and after trailer photo was taken, but exact date was not given). Buks from Luhansk which were not broken were moved by UAF elsewhere (and according to the soldier, were photographed in variaous places including Gorlovka; while 3 broken Buks remained in Luhansk) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: Interesting. I see that the "[http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Ukrainian+government+forces+maneuver+antiaircraft+missile+launchers+they+transported+north+west+from+Slavyansk+eastern+Ukraine+Friday+July+2014+Photo+Dmitry+Lovetsky/10004193/story.html has been seen]" link to the Montreal Gazette is dead by now. If anything I'm surprised that it lasted that long. Minitrue at work. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 04:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: [http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2014/12/17/shooting-down-mh-17-buk-312-story-false- Here] (and mirrored [http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2014/12/17/buk-312-crew-member-says-rebel-shoot-down-of-flight-mh17-story-is-false-transcript/ here]) is an English translation of the interview. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: And [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2rRCSNp33I here] is the video itself with English subtitles. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 20:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:What you said about the accident and the photo showing the damaged BUK on a trailer is about the very photo the SBU showed on their website as "evidence" and later removed. Also adding that he says friends in Lugansk saw "rebels" trying to repair the units they had left behind, but he knows that "whole equipment units" were lacking so the remaining stuff was "unusable". And that he says that he asked his ex-comrades still operating the BUK if they dunnit, and they said they didn't. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Good to see this section expand. Interesting additions from the alleged operator, and reasonable-sounding (the photo might show smoke stains to the back left side). But in the end, this issue might be not so relevant. I doubt it was Kiev's unit 312 that was used, and seeing how Kiev always was eyeing a supposedly Russian unit 3x2, maybe 312 ... In fact, if the middle number connotes unit number, and it's done the same, the launcher is always 1 and it would be 312 (or is that mixed-up?) So maybe all this really shows is how Kiev knew but didn't want to say all along, implausibly picking their own 312 to illustrate that knowledge with an embarrassing but harmless "error", while awaiting ... as it turns out, the independent Bellingcat investigation that finds 3x2 somehow in Russia... That tracked this ludicrous Buk field trip, as presented and followed on this page, which almost seems tailor-made for them, but Kiev wants us to know they they were secretly on the ball too from the start. (all thoughts in progress, a bit distracted too) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::::If SBU wanted to point out they knew the TELAR had number 312, why would they publish the photo in [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmI2KCOt_sA such a low resolution] that the number could not be read? -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 21:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: As Resup summarized, 1 is the battery number. The leading 3 means it's from the Lugansk division. If this is true, the fact that 312, 321 and 323 have been seen together on video in March perfectly fits with what the alleged operator said: That they were removing units in usable state from (all batteries of the division) Lugansk early on, leaving the crap behind. And the view that the SBU just published everything they could find to fit their tale that the "rebels" used a BUK to down the plane, including this photo, cut-together and taken out of context audio tapes and that ridiculous "plume" pic, and the 3x2 bellingcat nonsense from lately is meant to distract from these facts, is much simpler and straight forward than what you tried to come up with here on the fly. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::Ah, I see it now, not when I was typing, sorrys. Middle number could be anything, bust mostly we always see low numbers, so odds are good it was a "1". 3 means from Lugansk if that's true (presuming so) and it's Ukrainian. Diff. number paintjob though, as noted below. But I'm sure the Ukies just faked this exact 312 to a different style of 312 and then painted it out partly, and just let it slip with the one photo of how it looked before...? We'll have a hard time agreeing here, as the stuff you just dismiss as "nonsense" looks kind of like possible evidence with details I'm sort of trying to consider. I don't see how you can just ignore it as if it must be wrong somehow, and all made up to distract from ... this 312 disguised as 3x2 theory? Where it wasn't even at the end of that fake plume anyway and might be totally irrelevant or entirely fake? Or, what am I missing? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::Didn't you say that you haven't even watched the videos and checked the geolocation/origin yourself, if they really are from Russia etc.? Well, I certainly won't. Because I have no reason to believe that the sources are more truthful with the "evidence" than they have been before, and that track record is well established. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::::Yeah, which is why I'm neither in a good position to say they aren't wrong/fake, nor to go against my usual presumption it will be sound (has been so far, on this subject anyway) And by the supposed stills compare to supposed satellite imagery, it looked like a good match (I did skim the site once I could). I don't like the implication either, and I want it to be wrong. And it may well be, but I'll want to see how. And hey, there's a whole other section or two about this below... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
:::: I watched the video [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bj-VZB0ZdEA with the Ukie BUKs in March] again. There are actually more than the three I mentioned earlier. It starts with 323, which is not a TELAR. Followed by the two TELARs 321 and 312. Then comes what is also not a TELAR but what looks differently than 323: Number 301. Followed by two more TELARs, 331 and 332. So they could all be from the Lugansk division, parts of batteries 0 to 3. But one would suspect that the batteries are internal always numbered the same way. "A" says:<br />
::::: ''BUK is a complex of 4 specialized military vehicles: command post, mobile target detection and assignment station, loading and starting station, self-propelled fire installation.''<br />
::::So if 1 and 2 are TELARs, why are there two of them and why is 301 what could be the detection station with a radar? Is 323 a loading station? --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::::Too rusty, but good questions. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::: Ah, I think we can sort this out [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SA-11 thanks to wikipedia]:<br />
:::::''A standard Buk battalion consists of a command vehicle, target acquisition radar (TAR) vehicle, six transporter erector launcher and radar (TELAR) vehicles and three transporter erector launcher (TEL) vehicles. A Buk missile battery consists of two TELAR and one TEL vehicle.''<br />
:::: So our "A" didn't mean that a battery consists of 4 vehicles, but that the whole BUK consists of 4 different kinds of vehicles, some more than once. From this I deduce that "0" is for command and detection units (here our main radar 301) of the Lugansk division 3, and the batteries 1,2 and 3 each consist of two TELARs (numbered 1 and 2, here 312,321,331 and 332) and one TEL (numbered 3, the first vehicle in the video, 323). Makes sense? --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 13:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::Russia said Ukraine had 27 BUK launchers in the crash area, i.e. one brigade, or what ever comes in the hierarchy above battalion. If all units are numbered the same way, from 101 to 333, then one TELAR in 18 should be numbered 312. Maybe [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:9K37_Buk_of_the_Ukrainian_military,_Independence_Day_parade_in_Kiev.JPG not.] Russian numbers seem to reach higher. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 01:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::::Good find. The existence of 114 and 115 makes it more complicated. The [http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buk_M1 German Wikipedia article] says, contradicting the English one, that one battery consists of one command vehicle, one main radar, four TELARs and four TELs. But if that's true, there's no logical place for Radar 301, and why would one TEL be number 3 and the other three TELs numbers 6 to 8? --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 10:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
How to read BUK numbers<br />
This is how you decipher 312:<br />
<br />
3 stands for the third (Lugansk) division,<br />
1 stands for the battery number, ours was no. 1,<br />
2 stands for one of the 2. service units in each battery, ours was no.2<br />
<br />
according to a Ukrainian who explains it was "his" bUK (but not in his hands at the time)that shot down MH17. One of th many reports [http://www.opednews.com/articles/Shooting-Down-MH-17--BUK-by-Michael-Collins-Buk-312_False-Accusations-Of-Terrorism_False-Flag-Attacks_Mh17-Airline-Crash-141217-104.html about this interview] This claim is now superceded by the Capt Voloshin air-to-air claims. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 15:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
That solder knew nothing about who shot the Boeing. He was talking to Sharii, who previously made a video showing that Buk shown on SBU website is actually Ukrainian Buk 312. Later, the soldier emerged, saying that Buk 312 was his. (Claim of this one shooting Boeing is not his, it is SBU early claim) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 16:48, 26 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
While Voloshin story may be a play on destroyed by SBU evidence. There is supposed to be a log of flights, missiles fired, likely those logs no longer exist. Also before they claimed SU 25 were lost on 16 of July, but SBU denial of Voloshin story had SU 25 shot on 17 of July. And that Dnepropetrovsk airport traffic control lady vanished without a trace. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 16:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Supposed 321 belonging to KIEV<br />
::video shows three BUk sets [http://eurazya.today/2015/04/11/about-the-buk-312-who-allegedly-shot-down-mh17/ from 0.31 mark] but I can't really pick the number, they say it is 321. at Gorlovka in March. One on a white lowloader. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 12:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== Russian claims ====<br />
As part of their July 21 presentation of evidence, the Russian Ministry of Defense published satellite images allegedly showing Ukrainian BUK positions around Donetzk ([http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ RT report]). It's no secret the Ukrainian military maintains a base with anti-aircraft units. The facility shown in the Russian presentation (best seen [http://rt.com/files/news/2a/9a/00/00/4.jpg here]) I located - it's south of Avdeyevka, 3 km north of the airport, about 5 km north of Donetsk like they say. Visual match first, then noticed the label could have found it for me ... [http://wikimapia.org/#lat=48.0999781&lon=37.7578908&z=16&l=0&m=b&show=/16956839/ru/Зенитно-ракетный-дивизион-в-ч-А-1428&search=Donetsk on Wikimapia]. Labels, translated: Anti-aircraft missile battalion (in / h A-1428) One of the three anti-aircraft missile battalions ("Buk-M1"), located in Avdeyevka, Mariupol and Lugansk." BUK-type launcher photos included. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The counter-arguments to this at least sometimes fail. [http://www.interpretermag.com/mh17-and-moscows-magical-mystery-jets/ Interpreter rag] decided "the presence of Ukrainian government air defense systems is something of a red herring, not least given the clear evidence that the separatists had deployed at least one Buk system in the area." The side with a ''motive'' and clear, moving and likely operating units of the things on that day (see below) is irrelevant and shouldn't be considered because there's apparently also proof the presumed bad guys also had the units they needed to be so presumed. The very fact that separatists aren't ruled out means the other side should be free of any danger of being ruled in, and the separatists should ruled in just as automatically as they were ''before'' this social-media verification came in. This is clearly an irresponsible suggestion. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC) and --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Kiev's Buks Shuffled?===<br />
<br />
* From Russia's military press conference: [http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ RT, 10 Questions] - [http://www.ruaviation.com/docs/1/2014/7/22/83/ in more detail]<br />
:''3. Why was a large group of air defense systems deployed to the militia-held area if the self-defense forces have no planes?''<br />
:“As far as we know, the Ukrainian military had three or four air defense battalions equipped with Buk-M1 SAM systems deployed in the vicinity of Donetsk on the day of the crash. This system is capable of hitting targets within the range of 35 km at the altitude of up to 22 km.”'' <br />
:''4. Why did Kiev deploy BUK missile systems on the edge of militia-controlled zones directly before the tragedy?''<br />
:''“We have satellite photos of the places where Ukraine had its air defense units deployed in the southeastern parts of the country. The first three photos were made on July 14. The first photo shows Buk launchers 8 km northwest of Lugansk. You can clearly see a TELAR and two TELs. The second photo shows radars 5 km north of Donetsk. You can see two TARs along with other equipment and technical structures. The third photo shows air defense systems north of Donetsk. You can clearly see a TELAR launcher and about 60 military and auxiliary vehicles, tents for vehicles and other structures.''<br />
<br />
:''“Here’s a photo of the same area made on July 17. Please note that the launcher has disappeared. The fifth photo shows a battery of Buk missiles at the village of Zaroshchenskoye 50 km east of Donetsk and 8 km south of Shakhtyorsk on the morning of the same day. The sixth photo shows the same area on July 18. As you can see, the battery has left.”''<br />
<br />
Note: the <s>latter</s> fourth photo of July 17 has substantial cloud cover, but unless they happened to hide the launchers in those areas (or Russia's satellites waited until the area was covered) it appears the noted vehicles have left to go do something - on/by the 17th, where they say launchers appear and then disappear in a town closer to the crash on the 17th. Zaroshchenskoye [http://maps.yandex.com/?text=Ukraine%2C%20Donets'ka%20region%2C%20Shakhtars'kyi%20district%2C%20Zaroshchens'ke%20ville&sll=38.446008%2C47.98844&ll=38.517419%2C48.048098&spn=0.810242%2C0.300187&z=11&l=map on Yandex maps] - 13 miles SSW of the crash sitel, 9 miles W-SW of Torez..--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
On July 30, Vitalyi Naida, head of Ukrainian Security Service SBU’s counter-intelligence, came up with a series of slides ([http://euromaidanpress.com/2014/07/30/russia-fakes-mh17-crash-site-satellite-images-says-sbu/ short article], [http://www.sbu.gov.ua/sbu/control/en/publish/article?art_id=129610&cat_id=35317 announcement on SBU website] with link to [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ut1JExQKV-0 youtube-video showing the slides (presumably Ukrainian language)]) allegedly showing that the Russian material was "faked". He points to a patch of trees, claiming they had been cut down shortly before the 17th, while Russia's images show the trees intact. On August 1, the Russian Ministry of Defense published [http://eng.mil.ru/en/analytics.htm a rebuttal] advising that<br />
:''Instead of presenting hastily doctored evidence to the international community, the SBU could do with better control over all the mercenary units in the areas around Donetsk and Lugansk organized by Kolomoisky, Lyashko, Yarosh and others, who shell Ukrainian territory without any control from those in charge of the anti-terrorist operation.''<br />
<br />
The trees probably are cut down by now, but we'll have to wait for the true details of just when they were and when the image showing that was taken, or if the image shown is even of any one day and not a composite - "doctored" as Russia says. Other clues suggest launchers moving out of this area at that time: The [[#Paris Match Photo]] - ostensibly from the morning of the 17th - shows the infamous launcher-loaded truck seen in Lugansk, or one just like it, being carried on a truck belonging to a company just south of the missile base in northern Donetsk. That was seen carrying the launcher east out of town at 11:15 AM, purportedly on July 17 (and with the location completely fudged to say Snizhne, when it was only headed there).--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Zaro redeploy.png|left|600px]]The Russian military press conference said "The fifth photo shows a battery of Buk missiles at the village of Zaroshchenskoye 50 km east of Donetsk and 8 km south of Shakhtyorsk on the morning of the same day. The sixth photo shows the same area on July 18. As you can see, the battery has left." (#5 inset) The Ukraine@War blog's analysis decided this image as well was fake. That's mentioned [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com/2014/08/ukrainian-sbu-comes-with-conspiracy.html here] if not elsewhere. The reason: "the shadows of these BUKs have a different direction for all three of them. It means these were pasted into the image." I have to admit, it looks a bit like that. The trees have consistent shadows to the west, in a morning image. The furthest vehicle to the left has a visible shadow about like that. The other two don't seem to, and the one furthest right seems to have a shadow on the wrong side (looks like early PM). I wracked my brain just a little thinking of other explanations aside from just low resolution. Nothing much came up. Anyone else? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br /><br /><br />
<br />
<br />
: '''New video proves UKIE BUKS ACTIVE'''<br />
: video has surfaced, posted to Youtube on July 16, taken a few days before, showing a Ukie BUK radar [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3MomxNHnUA being rotated]. The reporter is taken somewhere in a helicopter and proudly shown the BUK. Segment starts around 4.17 in the chopper, BUK shown briefly at 4.45. Label does not say where exactly, just reads "Officers of Ukrainian Armed Forces patrolling in the ATO zone". <br />
: This ties in with claims that they were doing anti-aircraft exercises, probably in response to claims/fears the Antonovs were brought down not by the rebs but by aircraft from Russia. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 10:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::Thanks! We had this July 16 video [[Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17/BUK_Tracking#Kiev.27s_Holdings| elsewhere]], but here is a good place... The other video, from March, was not seen. There were few more early sightings of Ukrainian Buks, uncertain locations, with those 3** numbers; maybe should get a good place to keep them all --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::: Location of sighting is unclear. But according to some reports ([http://lifenews.ru/news/136731 LifeNews]), on July 16 UAF SU 25 was shot down from a height of 6 km by opolchenie MANPADs. That was near Russian border, --reports say the plane actually crossed into Russia, not far from Marinovka. It could be suspected by Ukraine that a Russian plane was involved, so it will be plausible to have Ukrainian coverage of the accident area by BUKS. On July 14, it was reported that [http://m.rosbalt.ru/ukraina/2014/07/16/1292690.html AN 26 was shot down in Luhansk] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Separatist Holdings===<br />
While much certainty has been shown it was a separatist BUK system responsible, everyone seems to acknowledge that ordinarily, they didn't have any, that were known of. Fresh sighting of them in the field, supposed admissions, and existing presumptions remain the strongest evidence. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;June 29 Seizure?<br />
The Open Newsroom team have latched onto a June 29 message from a Twitter account associated with the Donetsk People’s Republic, @DNRpress claiming separatist forces had conquered a base with anti-air BUK missiles. This is apparently the A-1402 base, as an Itar-Tass report specified. That report noted ... It seems to just cite the tweet which, it was found, used a dated photo online since mid-2013. In essence, there's no good evidence they ever did seize this place. But it was referred to by some as "Deleted DNR tweet confirming Russian rebels indeed have a BUK-M1." The crew at large seems a bit vague on the status of this base:<br />
:'' It appears that the A-1402 military unit was moved into the Donetsk region in 2007 from Odessa, and reports note that the unit was based near Donetsk airport. Local reports from June 29 cited ATO spokesman Alexei Dmitrashkivsky as stating that separatists had attacked the military unit.'' <ref name="Story1" /><br />
As we just found with geo-location, it's 3 km north of Donetsk airport, and it's the same place Russia believes is firmly government-held. It's the place they say at least one BUK-type launcher was removed from on July 17 for some reason, by Kiev's forces who run it. If [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Donetsk_Airport this basic Wikipedia article on the battle for the airport] is correct and/or in line with [[Attack on Donetsk Airport|our page on it]], the airport and anything military-related north of it would probably be government-held continuously to the present time. It's possible some launchers could have been lost during a brief seizure of the base, but this too seems doubtful. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
:Social media published many photos of the "liberated" Buk missiles. I searched for them on Google Image Search; all were old photos from more peaceful times. I have no idea what really happened. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 23:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Thanks. I hadn't looked into it myself, but recycled images made sense given the other clues that they never did take that base, or at least get anything out of it. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 00:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Something in English [https://www.facebook.com/TruthfromUkraine/photos/pb.1452285018328179.-2207520000.1409095455./1515506872005993/ on Facebook,] with links to Russian souces. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 23:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Your geolocation is wrong. The former [http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-SAM-Site-Configs-A.html SA-2 launch site] to the north of the runway is called A-1428, at least according to the [[:File:Donetsk Airport battles 5 Oct 2014.jpg|map by Komsomolskaya Pravda]]. The site was rebuilt sometime between 2002 and 2009 with new garages covering part of the SAM ring. Tactical maps say today it is still held by Ukraine, but may have been in NAF hands earlier. Base A-1402 is located south of the new terminal building along Stratonavtiv Street.<br />
<br />
When looking at the latest airport battles I noticed that Military Maps already shows structural damaged to the new terminal building. I did not expect Google to provide any relevant satelite data. In Libya we had almost daily satellite images of Tripoli, but in Syria we have seen no new photos of the battle-effected areas.<br />
<br />
I opened Google Earth to see what has changed during the war. It seems that the war has had no effect on either base. There is still a lot of military hardware parked on both bases. Most of the trucks and whatever are parked just where they were last year, or on many cases in 2007. I did not see anything that I could identify as a BUK launcher. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 02:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;Held by July 14?<br />
The US embassy in Kiev said in [http://ukraine.usembassy.gov/statements/asmt-07192014.html a press statement of July 19]:<br />
:''Intercepts of separatist communications posted on YouTube by the Ukrainian government indicate the separatists were in possession of a SA-11 system as early as Monday July 14th. In the intercepts, the separatists made repeated references to having and repositioning Buk (SA-11) systems.'' (also quoted [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/20/malaysia-airlines-mh17-videos-missile-launcher-torez-snizhne at the Guardian])<br />
As "Corporal Frisk" [http://corporalfrisk.wordpress.com/2014/07/21/comment-on-the-us-assessment-of-the-downing-of-flight-mh17/ aptly responded:]<br />
:''Having perhaps the world’s best intelligence network, and then using easily faked videos of separatist communications posted on YouTube as evidence sure has a degree of ridicule attached to it, but is also an inidcation that US intelligence believes at least some of these transcripts are real.''<br />
That's totally apt if one suspends the usual definition of "believe" (to include "wants to appear to believe," etc.) In the same piece, the author apparently gives more "credibility to the charges that the Buk-M1 is indeed Russian supplied (and possibly crewed), as opposed to stemming from captured Ukrainian stocks." As covered below, this I can agree with if we suspend the usual definition of "Russian" (to include "allegedly Russian villains," "the Ukrainian version of [http://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2011/07/african-mercenaries.html Libya's African Mercenaries] and [http://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/wiki/The_Shabiha:_Ghost_Stories%3F Syria's Shabiha]," etc.) this would be spot-on. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:54, 10 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
(more allegations to cover?)<br />
<br />
;The One That Matters<br />
Whatever the evidence rebels had Buk systems by the 14th, Kiev also has suggested, and many have accepted, that ''the one that mattered'' at least - the launcher unit that shot down MH17 on the 17th - wasn't theirs at all, but brought in and operated by Russians for the day only. If only for that reason, all the above is likely moot. See next section. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Russian Buk Field Trip? ===<br />
The Kiev regime's narrative also suggests separatists had no BUK systems of their own. Rather, someone else brought one in to their area, took it on some kind of tour through several towns thought accessible only to rebels and allies, and got it seen in each place. Then these people '''shot the airliner down themselves on the separatists' behalf.''' That party is the Russians, they say. This is perhaps best encapsulated by "counter-terrorism" chief Vitaly Nayda's early assessment. AP's July 25 report summarized it, saying "the account was based on information from intercepts, spies and resident tips."<br />
:''Nayda laid the blame fully on Russia: He said the missile launcher came from Russia and was operated by Russians. ... According to Nayda, at 1 a.m. on July 17 the launcher rolled into Ukraine across the Russian border aboard a flatbed truck. He cited communications intercepts that he would not share with the AP. By 9 a.m., he said, the launcher had reached Donetsk, the main rebel stronghold 125 miles (200 kilometers) from the border. In Donetsk it is presumed to have been off-loaded from the flatbed and started to move in a convoy on its own.''<br />
:''Nayda said the Buk turned back east toward Snizhne. Townspeople who spoke to the AP said it rolled into Snizhne around lunchtime.''<br />
:''...As for the Buk, Nayda said, intelligence suggests it went back on the move shortly after the attack. That very night, he said, it crossed the border, back into Russia.''<br />
<br />
This is full of details that don't line up with the emerging record, but the gist including a grand-circuit tour including both separatist stronghold/capitols Donestk and Lugansk plus the disaster zone, seems about right. But the evil they allowed came from and returned to Russia.<br />
<br />
This does however jibe with the Kiev allegation (I learned of through [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/07/25/snizhne-mh17-and-rebel-held-territory/ this excellent and relevant HRI article] that '''Russian jets''' violated Ukrainian airspace to '''bomb an apartment building in Snizneh on July 15th, killing 11 civilians.''' This all makes a bit of sense in context; that false flag attack was blamed by locals on Kiev'a noble Air Force - almost understandably! It "created the conditions" by which people ''might'' accept apparent a team of apparent Russians with a Buk launcher in their town two days later. The best guess for any single firing location is a field just southeast of that town (see [[#Possible Launch Sites|below]]). The locals might smile at, and later even cover for, this poisonous gift. But a trojan horse is a trojan horse, of course. They should have looked it in the mouth better, and been more aggressive with their questions. Because Russia has it in for the separatists, Kiev implies, using its skilled and well-documented team to murder 298 people in a horrific way on the separatists' behalf. This is not an accident, Kiev must know, but proof that Russia and its "inhuman" terrorists they must hate (and who do not seem to have any Buk launchers of their own, BTW) are the new global menace du jour. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Markings and the Mystery Launcher ===<br />
[[File:MH17 Buk 321 Parismatch comp.png|right]]A serial number on the launcher's side is apparently standard in Ukraine's arsenal (see [[#BUK 312 and comrades|above]]). Inset, an image comparing the side of the unit seen in [[#Paris Match Photo]], the one blamed for the shoot-down on the 17th, to TELAR unit 321. The side panels are easy enough to correlate and see the unit in the photo lacks a number, but does have a sliver of white paint (or similar) in one corner. Whoever was moving this painted it it out before this, so there is some attempt at concealment. Is this color of paint only available in Russia? The white sliver here could be part of the number, if it were painted higher up/larger than Ukraine usually does. I can't say yet how they do it. I did a Dogpile Photo search, lots of pictures, context unclear, different vehicles from different sides, mainly Vitaly Kuzmin photos so app. Russian military parades and such: --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
* Number shown, diff. vehicle: [http://military-vehicle-photos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/9881.jpg #1(loader?)] - [http://pix.avaxnews.com/avaxnews/8a/6f/00006f8a_medium.jpeg #2 same?] <br />
* Launchers with no visible numbers: [http://77rus.smugmug.com/Military/May-5th-Parade-rehearsal-2014/i-t7RjrzP/0/M/5may14-33-M.jpg #1] - [http://77rus.smugmug.com/Military/12-April-Parade-2013-rehearsal/i-KHVD3Tv/0/M/12aprilrehearsal_33-M.jpg #2] - [http://livedoor.blogimg.jp/gunzichannel/imgs/b/e/be60ae58.jpg #3] - [http://military-vehicle-photos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/9880.jpg #4] - [http://77rus.smugmug.com/Military/13th-April-rehearsal-Alabino/i-fKQdjW4/0/M/13April-Rehersal-Alabino-26-M.jpg #5] <br />
* Same vehicle, Buk TELAR launcher with numbers: not found. <br />
<br />
At the moment, the lack of a number almost makes it look Russian. The next panel over seems to have smaller numbers, or characters anyway. Nothing yet tells me the Russians add a smaller number on the panel behind that, with or without special stencils available only in Russia. Is that even a number, or does it say return to Putin? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== Bellingcat and 3x2 ====<br />
:''moved from [[#Paris Match Photo]]''<br />
<br />
Adam: somebody's favorite Bellingcat is now saying, I understand, that he is capable to read off the number of this Buk from this blurry low resolution Paris Match photo, using unspecified colored magic and some expertly fitted proprietary boxes. Well actually this is so proprietary that he can ONLY read the first number 3, and the last number 2, but is completely unable to read the middle one. Because, he does not want this to be this Ukrainian [http://uainforg.livejournal.com/1811500.html Buk 312] , nah, noway. He rather want it to be the Russian Buk 3 X 2, where X stand for Russian, and for secret, as somebody is said to unearth this dirty monster in Russia, as he says (I guess). This looks too much baloney as far as I am concerned; you can read any number you set in advance from this blurry photo, and fit there any other crap, boxed-shaped or wiggly, all essentially at will. Just recording this latest saga page in case somebody has more enthusiasm to chase it than myself. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 00:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
:No, you didn't quite understand, but thanks for the tip. An interesting twist I wish I'd caught sooner. First, this helps the West at large get in synch finally with Kiev - it was Russia, not the separatists, who owned and perhaps ran that unit. Second, it seems to me the match is at least as good as they say, but there's at least one aspect of it I think is hilarious and I wouldn't be surprised if they managed to miss it. I'll be back - this one deserves a quick blog post. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: I agree with Resup, this stinks of baloney designed to divert attention from the [[#BUK_312_and_comrades]] story. The worst thing about Brown Noses and cohorts is the amount of coordinated promo they get in pre$$titute media. SPIEGEL today [http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/jan-fleischhauer-ueber-wladimir-putin-und-mh17-abschuss-kolumne-a-1004898.html has a op-ed piece by a particularly douchebaggy example] on those independent genius investigators as well. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::I need to brush up on what that 312 story is... because it looks like this used to say 312. Ultimately I suspect its some kind of baloney, but just where it breaks down I don't know. It is amazing how they get such praise for investigating the right things (never did get back to the Houla Massacre) and finding the right truth... Daily Fail says "The authors said that 'our investigation was made possible by the examination of open source material overlooked by other organisations'." Oh goodness, that technique they must have invested ... maybe if we started doing that we'd get praises too! --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/11/08/origin-of-the-separatists-buk-a-bellingcat-investigation/<br />
The report and whole site was not coming up when I tried (might be a problem on my end), so I don't even know what's behind their pay-wall. In the interim I checked around. [http://thetruthserumblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/an-open-and-transparent-investigation.html Here's a critical blog article I like] that mentions another article praising the report. But what was useful was [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2827853/Russian-military-supplied-missiles-ahead-MH17-shooting-says-new-independent-report-evidence-points-Russian-separatists-responsible.html the Daily Mail's Australian promo article] with the cover and a few images from the report as well as a summary. The 3x2 ... This lets me quickly see what 3x2 refers to. And actually, it looks like a good description and even a good match. The number is not from Paris Match photo but from footage I haven't noticed, they say from inside Russia - presumably a Russian unit then - seen conspicuously moving towards Ukraine in late June. (the source of these images and details might be worth checking into) ... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 3x2 Comp.png|right]]Bottom is Paris Match, skewed to match. Top is the new (to me) Bellingcat June 23 image As I just put together [http://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2014/11/how-russians-covered-up-truth-partly.html here,] they seem to be onto something here. It's something silly. But it's something strongly suggested by real paint in recognizable patterns.<br />
<br />
Implied: Russians wanted to hide this thing's identity, maybe because they were about to do something secret with it. So first they painted out the number in the middle - I think it was a one. Except they left one little corner of white visible. Just got tired. It's identifiable (in both images). <br />
<br />
Then before it appeared in Ukraine, it was rendered totally unidentifiable: they boldly blacked out the 3, and perhaps at the same time even, the 2 - except for a larger identifiable sliver. Just got tired. It's next to the other dot. <br />
<br />
Haha, no way to connect these now! Also a light patch next to the small number (and the number, as far as we can see) matches, as does a light patch along the lip below that. My guess: this is the same suspect vehicle seen gettin' hauled all over on the "stolen" truck with the phone number left on. Was it actually in Russian territory as well as near so many rebel checkpoints around dawn? For how long was it there? Bellingcat cannot confirm that Russian unit 3x2 ever returned to its base in Russia ... nor, I guess, that it ever actually left, or was ever Russian, or didn't have its truncated paint job simulated and expanded on another vehicle... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
::He got some photos of an actual [http://www.kavicom.ru/news-view-12861.html convoy], almost certainly in Russia, fairly hi-res photos, no 3*2 there. Than out-of-a-blue-or-elsewhere, he gives photos from convoy made by 'local residents', now with discolored 3*2 photo(s) there; I could not spot details where this photo is now coming from. He claims it "shows on 8 out of 16 videos", but I do not know where is a single one. He also compares tank track and plate above profiles for these 2 photos; details are blurred (and also those profiles change from use), can't say how much they match each other by eye; don't trust his fitted lines, or his conclusion accepting those, but did not try matching myself (no tools to do it quickly; or enough photo resolution to feel strongly motivated). This is doable but doing it tool-free takes time; and not knowing that second photo is definitely in Russia, I am not convinced spending a lot of time is worthwhile. This is clearly a well-supported operation, so the burden of proving their own version is on them; and they did not bother even linking the videos, no clue where are those. His report downloads without problems at this time. <br />
::Also details such as dirty rear skirt and a bend there likely are common; dirt is because exhaust is through the opening above; skirt likely is bent when there is servicing, or example changing tracks or doing something else, like maybe servicing engine. Buk 321 above on this page has dirt and bend, for example. This bend is something which can be easily produced, same goes with the painting job, both things together can be done in well under 1/2 hour. If they had an example of how something in Russia looks like, not difficult to do it for a blurry photo. Clearly, with phone well-displayed, etc, the purpose of all this is a demo job. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Here is a publication [http://censor.net.ua/video_news/274823/ukraina_zaschischaet_donetsk_ot_napadeniya_rossii_zenitnoraketnye_kompleksy_buk_zanimayut_pozitsii_fotovideo Ukraine defends Donesk from Russiam attack, missile complex Buk takes positions], with photo, video of Ukrainian BUks, numbers 323, 321, 312, 301, 331,332. (Some of them have dirty skirts, e.g. 301 looks dirty and bent...). Ukrainian radio is playing on the video. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 21:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Thanks, and I get the lack of motivation, and the ambiguity. That #312 I'll compare later ... looks like a different number style (thinner) with vehicle color less clear ... I guess this could be innocent dirt instead of black paint, but it's some thick dirt, and by the end almost totally covering the numbers on this particular unit ... or two that can seem the same. (?) So it still seems most likely paint, that is deliberate obfuscation - that was also comically slow and incomplete (with clean edges to the white parts and no visible parts of gray half-covered numbers) . It must be a problem with my system (updating soon) but I still can't connect to the site or get the report. I'm not mad motivated myself, but will want to check the alleged video source and geolocation eventually. Before I was seeing this as a Kiev unit simply snuck across the internal line. So the big wrinkle of course is it being in Russia. Options if the geolocation of June 23 is right: <br />
* it wasn't there (faked match-up - As you say, all matching features ''could'' be faked, not just the paint) <br />
* or Ukraine snuck theirs across (with a whole convoy?) just to get it seen there <br />
* or they snuck over and stole this one while it was near the border <br />
* or Russia willingly sent it over, with or without a subsequent theft by people intent on misusing it on the separatists' behalf. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
There is actually a 3*2 Buk in Russia, he put links to videos on his [https://www.mapbox.com/labs/bellingcat/index.html map], I looked at 06/23 Troitskiy (Odnoklassniki) goroskop odnoklassniki ru/video/14723648043?fromTime=25 . But I doubt it can be concluded that Paris Match is a match (number itself can't be read, this is just bogus). For example, that dot in the Russian version appears to be a bit further to the right (60 % of total panel length) , while Paris Match is closer to 50 (I got 52 %). Also, in Russian version, it is almost level with protruding to the right part of number 2; in Donetsk photo, I'd say it's a bit lower (but blurriness creates problems to measure) . Panel to the left of number panel appear to look very different; in Russian case, clear horizontal line above the main bottom line; not so in Donetsk, a messy lower line. As for the skirt, it it dirty but actually does not look broken in the Russian version, just some frames create such impression. In Donetsk, hard to know (to blurry to tell crack from dirt) but there is serious change in angle there somehow; (could be the windshield playing some tricks). (Also, in Donetsk, it is dirty windshield, not actually certain what makes the dot; but it is roughly where expected, so I can go with this being paint assumption). <br />
:No point for the rebels to display it prominently in Donetsk (not far from UAF BUK base), than go towards Snizhne; this just has no point at all. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 00:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
:I'm the one, ironically, claiming to see things in that griny mess. I'd never do it unless I saw t spot well whiter than the others AND seen in another view ... didn't even notice until then. To note, your descriptions are of the first version of the graphic, now updated. Becuase of overall problems, I cut what seemed just the number panel (including shadowed edge) and put it on top of where it should be. Same proportions, within a pixel or two, "find edges" to mark the white patches, and it remains lining up. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 3x2 comp 2.png|right|420px]]At right: it can't be the embarrassingly misrepresented Ukrainian 312 they're hiding, unless that was painted over before this other one .... FWIW, the middle dot would still line up with the serif on that "1." As the updated blog article notes, if "the Russians" were smart, they would have painted this slender 312, or other recognizable number and style, on there. Instead, this nonsense.... <br />
<br />
I suppose that Ukraine ''might'' have known about this 3x2 video and match in advance (and never mentioned it?) and that's why they found a photo of ''a Buk 312''' (not checking what it actually showed, and just claimed they knew was en route to escape into Russia, after parking for yet another photo?) No, that doesn't make much sense. But I sense a link. Maybe that's because I'm seeing 312 when maybe it's 872, for all we really know. Maybe instead of partly painted out it was just left never fully painted in. Too many unknowns and now I'm unenthusiastic about it. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Whatever one thinks of this graphic comparison and interpretation, the strange and suspect thinking it implies is consistent with what else we know about how this "secret" operation was carried out. If true, it would fit this broader pattern (real or reported clues left by whoever, all open to interpretation, and here couched in the terms of allegations by Kiev and supporters):<br />
<br />
* Recalling that this whole weapon itself would have no normal business in the area and would be denied later, it should have been kept secret. Instead, it was driven around in broad daylight on the same day as the crime, just partly covered with a tarp but revealing all clues needed to identify it, its hidden ID number, and its full rack of missiles.<br />
* The truck it was so displayed on was stolen in Donetsk, and kept with the huge sign on its side with the apparent owner's phone number on it. When the media called that number, little surprise, the owner told them pro-Russian "fighters from Slaviansk" who took over his whole trucking company on July 8 (see [[#The Truck Owner's Story|here]]) Put lightly, this is a stupid way to secure a rig one intends to use for a secret operation like this was supposed to be.<br />
* They loaded the truck in Donetsk, likely at the commandeered site in the north of Donetsk, near the Ukrainian base with Buk launchers, in a coincidence. This truck then got seen leaving Donetsk on the 17th, parked pointing east at the east outskirts, then seen driving in convoy (a couple civilian cars with the operational crew moved with the truck) past Zuhres and then through Torez to the east. They were seen arriving in Snizhne around noon, then the Buk unit seen off the truck and driving in stand-alone, and it was then seen again driving south out of Snizneh, towards the apparent launch location.<br />
* The people running the convoy made sure AP journalists saw them in Snizhne just before the shoot-down from a bit south of there. The convoy stopped, and a man in unusual uniform "approached the journalists. The man wanted to make sure they had not recorded any images of the missile launcher. Satisfied that they hadn’t" filmed that secret missile launcher there, but had noticed it, and their intention to remain sooper seekrit "the convoy moved on." All this was made quite clear to the media and apparently published even before the news that MH17 was shot down. ([http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/what-happened-the-day-flight-17-was-downed/2014/07/25/716c36e4-142b-11e4-ac56-773e54a65906_story.html AP Via Washington Post]) <br />
* After the disastrous attempt to secretly provoke a Russian invasion, with utmost discretion the operators put the smoking gun, its rack of one-less missiles left uncovered, back on the same truck and drove it and the phone number back to Russia - by a strange detour on a long route towards the other easily-recognizable smoking gun rebel capitol, Lugansk ... when government ATO forces had just battled their way to the edge of Lugansk ... and got seen there passing at dawn on the main highway south, apparently having come from the center of town, and then presumably drove to Krasnodon (rebel-held) and to Russia....<br />
<br />
The fail delivery here is almost flawless, with no mistake left unmade and hardly any reasonable gaps to call for deduction. Letting multiple camera views on both sides of the porous border capture and track the gradual move to this stealth mode seems pretty consistent to me.--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Note: the implications of this contested finding, and the visual basis for it as well, is continued below under [[#If Buk 3x2 Was in Russia]] --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== General Observations === <br />
*It is clear that pro-Kiev side produced early and persistent stream of fakes, misrepresentations, or selective half-truths, all aimed to place the blame on Russia and/or "separatists" as a part of well organised and supported information warfare. This information warfare did not establish an objective to prove the blame of Russia or "separatists", as any of those media creations will not survive a rigorous scrutiny, and there is nothing to bring to court in particular. However it successfully altered Western perceptions in early days past the catastrophe, and helped to impose sanctions and other 'increased costs' on Russia, bringing the world on the brink of another cold war. It brought situation in Ukraine closer to perpetual chaos, and kept closely related people to continue killing each other every day. Although those fakes and misrepresentations were later realized to be such, those costs and calamities were not reversed. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*After moving equipment close to border, why would Russia send just a single TELAR to Ukraine in a highly visible manner as it was alleged? For meaningful operation of Buk, one would send at least 1 TELAR, 1 TEL (to be able to load missiles), and 1 command vehicle (as radar on TELAR gives only poor basic operation)? There are also lots of support vehicles seen, in case of something meaningful all that is needed. So moving single TELAR is all but pointless from military standpoint. Single TELAR is mostly for a show of sort. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Reported SIghtings == <br />
(consider along with the visual sightings below) <br />
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/what-happened-the-day-flight-17-was-downed/2014/07/25/716c36e4-142b-11e4-ac56-773e54a65906_story.html AP via Washington Post] <br />
shows the separatists strategy to not be seen as they rolled the murder weapon around:<br />
:''Even before the plane was downed, the AP had reported on the presence of the missile launcher in the town July 17. Here is what that dispatch said:''<br />
:''“An Associated Press reporter on Thursday saw seven rebel-owned tanks parked at a gas station outside the eastern Ukrainian town of Snizhne. In the town, he also observed a Buk missile system, which can fire missiles up to an altitude of 22,000 meters (72,000 feet).''<br />
:''AP journalists saw the Buk moving through town at 1:05 p.m. The vehicle, which carried four 18-foot (5.5-meter) missiles, was in a convoy with two civilian cars.''<br />
:''The convoy stopped. A man in sand-colored camouflage without identifying insignia — different from the green camouflage the rebels normally wear — approached the journalists. The man wanted to make sure they had not recorded any images of the missile launcher. Satisfied that they hadn’t, the convoy moved on.''<br />
<br />
That kind of pro-Russian sooper-seekrisy aimed at the media in front of the media should stop them being seen, right? No, oddly, it didn't. See below. The clumsy bastards could hardly have implicated themselves any more thoroughly than they did that day. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
One interesting post at the Ukraine@War blog mentions two tweets, both from July 17 and before the crash, mentioning this BUK launcher on a trailer at places consistent with the video record. [https://twitter.com/MOR2537/status/489702736766586880 One of them] (translated) sounds perhaps ''too'' informed, and says "Was driven missile system on the tractor cover + two cars after Thorez (Torez) in snowy (Sniznoyeh) in 12-10 (at 12:10? Too early...)." [https://twitter.com/_StradivariuS_/status/489704260045910016 The other one] says "(someone this) morning wrote that (the truck) stood (parked for some time) on b.Shahtostroiteley not intersection with Ilchicha, aside (heading towards) Makeevki. waiting to see (to be seen?) If that's an intersection named, it's a different parking spot identified as being [https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=48.002515,37.854917&spn=0.010222,0.02444&t=h&z=16 here on Google Maps,] one km west of the spot it was parked for the "Paris Match" photo. Otherwise, it refers only to the same place. The contributor noted "Another interesting detail in that tweet is that “it was standing” and “they were waiting”. My understanding of that phrasing is that the #Buk was actually parked there for some time. Meaning there might be witnesses." <ref name="UWD">[http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com/2014/07/reconstruction-of-whereabouts-of-buk.html CONFIRMED the BUK that shot down MH17 has indeed been in Donetsk] P. Martin, Ukraine@War, July 23, 2014</ref> There was a witness with a camera, and a photo sent to the Western media. That almost seems to have been the idea - to get witnessed like that. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== SBU Wiretap Clues ==<br />
I just had a look at the SBU wiretap transcripts, ones released July 19. In it is a segment tying in with the above stop or stops in Donetsk, the exact spot of the [[#Paris Match Photo]], and the general orders to drive east with the launcher. I'm not up on the wiretap stuff - if this is the same material said to be corroborated by the US as the real people talking. But briefly, know that parking spot in just past a roundabout, by a motel and a bus station, well short of a crossing Hornostaivska street halfway to Makiivka. Important clue to why it was here this thing had to get seen and talked about: one source claims this roundabout at the edge of town is "a big separatist checkpoint established on Jun 3 at the road circle." <ref name="UWD" /> This is supposed to all be pretty damning, and I must say it's at least looking like a pretty slick plan may be going on here, with pre-scripted parts that come into play later, etc. From Kiev mouthpiece UaToday, parts of a transcript they ran with the video and other allegations, on the 19th - How credible is this evidence?<br />
:''Khmuryi: Sergei Nikolaevich Petrovskiy, year of birth 1964, officer of Main Intelligence Directorate of Russian Federation, Deputy Chief of Ihor Girkin on Intelligence, at the time of the interception he was in Donetsk.''<br />
:''“Buryat” – militant of terrorist organization “DNR” (to be indentified).''<br />
:''Buryat: – Where should we load this beauty, Nikolaievich?''<br />
:''Khmuryi: Which one? This one?''<br />
:''B: Yes, the one I’ve brought. I’m already in Donetsk.''<br />
:''K: Is it the one I’m thinking about? “B…,”M” one?''<br />
:''B: Yes, yes, yes. “BUK”,”BUK”.''<br />
:''K: Is it on a tractor?''<br />
:''B: Yes, it’s on it. We need to unload it somewhere, '''in order to hide.'''''<br />
:''K: Is it with a crew?''<br />
:''B: Yes, with the crew.''<br />
:''K: '''Don’t hide it anywhere.''' She’ll go there now.''<br />
:...<br />
:''Khmuryi: – Tell me, have you brought me one or two?<br />
:''Buryat: One, one. Because they had a misunderstanding there. They didn’t give us a tug. We loaded it and went at their own pace.''<br />
:''K: Did it go on her own or on a tug?''<br />
:''B: It crossed the line (border).''<br />
:''H: And now have you brought it on a tug? Don’t put in anywhere… I’ll tell now where it should go, it will go together with “Vostok” tanks.''<br />
:...<br />
:''K: Sanych, the point is that my “BUK–M” (modified Russian SAM system) will go with yours, it is on a tug. Where should I drive it to put in a column?''<br />
:''Sanych: There, behind “Motel”, not reaching Hornostaevka.''<br />
:''K: Just after the Motel, right?''<br />
:''Khmuryi: Listen to me carefully, behind the circle near “Motel” there will be you know what. Call to “Bibliotekar” (Librarian).'' <br />
The next part, to me, suggests that as far back as the 19th or earlier, people talking on tape were seeding, or working by, the SBU-proposed Aeroloft plot with the town mix-up. In that light:<br />
:''...Bring inside only those, who just came back, only as much as you need for the convoy. Leave everyone else here. Not far away '''there is Pervomaiskoe, look at the map.'''''<br />
:''DNR militant: I got it.'' (Or did he not quite get it?) <br />
:''Khmuryi: Settle somewhere in that area, bring there those who are left. Your task is reserve, plus protection of this piece (BUK–M), which you will drive now. “Giyrza” will come there too. If anything, I’m on line.'' <ref name="Trans">[http://www.uatoday.info/?p=2579&lang=en SBU releases more conversations implicating Russia in shooting down Malaysia Airlines flight (VIDEO, TRANSCRIPT)] UAToday, July 19, 2014</ref><br />
--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The veracity of that recording needs challenged well now ... the day too early claim [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17#SBU wiretap video|did not pan out,]] so it won't be that easy. Has anyone really done a good analysis tearing it apart some other way? Could it even be half-legit, with some local rebels tricked by some undercover (wire-wearing, not wire-tapping) supposed defector delivering it "with a team" coming "from Russia" (meaning Parubiy et al.)? Who knows? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Imagery Mapping ==<br />
[[File:MH17 Storyful video mapping.png|right|330px]]There have been quite a number now of photos and videos showing BUK launchers ostensibly in separatist strongholds, on July 17. The geo-location of these in such towns by social media networks has been the subject of some recent media commentary. These purported placements are worth collecting and considering here. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
One somewhat comprehensive and updated/evolving page: [http://blog.storyful.com/2014/07/19/how-social-sleuthing-uncovered-evidence-of-anti-aircraft-missile-system-in-eastern-ukraine/#.U9oY_Ua3498 How Social Sleuthing Uncovered Evidence of Surface-to-Air Missile Systems in Eastern Ukraine] Inset is a small preview of the interactive map they made of all placed images (as it stands at the end of July - [https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=200399683004956931329.0004feca5d1fbab0a1d25&msa=0&ie=UTF8&t=h&source=embed&ll=48.206371,38.968506&spn=1.281328,2.334595&z=8 full-size presentation with links, on Google Maps]) <ref name="Story1" /> <s>Note that one of them is way up in Lugansk - which one is a little unclear at the moment - the site may be wrong</s>) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;List of Scenes, placed or not<br />
* Billboard Video: released by Interior Ministry, filmed in Krasnodon before dawn, the Interior Minister says. Russian military analysis places it in Krasnoarmeysk, and the Open Newsroom crew contradicts both and decided "collaborative geo-location was able to place the footage in southwestern Luhansk.'' <ref name="Story1">[http://blog.storyful.com/2014/07/19/how-social-sleuthing-uncovered-evidence-of-anti-aircraft-missile-system-in-eastern-ukraine/#.U9oY_Ua3498 How Social Sleuthing Uncovered Evidence of Surface-to-Air Missile Systems in Eastern Ukraine] Storyful blog, July 19, 2014 and onward (updated)</ref> <br />
* Surveillance Video: located to Snizhne by Eliot Higgins, date unclear. <ref name="Story1" /><br />
* Zuhres video: Pre-geo-located by the uploader [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=48%C2%B0+1'1.38%22N++38%C2%B018'6.04%22E&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=48.034019,38.391724&spn=0.629958,1.564178&gbv=2&hnear=H21,+Zuhres,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&gl=us&t=h&z=10 here in Zuhres.] Higgins confirms, 100% sure, and others concur. Driving east. <ref name="Story1" /><br />
* Torez square photo - located by an associate of Higgins - filmed app. 11:40 AM in central Torez. See below. <br />
* Another photo placed: Snizneh, nearest the shoot-down area (f/c)<br />
* [http://www.parismatch.com/Actu/International/EXCLU-MATCH-Un-camion-vole-pour-transporter-le-systeme-lance-missiles-577289 Paris Match photo] - allegedly Snizhne, reportedly placed '''in northern Donetsk city.''' See below. <br />
<br />
===Billboard Video===<br />
(to be condensed) <br />
A video released by the Ukrainian Interior Ministry is highly dubious and worth some analysis. It shows what seems to be a BUK launcher loaded on a truck driving some direction in some town at what seems to be early twilight (or pre-dawn, depending). The [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4HJmev5xg0 original posting] (with almost 2 million views already) gives no details: "Militants take out missile system "Buk" to the border with Russiam" the title translates. "No description available," it says below, and no comments allowed.<br />
From what I've seen no one knows where this is filmed. Daily Mail says it's a "separatist stronghold," unnamed, and headed south, back towards Russia. "Ukrainian spies reportedly filmed the launcher used in the attack being smuggled to Russia - with two missiles missing." Eliot Higgins was cited by [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/20/malaysia-airlines-mh17-videos-missile-launcher-torez-snizhne the Guardian] with his new team of fundraistigators as geolocating some video and photo but not, apparently, this one. As explained at [https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1278239551/bellingcat/posts/919158 the kickstarter link] they give, Higgins writes:<br />
:''In the above video, posted by the Ukranian Ministry for Interior claiming to show the Buk missile launcher being driven towards Russia it was possible to match the transporter in the video to the transporter in Torez, details of which... (you have to subsidize their operation to see)'' --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== Avakov's Placement: Krasnodon or Lugansk ====<br />
Interior Minister Arsen Avakov said in [https://www.facebook.com/arsen.avakov.1/posts/670837696339673 a Facebook post of July 18] Google-translated: <br />
:''Covert surveillance units of MIA of Ukraine today July 18 at 4.50 am was recorded caterpillar tractor loaded with missile complex, moving in the direction through Krasnodon, toward the border with the Russian Federation. The video can be seen uncovered missiles. Two missiles in place - the average is not visible. ''<br />
:''There is an analysis of this and other information gathered. Presumably this is the missile system "Buk" that made a last shot at a civilian plane from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur .. ''<br />
:''Criminals try to hide the traces of this heinous crime. Not succeed. Security Service and Interior Ministry of Ukraine has collected and collects more irrefutable facts and evidence, the author points out the tragedy of the terrorist organization DNI / LC and its Russian backers Putin.'' <br />
:''The investigation of events MIA issue a comprehensive report on the information. This fragment consider it necessary to publish immediately.''<br />
<br />
By the 22nd, "online sleuths" had placed it in Lugansk (see below). Avakov then confirmed this - he was wrong the first time. One article makes it sound like he wasn't just echoing the sleuths:<br />
:''On July 22, Ukraine's Minister of Internal Affairs, Arsen Avakov, gave the exact coordinates of the video’s location: separatist-held Luhansk, about a 45-minute drive from Krasnodon. Locals quickly verified this claim by photographing the scene, which perfectly matches the landmarks seen in the video.'' ([http://globalvoicesonline.org/2014/07/29/russia-ukraine-mh17-conspiracy-buk/# article by one of the sleuths])<br />
<br />
====Krasnoarmeysk====<br />
One source venturing a guess is [http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ the Russian government and RT witrh their 10 intriguing questions:]<br />
:''“For example, media circulated a video supposedly showing a Buk system being moved from Ukraine to Russia. This is clearly a fabrication. This video was made in the town of Krasnoarmeisk, as evidenced by the billboard you see in the background, advertising a car dealership at 34 Dnepropetrovsk Street. Krasnoarmeysk has been controlled by the Ukrainian military since May 11.”''<br />
[[File:MH17 Billboard Vid Russian Analysis.png|right|250px]]There is a sign, but I cannot make it out just yet, if ever. Can they really? Even if that's so, surrounding towns might be good places for a dealership in Krasnoarmeysk to advertise. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
At right now is a still from a video claiming to show this, I still don't see it. They seem to think the gray span says that, perhaps from seeing a clearer view of this ubiquitous sign elsewhere. Opps. There's no reason to say a dealership in one town can only have billboards in that town. This alone fails. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 14:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Krasnoarmiis'k,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&hl=en&ll=48.323387,37.919312&spn=1.252829,3.128357&sll=48.226502,37.386475&sspn=0.627601,1.564178&oq=Krasnoarm&t=h&doflg=ptk&hnear=Krasnoarmiis'k,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&z=9 on Google Maps as Krasnoarmiis'k] - ''not'' to be confused with the Krasnoarmeisk not far away in Russia. Distance: about 100 km almost due west of the crash site. Panorama, possiblt location, directions/implications forthcoming. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Dnepropetrovsk Street is the main street of Krasnoarmeisk, leading northwest to Dnepropetrovsk. It tried matching this to the street corner where the car dealership is located. Yandex Maps did not provide a street view. It could be there, but too few details to make a positive match. Whatever this is, it is not evidence for anything. The least the SBU could have done is provide the location and some corroborating photographs.<br />
:The same applies to all so called "evidence" provided by Ukraine and the US State Department. As far as I can tell it is only cut-and-paste of unrelated footage to ''illustrate'' the claims made. A perfect example of this illusion is the "satellite photos" of Russian artillery shelling Ukraine released on Sunday morning. A photo of Russian GRADs on some unidentifiable field was placed next to a satellite image with an arrow pointing "Here Be Monsters!" Purely illustrative and no proof. There is a difference between legerdemain Hocus Pocus and outright forgery. The Russian video presentation displayed screen capture recording from the ATC radar, usually stored for two weeks. For this to be a hoax, Russia would need to create a forged tape of the radar data. Highly unlikely, as the the claim of authenticity had support of the full authority and prestige of the Russian Armed Forces. If the US presentation turns out to be hoax, State Department will claim the photos were never meant to be evidence. Some internee was told to prepare a presentation using stock images for some facts they ''knew'' to be true – trust us! -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 14:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: You must have missed [https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BtZSVQrIMAARzKr.jpg:large this], Petri! ;oP --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 18:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
::: That is an awesomely perfect picture for this sorry episode so far. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 14:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
::It would be neat though if we could show where this is and thus which way its's headed. The Kiev authorities, I think, know what happened. They say it was this exact launcher missing two missiles. It could be. Where is it at filming time and where headed? If it's true this same one was in Torez (dubious but possible) we'd have a direction traveled until that point also, and a rough time, 8:30 or so. [http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jul/27/mh17-storyful-social-media-twitter-youtube The Guardian again] citing Storyful's open-source investigation: <br />
::::''“There are now four pieces of content – three pieces of video and one image – which, in the case of three, conclusively show a Buk [surface-to-air] missile within rebel-held territory and in the case of the fourth, almost definitely in their territory,” says Storyful executive editor David Clinch. “Of those four pieces, individual groups or companies probably verified in or around the same time one or another of them.”''<br />
:''Open Newsroom verified three pieces of content and is investigating the fourth, thanks to its 900-strong network of journalists and experts. ''''<br />
:The fourth is this video. Wouldn't it be a coup if we were the first to place it? Force that intern excuse and then laugh at it. That said, it's not the most likely to place but you, Petri, especially, might be able to. I think I might. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 22:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* [https://plus.google.com/118234537318646233652/posts/LZV1XZD854E James Miller Google + July 21] "Was a Buk sighted in Krasnoarmeysk or Krasnodon (continued analysis)? We've taken a new look at this video which has been debated since it was posted days ago. We're fairly confident, though not 100% confident, in this geoanalysis, but we're making significant progress. Any more information would be extremely helpful. " Cited: [http://www.interpretermag.com/russia-this-week-lurid-anti-ukraine-propaganda-broadcast-on-state-tv/#1753 Russia This Week: Defense Ministry Claim on Buk in Billboard Video Doesn’t Add Up]<br />
:''...As we reported on our Ukraine Liveblog, the Buk was spotted before the shoot-down of the Malaysian airplane and ultimately geolocated to the town of Torez, near the location of the crash in Grabovo. Then the video, taken early the next morning on 18 July, showed a scene in Krasnodon,... <br />
--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Google Earth has one photo [http://www.panoramio.com/photo/55329278 from ул. Днепропетровская.] The street has about the same width. The streetlights are not quite the same. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 14:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
::That image doesn't help a match, especially since by now it looks like Lugansk. For the record, there was a go by pro-rebel social media people at identifying a spot in town to explain the video scene, but it didn't do that either. [http://wikimapia.org/#lat=48.276196&lon=37.176087&z=18&l=0&m=b this spot on Wikimapia] is what they pointed to - filmed from the marked building, they say, looking southwest to the mall. No matching anything. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 02:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== Placed in Lugansk! ====<br />
[[File:MH17 Billboard Vid-Lugansk Match.png|right|800px]]Storyful's rundown states of this video:<br />
:''The footage is not the original, however we believe that the first instance of this footage was removed by the uploader and the version below is the earliest we can find. Ukrainian Interior Minister, Arsen Avakov, made early claims that the video was filmed in the Ukrainian town of Krasnodon near the Russian border, however collaborative geo-location was able to place the footage in southwestern Luhansk.'' <ref name="Story1" /> <br />
It links to "Bellingcat," which you have to pay to see much of. [https://plus.google.com/118234537318646233652/posts/bMdeBzY8yty James Miller] passes on that it's "Mystery SOLVED: Video released by Ukraine's Interior Ministry does in fact show a Buk, possibly missing several missiles, in Lugansk headed east from the MH17 crash site and in the direction of Russia." The spot they think matches the video (better panorama coming) is [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=48%C2%B032'44.7%22N+39%C2%B015'52.6%22E&ie=UTF8&ll=48.545926,39.265147&spn=0.002436,0.00611&t=h&cid=0&z=18 here on Google Maps]. Was that a highway? Where's the cross-street? I see elsewhere they have a high view showing the same basic billboard there, but that's going to be true of several spots in this area. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
My impression of the scene - based on the panoramic view below - is far from matching with this. That does not look like a highway, and it just seems like a small town. However, I finally saw some of the supporting images (see [http://news.bigmir.net/ukraine/827864-V-Lygansk-vehala-kolonna-voennoi-tehniki--SMI here] and [https://twitter.com/djp3tros/status/491651820188860416/photo/1 here] - source of the inset image.) It seems a likely match after all. I won't say I confirm it with any certainty, but I don't think I'll be challenging it like I was preparing to do. Note the different billboard in the right spot, and the matching one over there. There are other images, apparently more current, showing that that they moved the one sign over to the right spot They don't point to the pinkish roofed building beyond the red-roofed one, but that adds to the match (compare to below). Whenever this video was made and whatever it really means, it seems quite likely it was at this spot in Lugansk shortly before dawn. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
There is another video from June 2014 showing the same billboard with the same car ad:<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ez8cZ3nqjCs Луганск 02 07 14]<br />
The video shows a column of BMPs with one 9K35 Strela-10 short-range surface to air missile system passing the intersection in Lugansk. I suspect they came from Russia, as [https://www.facebook.com/groups/IOUCO/permalink/584402078339517/ I specifically asked] for Putin to send in the Russian tanks that morning. They passed exactly when I expected them to, at 6 minutes past 4 am. (I estimated it would take 2 hours 6 minutes from the border.) -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 17:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== ACLOS Review ====<br />
As noted above, my review agrees with the placement agreed by the others. For what it's worth, the huge panorama I made (the middle is full-resolution) and starting notes from before I realized no work was needed. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 03:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
[[File:MH17 Billboard Video Pan.png|center|880px]]<br />
It seems to be filmed near the edge of town, or edge of a hill anyway, with a clear view ahead, two vague homes/buildings seen down the slope. Otherwise, very non-descript. The angle of intersection will be one of the better clues - it looks to me not 90 degrees ( |- ), but with the road the truck is on either slanting or curving somewhat towards the camera ( /- ). One important observation: '''there's no logical reason he should have been just happening to film this area''' unless he knew something interesting would drive by at just this odd time. That's clarified by how he zooms in just before it enters frame - he was waiting for that truck. How did he know about it? Informants on the other side of town phoning ahead makes enough sense, I suppose. <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 launcher truck composite.png|left|480px]]Another issue: If this is dusk (sunset 8:20 PM local), isn't this facing roughly northwest? If so, this vehicle is driving roughly north, not south. And we might start looking on the west edge of town. There's a highway out to the northwest, back towards Kiev. This street is too narrow and unmarked to be the highway, obviously, but it might be driving that way, for example. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
:Or, alternately, he's facing towards the sun about to rise, early on the 18th, as alleged by the Interior Ministry) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
::That he happened to be filming just before dawn is even less likely than dusk. He clearly knew this was coming, whatever that means. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 03:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Above is the composite scene without truck. At left is the truck without background. Besides lightening the scene, it seemed worth getting the clearest details from different frames into a composite view of the truck and its load. This helps compare to the launchers seen in other areas and different times. So far, they all seem to look the same and perhaps be the same. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 03:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br /><br />
<br />
==== HRI ====<br />
Pretty good points [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/08/05/mh17-the-lugansk-buk-video/ from Human Rights Investigations]:<br />
:''To sum up, the statement of Avakov, the film and its location suggest the Ukrainian authorities had advance knowledge of this BUK and trailer’s movements or control over it. It is also extremely strange that this BUK, allegedly after shooting down MH17, is supposedly filmed by a Ukrainian surveillance team in ostensibly rebel territory, with its covering missing, as if to show the world a missile is missing.''<br />
--[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Paris Match Photo ===<br />
[[File:MH17 Paris Match.png|770px]]<br /><br />
* [http://www.parismatch.com/Actu/International/EXCLU-MATCH-Un-camion-vole-pour-transporter-le-systeme-lance-missiles-577289 Originally published by Paris Match] on July 25, with the claim the picture was taken by their own reporting team near Snizhne at mid-day on the 17th. Note the prominent, apparent, telephone number prominently centered in the picture - (050) 471-41-80. The truck and launcher, as far as can be seen, are quite similar to or the same as the one seen in the billboard video anyways. How many of its missiles the unit has at this moment is unclear. <br />
<br />
* [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/07/28/why-is-paris-match-on-the-location-of-a-buk/ Human Rights Investigations:] "it turns out to have been taken in Donetsk, 75km away" (citing someone else's geo-location - [https://www.google.com/maps/@48.004592,37.87265,3a,75y,63.38h,82.21t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sRGnHwZ5YZnuGO-n_VvruWg!2e0 site link given.] <br />
:''We know this because the phone number on the truck panel (050 471 4180) leads straight to this hire place (photo):<br />
:''According to Paris-Match, the proprietor of this establishment claimed “rebels” had stolen a number of his vehicles earlier in the month. If we go from here to towards Snizhne we find the location of the Paris-Match photo, near a car dealership on Makiivske Highway on the outskirts of Donetsk:''<br />
:''After informing Paris-Match of the mistake regarding the video location, the author of the article Alfred De Montesquiou has now got back and explained:''<br />
:''Hello, indeed, it appears there was a mixup in caption : the picture was taken leaving Donetsk on road to Snijne, not in actual Snijne'' <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Donestk Buk Map.png|thumb|right|480px|Map: this truck location, the company's apparent headquarters ([https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Molodykh+Shakhtariv+St,+19,+Donetsk,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&ll=48.044923,37.783184&spn=0.079187,0.195522&hnear=Molodykh+Shakhtariv+St,+19,+Donetsk,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&t=h&z=13 GM link]), and the A-1402 missile base relative to each other.]]<br />
<br />
'''Questions:''' Was it a caption mix-up, or did their team really not know where it was taken, and just believed the real source when he said Snizneh? Who is the true photographer who knew to catch this picture near the company's base, apparently at the outset of a rather epic journey? Why did the rebel thieves leave the prominent phone number on the stolen truck used for such an important task? It wound up leading to man who pointed right to the rebel thieves, and prove yet again separatists, not Kiev allies, were the ones driving BUKs around. Was that so hard to foresee? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''To Do:''' Verify the geo-location - set a time, presuming July 17, by sunlight and that location - establish which way it's traveling relative to the government-run anti-aircraft base just a few km north of here and relative to the other places and times this truck and others were spotted rolling around prominently and getting filmed a lot by the right kind of people, in areas presumed to be impenetrable to any such frame-up operation - look into this company, etc. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''Location:''' I can't confirm it with certainty, but it's extremely consistent. Two standard but distinct pole types that close together on the right with a pull-over lane ending at the blue one, and consistent-scale foliage behind. Proceding on the location as likely enough to warrant the work. The stretch of highway identified runs northeast, heading 33 degrees. The truck is most likely not driving at the moment, as it's in the pull-over lane. But it's pointed as if ready to leave Donetsk as soon as they finish doing something in theis spot. All we can see they're doing is getting filmed, and maybe that's just what they're waiting for. Ahead would be the an industrial area, the eastern suburb of Makiivka, then Khartsyzk, etc. and further east Torez and Snizhne (driving times unsure, date also unsure. Russia claims the one launcher left the northern base sometime between in August 14 and 17 images. <ref name="RT10">[http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ 10 more questions Russian military pose to Ukraine, US over MH17 crash] RT. July 21, 2014</ref><br />
<br />
'''Time:''' I'm not sure how exactly to set this up, but the shadows appear to stretch almost right across the highway, with only a slight northern shift. The azimuth thus appears to be fairly close to to 140˚ (reached at 11:09 AM). As for solar altitude, trying to line up the launcher's corner with its shadow gives a reading of app. 56˚ (= 10:50 AM, with azimuth 133˚) or perhaps 59˚ (= 11:18, az 143.5). The graphic shows both readings. Which is better? I used [http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/solcalc/ NOAA solar calculator], with coordinates: lat 48.017102 long:37.9037626 time=GMT+2, DST +1 --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
There is more to consider about this truck, its company, its owner, and his story. But other than this photo's extra-clear view of the phone number and apparent proximity to headquarters, those are better covered in the section below [[#The Truck Owner's Story]].<br />
<br />
==== Time? ====<br />
[[File:MH17 Paris Match elev.png|right|220px]]<br />
Bellingcat was originally claiming that photo was taken at 9 am. [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/09/08/images-show-the-buk-that-downed-flight-mh17-inside-russia-controlled-by-russian-troops/] [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/11/08/origin-of-the-separatists-buk-a-bellingcat-investigation/]<br />
<br />
Then they were claiming 11 am as an obvious time without retracting previous 9am claim. Seems like 9am was more comfortable for them to match to photos from Zuhres and Torez. <br />
<br />
Sorry, using smartphone. Not very easy to comment --[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 01:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:<small>Looks like you put the same link twice, -it says 11 a.m.--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)</small><br />
::Antidyatel, welcome! Resup, thanks! I'd like to see any 9 am citation. But otherwise they agree on it being around 11? Good. The significance below is if the Zuhres square photo was taken at 11:40 AM as they say, it's basically impossible these images are from the same day as alleged - 69 km, 1 hour 14 mins drive between the spots, when there's only 20-40 minutes between the images. However, fudging it - let's say this is 10:50 and the other is 12:00 as I read it - that's 1:10 between, almost a perfect match. So maybe this isn't a great lead (I was never convinced it was). But 9:00 is way off and suggests they were fudging it to fit at that point. Would be good to document. BTW, on talk pages you can sign with <nowiki>--~~~~</nowiki> or the sign/scribble button. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: [https://web.archive.org/web/20141109132514/https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/11/08/origin-of-the-separatists-buk-a-bellingcat-investigation/ First archive.org snapshot] from the day after publishing (edit: a good three months after you called it :o)) says 11 am already. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 10:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: Okay, the links were fixed once or twice and [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/11/08/origin-of-the-separatists-buk-a-bellingcat-investigation/ the November report] says 11 am, not citing an azimuth or anything, just Paris Match saying it was "about 11 am," which doesn't count much for verification. The [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/09/08/images-show-the-buk-that-downed-flight-mh17-inside-russia-controlled-by-russian-troops/ earlier report from Sptember] might be based on something else when it mentions "a well known image from Paris Match, which shows a Buk in Donetsk at 9am on July the 17th." Neither one sounds like a firm final version. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== Screenshot from dashcam video? ====<br />
It it possible to identify if the photo was made by dashboard camera, smartphone, or other type of camera. Paris Match claimed that they made the photo. There are no date markings on the photo, which is strange. Position of the camera is such that it was either dashboard camera or the driver was making a photo (front and left side of the car). Paris Match was also implying in their report that it was a group of people in the car. "A sytem BUK missile launcher is photopgraphie by the team of Paris-Match in the suburbs of Donetsk, on the road to Snizhne the morning of July 17, hours before the flight Malaysia Airlines MH17 crash."[http://m.parismatch.com/Actu/International/EXCLU-MATCH-Un-camion-vole-pour-transporter-le-systeme-lance-missiles-577289]<br />
<br />
Why would they ask driver to make a photo? Dangerous or uncomfortable - illogical. If it was a dashboard camera, why not to release a video? And most importantly it would have a time stamp. <br />
<br />
Also in this report [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/01/17/new-images-of-the-mh17-buk-missile-launcher-in-ukraine-and-russia/] gives a new, a bit extended photo. Surprisingly the back of the BUK is nicely in focus, same as the truck cabin. While middle of the BUK is defocused. No wonder Paris Match cropped it. Bellingcat, that likes being so strict about photos, totally ignores this part. <br />
-- [[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 23:55,, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Yes, I agree. The two photos are crops from screenshots from a dashcam video. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 00:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
::Those must be two different shots at close-by time --look at position of street lamppost with respect to the truck cabin, one has it over black pipe, and the other more to the right from there. Can't think of a natural way for camera to focus on two different distances (maybe dirty and curvy windshield can be blamed but on tricky side here)-- FWIW. Usually dashboards have short focal length so that anything appear to be in focus; don't know why not the case here --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
RESUP, you are right. Those are two different shots. There is cable reflection from the windshield. Probably the cable is another indication of the dashboard camera.--Antidyatel<br />
<br />
=== Torez Square Photo ===<br />
[[File:MH17 Torez Buk Analysis.png|left]]This is another image geo-located by the Brown Moses network (ally Aric Toller) to central Torez, [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Donetsk&hl=en&ll=48.023472,38.614014&spn=0.004923,0.01222&hnear=Donetsk,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&t=h&z=17 here on Google Maps.] Like others, it was initially stated as in another locale - Snizhne - and that had to be corrected. I can agree the location pointed to is either the photo's site or one strangely like it. [http://mashable.com/2014/07/23/citizen-journalists-mh17-spies/ Mashable noted] "Toler and Higgins were able to establish that the photograph was shot around 11:40 a.m. local time." I tried a quick azimuth measure, eyeballed relative only to the blue car, and got 165 degrees (yellow line, read backwards). This equates to a time of almost exactly 12:00 noon (about 30 minutes before solar noon, and 20 minutes later than their estimate). Seeing they're close to right, I'll presume they're closer than me and defer to 11:40. <br />
<br />
If this photo is taken at 11:40 AM, and it's the same truck seen leaving Donetsk around 11-11:20 AM, it's impossible these images are from the same day as alleged (Gmaps says it's 68.8 km, 1 hour 14 mins drive, when there's only 20-40 minutes between the images). That would mean multiple mobile launchers with multiple "Titan" trucks, or just one but with some date fudging. The company says a number of its trucks were stolen, so matching multiples are entirely likely. But so is date fudging, multiples or not. If that's so, I suspect the Donetsk photo was from July 15 or 16, and this one more likely from the day of the crime. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 04:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br /><br /><br /><br />
=== Zuhres Video ===<br />
[[File:Buk Zuhres Vid.png|right|480px]]Again, a truck of that same type loaded with the same apparent weapon is briefly seen driving east (detail at right). This one was never reported wrong and was in fact pre-geo-located by the uploader [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=48%C2%B0+1'1.38%22N++38%C2%B018'6.04%22E&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=48.034019,38.391724&spn=0.629958,1.564178&gbv=2&hnear=H21,+Zuhres,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&gl=us&t=h&z=10 here in Zuhres.] Higgins confirms, 100% sure, and others concur. <ref name="Story1" /> Zuhres location: on highway H21 halfway between Donetsk and the general disaster zone - 36 km east by road from the position of the truck in the Paris Match photo. I agree with the location, refined below as I lined up in the still used here - the blue line runs between the blue thing and the building corner (footprint, not roofline) to the front of the truck as it passes. <br />
<br />
The sky is fairly overcast, so solar angles can't be measured precisely; the differences in facet lighting are clear but not massive. A broad and inclusive azimuth range of 167˚ to 214˚ (rounded) is shown by the yellow arrows below. This yields a range (to the nearest minute) of 12:09 PM and 1:45 PM. The best middle is a bit early - 185 degrees. That would be 12:44 PM. Altitude, at solar noon, helps little. 12:09, 12:44, and all times between round off to 63˚. if that simply looks too high, we're forced to the later end of the time frame. - 57˚ at 1:45. My super broad-estimate: 12:45 +/- 50 minutes. Weather at this time on whatever day - as noted, it partly overcast, and it's windy. The clouds are moving fast, with slight lighting changes visible in just these few seconds. Winds by the swaying trees are from the southeast, perhaps, blowing northwest - at least at the building with a face running that way.<br />
[[File:Buk Zuhres analysis.png|center|680px]]<br />
<br />
==The Truck Owner's Story==<br />
The apparent owner of the white truck so important to the MH17 operation was of course tracked down via the giant phone number for his compant on its side. Interviewed at least twice now, first by Paris Match, then by Lithuanian agency Alfa, this businessman has been anonymized as Vassili (then Vasilijus). Thorough summary of the related, alleged facts, from each (translated) report:<br />
* [http://www.parismatch.com/Actu/International/EXCLU-MATCH-Un-camion-vole-pour-transporter-le-systeme-lance-missiles-577289 Paris Match, July 25:]<br />
:''Photographs of Paris Match showed that the rebels had failed to remove the billboard on the truck they had stolen. Thus we joined the owner of the vehicle. Vassili said the rebels occupied warehouses on the outskirts of Donetsk since July 8. "They are fighters Slaviansk. They landed and told me they loved my premises and we had to escape. They shipped me a dozen large vehicles, including the white truck. I do not know what happened to them, "admitted Vassili, distraught.'' (that was actually just what they published, aside from context material) <br />
<br />
* [http://www.alfa.lt/straipsnis/472203/alfa-lt-isskirtinis-interviu-su-raketas-buk-kuriomis-buvo-numustas-malaizijos-avialiniju-lektuvas-gabenusio-vilkiko-savininku?p=1#.U-GIxeOSyuZ Alfa.lt, July 29:]<br />
:''This person's testimony is crucial. After it becomes indisputably known that anti-missile system, which shot down a passenger plane was precisely the Kremlin-sponsored terrorist hands. ''<br />
Here, separatists are throughout called "terrorists" (Bezler is "the "People's Republic of Donetsk" terrorist gangs ringleader"). Vassili says these took over and occupied his company premises on July 8, taking the white truck - they said because it was needed He says they stayed in control of his facility for 8 days, apparently departing on the 9th day - July 17. Becuase of this, he and his staff - especially his drivers - were unable to do anything that whole time. He's entirely certain it's his truck in the videos (the phone number says so) as it's the only one of its type in that part of Donetsk (Žinoma, ji – vienintelė tokia Donecko srityje, tokios kitos nėra. Tokios „Volvo“ su tokia kabina). He says he still hasn't seen it since.<br />
:''...more and more irrefutable evidence that Russia supported the terrorists shot down over the temporary control of the territory in the east of Ukraine aboard passenger "Malaysia Airlines plane, and later sought to hide evidence.''<br />
But as Paris Match noted, they couldn't be bothered to detach the phone number to the guy with the whole dang story. <br />
:''Alfa.lt knowledge of the personal data, company name, knows his responsibilities and phone numbers (one is (050) 471-41-80), but because of '''the danger to his life''' that can not be published. "Stop saying my name, and I already have enough problems," said new horrific crime witness Vasilijus.'' <br />
This is valid; of course his best defense would have been to simply ''not'' implicate the separatists mostly running Donetsk, but it's too late now. DPR authorities might want him for questioning. And especially now that he's been publicized as a "crucial witness," others will want him to '''appear to have been brutally murdered by them''' (he will have served his main purpose by now, perhaps). I hope someone's able to arrange protective custody quickly enough, or that he can arrange his own vacation, or convince his friends (he'll know the ones) of his continuing usefulness to them alive. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Titan Gate blurry.png|left|380px]]Further bits on the business: Wikimapia has labels. One for the front building is generic. In English writing: [http://wikimapia.org/#lat=48.0399571&lon=37.794637&z=16&l=0&m=b&show=/24479492/Ochakivska-vulytsia-19 Ochakivska vulytsia, 19]. Beneath: Category: safety, '''private security company.''' Around this, a bigger labeled area including the back building and surrounding lot. Label: Территория службы охраны "Титан" Translated, it says "Territory protection service "Titan" (Donetsk)." Beneath it: "Category: '''Do not display name''', fenced area." (не отображать название, огороженная территория) Below, their gate area as it appears in Human Rights Investigation's still, and three versions I've seen randomly changing over the last day or so with different parts that could be the name blurred out (most recently back to not blurred). Is that unusual? I predict further twists in this, with the truck found somewhere bolstering the Kiev story, and with the company's "outing" being manipulated somehow. Feels a little spooky. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
;Assessing "Vassili's" Story<br />
<br />
There are a number of problems with and interesting questions about this witness' story and how it meshes with other allegation (details forthcoming).<br />
<br />
In Vassili's defense, I'll say the world needs to hear more. What happened in these eight days? Were Russian officers coming and going? Poring over air charts in the side room, before closing the door with an annoyed look? A lot could have happened - this could be a gold mine of direct evidence for war crimes trials of these terrorist gang's leaders (as understood). --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
[[File:MH17 Vassili's Truck August 1c.png|right|400px]]<br />
An apparent support: as HRI found, [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/08/07/new-sighting-of-volvo-linked-to-buk/ New sighting of Volvo linked to BUK?] August 7 - One of those provocatively deleted tweets, quite recent with a supposedly same-day (dawn or sunset) photo from somewhere in Donetsk - outskirtsy, like where <s>rebel</s> I mean Kiev junta forces proudly claim to almost be. this photo (saved by HRI) shows "a truck" carrying a tank, driving behind another tank. The posted thought it was for a new roadblack/barricade (concrete slabs were also being hauled). It appears to be the same truck Vassili says he lost, or one just like it. And this does look like the type of thing seaparatists would do if they had seized it, and still didn't realize how famous it had become. This thing likes to drive at dawn, doesn't it? How are checkpoints then, a little sleepy maybe? Hmmm... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::(added later: inset image - from the photo, color-corrected and cropped on just the truck - for full view see the article or below) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: FTR I took up HRI's challenge to identify the truck on that picture and did so with almost 100% certainty. It's a Volvo FH second generation (2001-2013) with low cabin. Like [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Volvo_LKW_Fahrerhaus.JPG this one] which has a higher cabin but other than that is quite a match. Also FTR, I noticed that the twitter account has "Donbass Bandera" as location, which can but must not mean anything. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: Bandera might mean something, in context, but no time to puzzle too much. Good ID work there. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Vassili's Truck August 1 Loc.png|left|380px]]The article passes on a geo-location I can confirm: [https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Makiivka,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine/@48.04073,37.967479,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m5!1e2!3m3!1s78165143!2e1!3e10!4m2!3m1!1s0x40e08e984a0db9a9:0xe4e52efde2e0641c Here on Google Maps,] photo taken, as described, from "opposite the Vostochno-evroppeyskiy restaurant & lounge “Atrium” in Makiivka on the H-21." A site photo of the "Atrium" is included. The graphic I made at left shows the approximate view, including the stairwell (to a subway station?), though the billboard is less clear. The view is roughly towards the rising sun northeast - a rough azimuth measure suggests the sun is shining from about <s>66</s> 71 degrees from north, for a time of around <s>5:24</s> 5:52 AM (elevation: <s>1.8</s> 6 degrees). --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC) and corrections --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
FWIW, I went over to militaryphotos.net and scanned [http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?236005-Situation-in-the-Ukraine-Crimea-*Photos-Videos*-ONLY/page200 the thread about Ukraine starting on page 200] in very early July, up until page 225 when all the known truck/BUK info and disinfo was posted. Watched countless military convoys, including a whole bunch from Donetsk in the time between. Not a sign of the truck in question. If it was in "rebel" hands since July 8 like the alleged owner claims, they used it only for "special ops", alone in the early morning or so, not in their larger relocation operations. Two things remotely interesting: in an operation [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0JdcC324Ek reactivating a WWII tank from a war museum in Donetsk], a similar trailer is used, but the truck is a different one. And in [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2eGNPJlkMo this video from July 5] but without given location, the Ukie army does some operations and two BUK TELARs are seen. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Possible Launch Sites ==<br />
*Launch site discussion here is based on a photo of disputed provenance, said to be made '''near [[Category_talk:Ukraine#Torez|Torez]]''', showing a plume of smoke (see on the right and below). Exact date is disputed, but it was posted shortly after the accident. A late update or second version of the photo emerged in December 2014; this is further discussed in the [[File_talk:MH17_Launch_Plume.png|talk page for the photo]]. A different launch location in '''Artemovsk''', based on Bezler account, is discussed elsewhere [[Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17#Bezler_Account|(link).]] . <br />
<br />
===What do we know? ===<br />
Questions about the photo, --if it is genuine-- include:<br />
<br />
*What is shown on the photo? (Likely a missile launch, but can be MANPAD, or some other launch; raising fire smoke not excluded though less likely) <br />
*When was the photo made? (Claimed to be couple of minutes after the MH 17 shootdown launch; but could be made on earlier days)<br />
*Where was the photographer, and where is than the 'launch site" Photograph claimed to be made in Torez (4 microdistrict?) . Claimed launch sites locations are [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/launch-location-detected-of-missile.html SE] or [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2107 NE] from the photographer. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
A site, or maybe a couple of locations, have now been forwarded, based on compelling evidence, as likely SAM launch sites of July 17 or thereabouts. This is worth careful consideration here. To start:<br />
<br />
* [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10984530/MH17-the-clues-which-may-lead-to-missile-launch-site.html UK Telegraph, July 22] This report with some detail and a photo visits a few areas where signs of possible BUK launcher movement and firing occurred recently. Caterpillar tracks, mostly light, signs of burning, various debris left behind, all or mostly "in the area of the town of Snizhnoye." These details might suggest whoever did this had multiple launchers set up in different areas that left as soon as the operation/accident was done. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
::So far, signs are saying it was just the one. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Below: The site shown on video, stitched panoramic view (with confusing curve). This helps get the fullest set of geo-location clues. I may even check if this is the same spot identified by Ukraine@War, below. It should be, or we might have two firing locations pretty near each other, which would be odd. The firing direction from here would be northwest, almost directly along MH17's flight path. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
[[File:MH17 Telegraph site.png|center|940px]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Launch Plume.png|right|340px]]Ukraine@War: [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/launch-location-detected-of-missile.html Launch location detected of missile that brought down MH17] The photo at right, cited by Kiev as proof of a BUK launch in the right area, July 17. The anlysis here looks good on first blush and lines the filming to northern Torez, plume on a line including a supposed patch of cat tracks just revelaed by fresh Google/GeoEye images of some fields [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Donetsk&hl=en&ll=47.989347,38.773155&spn=0.078813,0.195522&t=h&hnear=Donetsk,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&z=13 here] by Snizhne. As traced, the tracks look realistic to me. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: There is (a disappeared) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUvK5m2vxro BBC video ] suggesting that smoke is from a direction of Saur-Mogila (= constant fighting) and a coal mine. <br />
::Thus smoke may be unrelated to the launch. Also timing of photo is unclear. <br />
:: Buk trail from unrelated launch videos appears considerably [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDXScnEKaP0 more impressive than on the photo] , and traces well visible trajectory, likely attracting attention of many people . But there appears to be no witness reports. <br />
::Buk appears to use [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_navigation proportional navigation method], and if so, its navigation control will try to guide it on a straight path to impact.<br />
::Unless it was doing something else (but can it??? the answer requires expert knowledge), it was most likely on a straight line trajectory which can be deduced from the impact direction.<br />
--[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 00:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Yes, an odd video. I'm not certain they even picked the right view, but it looks about right - I think she and Oliphant (Telegraph) point to the same monument as a landmark - a place of fighting. Seems like they got close, but didn't have a specific spot like U@W picked, and didn't find anything. As for angle, I think it can maneuver around, but would prefer to fly straight (not an expert, don't know what "prefer" means here). And if it was hit head-on like the impact marks suggest, then it probably did fly just about straight into the jet. Obviously if it came over the wing, and was fired from here, it would have to curl around, but I don't think that's the case. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
<br />
The satellite images cited at Ukraine@War are available if you have Google Earth. As explained [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/satellite-images-reveal-how-buk-has.html here,] there's a .kmz package you can download [https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxEeOqcjSE5uQXlkWkxKeVhDaEk/edit here] that loads on Google Earth new, murky images from July 20 (but the display still says August, 2013). The tracks he highlights are visible, faintly. There are a couple sets perhaps connecting - some could be local paths - there's no recent enough images to say there weren't there July 16. One important missing thing is a patch of burnt grass it seems should show up up differently - it's not identified there, and not evident right around these tracks. From this, it's not a great fit, except that line of sight pointing here. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Plastic Debris 1.png|left|280px]]So is the Telegraph site and the Ukraine@War site the same thing? Well, the Telegraph article says they went to the spot identified on a blog, but found, as the image suggests: Two possible launch sites – a rundown collective farm and a nearby wheat field – showed some track marks but no sign of any rocket launch whatsoever." It was a farmer plowing his fields there who pointed them to ''a field nearby'' that burned the other day, and that 's the unclear site they show. "The location of the fire lies on the supposed flight path of the rocket, and track marks – though indistinct – are present. Some unidentifiable bits of green plastic littered the site of the fire." There were also discarded bottles (type unclear) and apparently this oddity, shown in a photo but not mentioned - soft bakelite-type plastic ... thing, with years in the 1980s and 1990s stamped in it. It's all near enough to the rebel town, the Russian border, and concealed rebel positions that they think only rebels could operate there. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
First, let's note that author "P. Martin" connects these possibly relevant tracks with the surveillance video showing the Buk launcher driving south The Telegraph spot, from the burnt grass, must the spot the exhaust pushed off from, and the burn line should probably be to the northwest. There's no sign of that alongside these track marks found on that visual line. That's a problem, as the exhaust never said a luncher was driving around thataway, but rather launching from thataway. <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Telegraph Spot Mapped.png|right|380px]][[File:MH17 Telegraph Spot Cleared.png|right|320px]]Rather, it's the nearby "Telegraph spot" - not quite on his line but close - that [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com/2014/07/exact-location-pinpointed-of-mh17.html Martin thinks is the EXACT location] That, he thinks, is in the next field south. It should be visible in the updated imagery, but it turns out this is just off the edge of the area they provided, so it can't be verified or ruled out based on that. The inset graphic shows this cut-off line, his previous possible firing locations (track-based, seemingly un-burnt, in yellow) The spot yields a best placement with coordinates already noted by Petri in a section [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Map#Buk locations and flight paths|here.]] (I picked out the spot myself, best guess, and got the same but 3 seconds east) It can't be checked like that for the telltale stripe to the northwest, but it looks pretty likely to me. The main view down the tracks (left half of the panorama above) would be looking south, and the near line of trees on the right running west. The pretty obvious tracks he identifies as likely launcher tracks, and they do seem to curve in where it stopped. Otherwise, to me, this has more the look of a pre-travelles semi-road on the line between fields. Either way, it probably drove that way, and fired from here, and not from the un-burnt spots north. All the tracks he notes, none certain in themselves, are supported in their possible relevance by this being what's at the end of the trail. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC) and [[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Added in November, the image below that. I noticed Google Maps had new post-crash imagery up, and re-checked the spot for burn marks, since it was just off the grid before. This replacement - overlayed with translucence - seems too late. The strip most likely to show the signs has apparently been harvested/cleared before this image Some will say that constitutes a coverup. And it might, but probably just out of stupid reflexive nervousness. I just wanted to measure its angle and stuff. There is a nice track right up to the spot, likely pre-existing and just unclear before, and what they used to get there. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Location Challenged ===<br />
<br />
The above stuff, as of now and as I've been running it mainly, seems to bear out the vaunted "social media sleuths" placing the launcher and probably the launch in "separatist-held territory." I agree with all locations provided, and times too. Everyone acknowledges date is less sure. There are compelling clues pointing to concrete firing spot, that seems to be lined up the hit the jet head-on, as it's starting to seem the airliner was hit. In this narrative, the questions people should be asking is who was really running that. But readings differ, and some differing views can be considered here. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* [https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByibNV3SiUoobnpCVDduaHVORHM/edit?usp=sharing MH17 Analysis] – CDN <br />
<br />
Petri posted this to the front page, a 25-page report with many graphics and explained reasoning. One of its conclusions, based on range to impact, mainly, meant that "the missile that downed MH17 was not fired from Snizhne." At the moment, I disagree. Petri, who is CDN, and are they soliciting feedback? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::The anonymous PDF was published via Saker's blog: [http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/08/detailed-expert-analysis-of-mh17-downing.html Detailed expert analysis of the MH17 downing] "CDN" has [http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/08/detailed-expert-analysis-of-mh17-downing.html?showComment=1407347983141#c8862773971299986141 responded] [http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/08/detailed-expert-analysis-of-mh17-downing.html?showComment=1407350196815#c7564049628743605813 twice] in the comments. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 00:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
I think these might be part of what threw the author(s) off:<br />
# the heading seems to be off, too southerly to trace back like that. At the end, maybe close enough<br />
# possibly too-wide debris field starting too early - final breakup likely E-NE of their spot (ie closer to in range)<br />
# Wrong presumed angle of impact <br />
# Lack of knowledge, specified on page 23, of this contrail image or, obviously, the supporting clues pointing to what might be "the Telegraph site" excluded here. "Why are there no images of the rebel missile and its impressive launch contrail?" Oops, there is and it point there. <br />
--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: I just skimmed it before coming here. It was posted [http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.de/2014/08/detailed-expert-analysis-of-mh17-downing.html over here] where you can join the discussion (which I haven't read yet just saw that Petri is there chiming in in comment 2 of currently 93). I think it's first valuable in presenting the known capabilities of the Buk etc. If your stuff above is true and it is one single truck with one single TELAR that was seen in the different locations, then it shows quite conclusively that the Telegraph position can not be the launching point, because even if the Ukie claim of disappearance from Radar 50km from the Russian border is not true, due to the position of the debris it could only be further away, not closer, which adds to the argument. My 2 cents for the moment. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
: Oh, not directly related to the critique, but driving around with a huge phone number that leads to a Titan security of all places is more than a bit suspicious, I'd say. ;o) --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: "the Telegraph position can not be the launching point" if my "stuff above is true and it is one single truck with one single TELAR that was seen in the different locations" - how? "because even if the Ukie claim of disappearance from Radar 50km from the Russian border is not true, due to the position of the debris it could only be further away, not closer, which adds to the argument." Huh? I think the field is placed really vaguely in that report, and that's what sets the impact point - it looks maybe kilometers off, to the west. Placed right, the implied impact point is further east, ie closer to the launcher. It is a valuable report, but that point should be re-checked more carefully before I could be convinced to write off all the other evidence pointing there. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::: Take a careful look at pages 9 and 10 of the PDF. Place the spot to where you think it's "right". Think how that would change the picture. The argument is based on the empirical location of the debris and unless I've missed some serious flaw in the numbers and basic calculations made on the pages leading to that, I think it's by rule of thumb a very sound argument. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 13:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::: I'll do my own soon - I can say it would end further east, relative to the border there, and probably start further east too, but maybe I'm unaware of some outlying debris - but first a though on the debris field I just had, even more relevant than size and placement - what does it actually say re: the plane? He presumes it would follow the trajectory east. Not much, really. With only so much momentum and breaking up, with five miles to fall, the main factor will be wind. Even a breeze has five miles to act on it. That was so with PA 103 - the wind was about perpendicular to the path, and that determined just where stuff scattered on a line across the borders area right to the north sea - only the cockpit and a few things were off much from that line. Here, if it blewa along the flight path, the reasoning would work fine. If it blew back, to the west, the plane was probably shot further east than the field suggests. Ie, closer yet to in range. The Zuhres video above shows wind apparently to the northwest, and pretty strong. Worth a review and re-think in that light. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 14:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::: With an initial speed of 907 km/h I see no reason to take wind into serious account. I see no reason at all for going into more detail in this rule of thumb argument, not on the debris, not on the alleged launching point. But I'm as always looking forward to what you can come up with. ;o) --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::: btw there's no exact calculation of the traveled distance of the falling pieces, it's just found plausible resulting from other data. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::::: There's good reason. [http://martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/PA103_debris.gif past precedent.] I did read it wrong - the blue oval is about right, I thought the scale by it, which is way off. That's the 20 km drift - if the wind was blowing due east at the right speed... to the near edge of the oval and 30 km to the far edge... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 15:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 four last points.png|center]]<br />
<br />
Debris fields as shown in MH17 WSJ data combined.jpg. The two tracks, 118 per Flightradar24 and other sources, and 111 from a Russian graphic (see label C), just in case. They cross at point E just to look cool - superimpose wherever to visualize a track-back on these or any line between. <br />
<br />
The four red "last points", eyeballed onto the map as shown in the various graphics used here (all pretty approximate): <br />
<br />
A: last return, flightradar 24 (erred, I think, way too far along - I suspect some inherent offset...)<br />
<br />
B: Russian ATC last return, '50 km' from the border (vague description, likely close to accurate)<br />
<br />
C: end of 111 track shown in MH17 radar 1.png (maybe arbitrary, lower resolution)<br />
<br />
D: report, deduced point of impact (presuming 20-30 km flight due east after impact, wind app. not considered at all)<br />
<br />
E: My guess for breakup point, where the damaged front came apart (should maybe be further east, right over the south part of the first orange blob). Actual impact point, an unclear distance back. probably not very far - downward flight could start anytime after that, decreasing the lateral distance traveled) . <br />
<br />
The cockpit, aerodynamic, shows the most like forward trajectory of this, relatively minimal wind complication. The heavy forward parts had more drag, wound up NW of there. A bit further NW, the light, high-drag, punctured upper fuselage. That these parts aren't spread further out suggests the jet managed to descend some ways before the front totally fell apart, and/or that the wind was fairly light. From there, most of the plane remained together, kept more momentum and little wind effect, and crashed kilometers east. The last part of this plummet, about one minute seen on video, it was nose-free and essentially nose-diving. A slight north trend, perhaps curtailed eastward progress, largely just down, leaves it all hitting together by Hrabove, scattering woth the fireball trajectory and wind deciding where these bits landed. That it only got so far from the forward parts again suggests this breakup was fairly low in the fall - maybe just before the start of the one video. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I'd say forget point D, it is way too far west, this plane was not going to fly 25km once hit. On debris, I'd put breakup where the "f" is in your word "forward" and impact not very far NW of that, lifting the whole 118 line a little northwards. You can't bring breakup below impact and count on wind pushing wreckage "uphill" because that first group of wreckage included 37 bodies, which would not "sail". The impact would be enough to knock the course slightly south, to drop the cockpit at Rozspyne, where it turned NE to end up at Grabovo. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 03:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Thanks. D is the presumed point used to rule out this launch location, the original point of this sub-section. That dot fails by a good margin. My E and your guess are both north of the flight path, along which all the red dots are (this graphic is confusing, needs updating, if I didn't flatten it). I was thinking a NNW wind did the north and west spreading, but the records say the wind was flat "east" (to the west). I'm left suspecting now the plane banked hard left just before it started breaking up. Actual impact, just before that. The "C" label is pretty arbitrary, but it keeps seeming about right. On the imagined red line 1t 117-118, I dunno, maybe 20-30 pixels back. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::Winds are described as 'from' not 'to. So a wind blowing to the NNW is reported as a SSE wind.<br />
::::A slip - I'm trying to say it that way now. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::Getting on to the wind. The actual breeze direction is usually a function of altitude - veering or backing from ground level observation. It can easily be 90 degrees out from ground level. You need to look at the vertical profile used in aeronautical soundings to see where debris will in the main blow to. --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 11:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::Sounds like a real headache to map. There's also changes over time, where east at 5:00 may change briefly ten minutes later, or 10,000 feet up. All that seems can be counted on is easterly winds in general - no exception to that. And generally, even if they measure it at the airport, it must extend up to the clouds, which can be seen swirling east over the area. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::No it doesn't extend to the clouds except by accident. Major direction change can happen in hundreds of metres altitude especially at night. Examples of wind shift between ground level and 700 millibars (9800 ft) in day time can show a direction change of 90 degrees - e.g. North to West. This is significant with MH17 where the breakups occurred between 33,000 feet and probably a few thousand feet for the final disintegrations. --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 11:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::FYI Here is all about [http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/48/ Veering and Backing] --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 11:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::As for the spread issue, I'm re-thinking it. As for the bodies, it depends on a few things but I take your point - bodies are dense. And I didn't know that detail - worth considering. Also a sad side-note: most bodies would be alive and aware, from what I learned looking at Lockerbie. Lack of O2 would black them all out at first, but gravity makes it so there's enough in that final stretch those not dead already (the lucky few) would probably "wake up" in time to both feel their injuries and their fall, and to see the "separatist-held" fields rushing up to kill them. :( ---[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::: My indications are they were all dead when they hit the ground. That's not to say some didn't suffer from the first blast up there. Using my (very long ago) rescue triage training, I examined all the body photos for type of injury. The main findings were (a) almost no blood (as the separatist intercepted call rightly claimed) (b)a lot of legs at angles suggesting hip/pelvic fracture (a very common injury in air crashes to people wearing seat belts) and (c) all the bodies appear swollen (in first-day photos). We are thinking of what happened as a decompression, a low-pressure event. But that was preceded by the blast detonation of the missile just outside... a high-pressure event. The very high pressure shock wave compresses the blood vessels and severely damages the lungs. Blood pressure and heart rate go sky high trying to compensate. In 1/2 a second the blast wave is gone and they are in decompression.The heart can't adjust fast enough. The lack of blood flow makes the brain and liver swell up, too, so normal blood circulation cannot be re-established even if the heart recovers. The Lockerbie bomb, and various exploding fuel tank cases, were lower pressure explosions; sadly many would have survived those until ground/water impact.[[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 20:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::So there is evidence of blast wave, not _just_ decompression alone? But no shrapnel wounds? --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 21:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::(cut my comment - I had misread - taken to [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Debunked topics#Bloodless bodies – fake Facebook profiles?|bloodless bodies spot]] FWIW - but I disagree with both the lack of blood and the validity of many "separatist" communications, but if we're not arguing a planeload of corpses being shot down, I won't argue it much.) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
More to the point, leaving the above graphic aside, would be this newer one I should finally add. Basic straight path, 118 and placed as agreed by most sources. Alleged launch location, measures app. My best guess is a 2 km range from 22.75 to 24.75, weighted to the center. Or most likely about 23.75 km out (irrespective of actual projectile flight path, that's where it made contact, but this helps visualize how the alleged launch site might line up with [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Forensics#Direction of projectiles?|the directional forensics]]). --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
[[File:MH17 missile intercept distances.png]]<br />
::Straight line from launch is okay. But impact has to be further north, ie before the most westerly debris. You've used the map which assumes that debris to be blown back by wind. That can't be right, as it included bodies (too dense to blow back) and witnesses saw them and plane sections falling straight down. This only makes about 1 mile difference to the missile range, so does nothing to exclude that launch location. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 01:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::The map of spread is only app., some orange area I made. The pink dot and lines are from a map, Russian analysis, as you say apparently presuming a SSE wind. Debris including people ''would'' be blown back to some degree, all of it, varyingly; trajectory can only do so much when you have five miles of falling, with the breezes acting the whole time, and the lightest parts will be back a bit, whatever direction and as mentioned above, a SSE winds at some time or altitude still isn't ruled out at all). Do we know just where in that area those passengers landed, and what types of things are its far end? ? <br />
(<br />
:::I mean, you could be right and it's a bit further back, maybe with a continuation due east from there and no real wind effect except slightly back. It was only 9-12 mph, and maybe it fell halfway before starting to fall apart, which means less spread. I'm thinking about a possible left turn to explain the north aspect, or it could be wind, or being further back (more north, as well as west), or a combination. The turn has to be a certain size, the wind direction is not certain aside from east prevailin, ... whatever point best explains whatever happened ... we're down to a shrinking agreed range, and as you say, it's all within range of the one spot, so it's not ruled out after all. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 04:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
At this stay of play, I feel it will be helpful to have displayed prominently an overall map reflecting best guess on impact location as well as already flagged suspected launch sites, that is the two launch sites we have been discussing (near Snezhny ; near Chernukhino) , PLUS launch locations flagged and TIMED by released satellite data (currently only Russian data is available). I would be generous with the range here, we can find range suggested by public sources but presumably actual range depends on a number of things (height, radar range, trajectory, wind), and may exceed the "official" range. Another useful graphics piece info would be indicating the front lines, if there is a way to have those known. '''I would be extremely cautious with displaying graphics reflecting just one way of thinking (whether "worst", "best", or "middle of the way"), for the reason that any graphics is easy for human brain to absorb, more than words spread out on all our numerous pages, and ''no graphics at all'' is better than displayed ''skewed'' graphics.''' One-sided graphics may be '''inviting''' even more noise releases "supporting" some already skewed scenarios, and I feel that was already happening way too often. I feel that most helpful stance at this point would be as neutral as it gets. (Regarding trajectories, a default guess is a straight line, anything else requires an explanation. Straight line is implied so no strong need to actually display it, especially if it ends up curling in suggestive funny ways on graphics). --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 09:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::I've been doing a lot of graphics, so not all fired up for more. But if you are, I wouldn't mind making another if it helps. Maybe this is best taken to [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Map#Interception Location]] (a lot of this is redundant, and I might move it, but at least I can say let's stop piling intercept stuff here as well as there). Up to picking a certain spot around Chernukino? Some outskirts area, on a major road, it'll be a guess. A couple guesses could be mapped. Also, if it seems worth it, I can do updates and upload the new version as needed. Any timed satellite launches, let me know. Front lines, not known and IMO misleading in this case. Those who would know would try - and maybe manage - to sneak this thing behind them... the caution about leading labels, I can leave to you - you could just tell me what to put. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
:::::Would take me forever, may try later on, but not immediately; some cleanup/re-arrangement seems the easiest option. (If there are tools for collaborative mapping, may be good to start using those; but not aware of any) --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 11:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The preliminary [[Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Dutch preliminary report|Dutch report]] says the flight recorders were suddenly lost at 13:20:04 UTC at a point that almost exactly matches the 22.6 km mark. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 22:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Plume Location Re-challenged ===<br />
There is another video, essentially giving a bellingcat in voice-altered Russian. We discussed all that essentially; but he seems at least to end up with a claim for geolocation for the plume photo. Seems to be a new one (or I forgot the old one already by now). The claim is based on [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2055 unrelated panoramic photo] somebody took nearby, and [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2025 claimed to be geolocated by presenter]. Here it is on <br />
[http://maps.yandex.ru/-/CVG0nLo~ yandex map] ; it is taken from a terricon located at Lutuginskii bugor(=hill). There is a cableway from there to TsOF (remember, Khuevyi Torez tells about cableway from Lutugino to TsOF, so here they are); [http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=48.012722&lon=38.665695&z=14&m=b&show=/10590043/ru/ЦОФ-им-Киселёва TsOF is central enrichment plant]; photos from TSOF do show a similar [http://photos.wikimapia.org/p/00/00/62/81/85_big.jpg cableway] . So based on that and an audio of locals of unknown provenance and authenticity, discussing a missile-looking trail in the direction of [http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=48.041767&lon=38.741055&z=14&m=b&show=/18687650/ru/Химмаш Khimmash], our presenter [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2107 ends up] with this [http://maps.yandex.ru/-/CVG0rMnO claimed plume location] , somewhere near this Mochalino village. And apart from this, his contribution to the topic is the claim of a white spot on the other side of 3'2 Buk which he claims to match on the way out. I do not believe all those Buk sightings were taken on the same day, and so do not believe in the overall glue-up of the story, but geolocating the plume, no matter what the plume is, remains legitimate. This author gives his answer to that question. Is this geolocation correct? I do not know, it is not tight, there are lots of cableways out there I presume, and some posts nearby are not too unusual. I do not see a tight fit between Lutuginski bugor photo and the plume photo--some elements do match, but those are obviously not identical places. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 02:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Excellent. Let's keep the title. But I guess you just forgot the previous location. This is the same view. The plume could be added, but I doubt it, and it's to that view at a consistent time on a consistent day. I'm not convinced ''all'' Buk sightings are same day, but most of them being so is a good fit with this plume that way, and a plane down with damage that seems consistent to me. (I hate this case) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::Are you sure it's the same? This new one is NNE from Torez, I thought it was placed SE from Torez by [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/launch-location-detected-of-missile.html U@W ]--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::Going back to check, this is a different filming location proposed. Line of sight isn't included, but it seems to be the same line over the same area to the same place. Even before he could see the distinctive mound, Petros (U@W) had [http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-cfSqhRb2dKo/U80x2OxK1XI/AAAAAAAATNk/r42WpH-Bf-Q/s1600/missile+trail+9.jpg this lineup], which includes this spot. Right where Petros pic says "trees" is what this guy decided were the foreground trees where it was filmed. I wondered when checking but decided on the further version. And seems to be the same result either way. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::I don't think this is accurate, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2107 video at this timestamp] gives 'место пуска ракеты' (launch location) near [http://maps.yandex.ru/-/CVGgVPJN Molchalino]. I have not seen this elsewhere, I only seen the one claimed to be SE of Torez. He does not discuss filming location, but shows it on video and assumes it is in Torez near the terricon, which is close to what other sources assume. He does show the line of site on the video; it is nearly perpendicular to U@W. Lots of terricons, coalmines (so likely cableways), and power lines leading there in this area, so location now seems uncertain. As I understand, no solid evidence for either of these two being the correct geolocation (those cableways seems to be quite common) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::::I am/was confused then. I thought it showed a SW view, just from closer to the mound. Now I see at 33:45 a view from right by it, looking NE? Can't explain the other one you see in the distance in the fuller view (right ?) That's kind of towards Molchalino, but that won't explain anything I suspect. (and what a bad fake or odd coincidence to have a plume up there and a the Buk tracking imagery lead to south of Snizhne, oops!) We'll see south and west faces of buildings if looking NE, so sun will be shining from well east of south, but also quite high, like mid-day in the early AM - or maybe just earlier mid-day, like 11 am. That would be another sloppy mistake. I doubt the details will line up. BUT a couple minor things didn't quite seem to the other way, so maybe worth a try (later). --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I will send this comment also to<br />
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/01/27/is-this-the-launch-site-of-the-missile-that-shot-down-flight-mh17<br />
The US map launch location can best best and almost exactly located from the last magnified picture:<br />
https://wp4553-flywheel.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/32.jpg<br />
That location is here:<br />
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.9571993,38.7466343,488m/data=!3m1!1e3<br />
The triangulation result in the last 3 pictures of the article introduces unnecessary error and clearly does not match the magnified picture.<br />
There is a structure that looks similar to an airfield and it is just south of Chervony Zhovten (=Oktyabr), matching with a witness observation in that place ("it was flying as if from Saurivka", though not matching 2 other witnesses in the zello audio, indicating it came from government held positions further south, [2:00] "Well, it appears everybody saw where the missile has flown from." [2:04] "Well, where you are, everybody saw it, but the Ukrainian media, as usual, will say, will say that that were us.")<br />
It would be outside the range of the plume picture geolocation bounds, which may be either an error given the long distance, or, the plume picture was taken the day before from the reported grad missile launch (as well as the burned field). (The photographer gave his camera to the SBU after twittering the first picture, so later pictures and dates can not be taken for sure).<br />
http://7mei.nl/not-buk-m1-new-video-proof/--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 19:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:(1) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkCcCmYlMZc That audio], as it turns out, was posted by Torezinfo on 24 July, and updated on 1 February. Torezinfo is a favorite posting place of Khuevyi Torez(=KT), who posted a very [https://twitter.com/WowihaY/status/489914266439671808 similar location map on 17 July already]. KT mentions zello recordings on 25 July in the follow-up, so shortly after it gets on torezinfo. With all that stuff linked to this KT poster, I would not put much trust that any of that is genuine. (Or that this KT poster is not acting as a medium for SBU). (2)[http://fr1.sidcdn.net/maps/nsdc/2014/07/large/map-nsdc-2014-07-17-uk-w3000.jpg Ukrainian map] does give us some Ukrainian held area somewhere to the South, but from that map it is hard to tell where exactly opolchenie ends and UAF begins--(I would not know) (3) Actually, going from there, not likely to hit on the left side--so having it from Artemovsk (as Bezler told, indeed) seems most probable --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 21:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:: Here is another map http://liveuamap.com/e/2014/16-of-july-saurivka-is-bombarded-over-and-over-by-rus-grad?ll=47.907137219641115;38.75392913818363&zoom=8<br />
::And here is an article which says that both Marinovka and Tarany were held by National guard. http://www.interpretermag.com/ukraine-liveblog-day-149-russian-tanks-and-artillery-reach-donetsk/#3353<br />
::I just opened bellingcat https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/01/27/is-this-the-launch-site-of-the-missile-that-shot-down-flight-mh17 and see that large parts of the article disappeared, I think they are working on it. That location given by the US photo does not really match well with the plume direction anymore, lets see what they come up with--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 21:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::I believe Marinovka was [http://lifenews.ru/news/136715 taken by opolchenie on 16 July] (lifenews report). Tarany--do not know, perhaps still Ukraine, but not totally sure. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 21:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::: other sources say attack was repelled and forced them to retreat to Stepanivka http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_in_Shakhtarsk_Raion http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/213817.html--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 22:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::: That US photo launch location differs by an angle of about 11 (?) degrees from the brown line in the bellingcat plot (measured from the photographer's location). https://wp4553-flywheel.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/101.jpg (launch location is just visible below the letter 'p' of 'the word 'suspected'). I think this a lot and puts the 'plume' into question. But then there is only the US photo, which itself could be a production based on social media (or worse).--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 22:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Well some believed this is for real, then they got a case to answer [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/22/mh17-us-intelligence-russia-separatists-report Guardian: Photograph: US intelligence community] [https://twitter.com/barbarastarrcnn/status/491559153559932928/photo/1 @barbarastarrcnn] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
In the following, I assume that most of the social media pieces and leaked audio tapes are correct and connect the dots in a different way:<br />
<br />
1. On July 14, an Ukrainian Antonow 26 airplane was shot down by a missile near the Russian border town of Donetsk.<br />
http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/what-weapon-was-used-to-shot-down-ukraine-air-force-antonov-26-at-july-14/<br />
The video in above link showed the missile flying for 39 seconds until it hit. Only a BUK can fly that long, a manpad or Pantsir, also claimed to have been used, not (see first comment in link).<br />
<br />
2. According to a recorded audio tape published by the Ukrainian Secret Service SBU, rebels possessed a BUK ('BUK3x2') in the Donetsk area at least since July 14 ('we already have BUK'). At that date it may have been either on Russian or already rebel held territory.<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVAOTWPmMM4<br />
<br />
3. A social media search discovered only one other system in the area, capable of shooting down AN26 - a Pantsir. However, a Pantsir can't fly for 39 seconds. Based on a max.speed of 780m/s and max range of 20km, it can only fly for about 25s.<br />
http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.co.nz/2014/11/unnoticed-video-of-26-downing-confirms.html<br />
Therefore and because of the crew's intent to engage in the civil war, it is likely that AN26 was shot down by BUK3x2. Afterwards BUK3x2 had only 3 missiles left.<br />
<br />
4. On July 16, Ukrainian and rebel statements both confirmed the shoot down of a SU-25 plane near the "Marinivka border crossing", which is only a few kilometers south-south east of Pervomaiske, the destination of BUK3x2. Ukraine's defence ministry said: "It is likely that [the hit] was carried out by air-to-air rockets from the Russian air force which were patrolling the border in a pair." <br />
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-28345039<br />
This may have been another reason to install a BUK system in this area on the next day, leaving room for an accidental Ukrainian shoot down, apart from an accidental rebel shoot down and a willful Ukrainian false flag shoot down.<br />
<br />
5. On July 16, rebels fired grad missiles from a location near Pervomaiske. The plume may have been photographed as well by an SBU informant in Torez and twittered on the next day, claiming to show the launch of the missile hitting MH17.<br />
http://7mei.nl/not-buk-m1-new-video-proof/<br />
<br />
6. On July 17, BUK3x2 was seen in rebel territory on its way to Pervomaiske, south of Torez. Ukrainian SBU knew about the arrival latest since July 14 and about its destination latest July 17 morning, allowing a false flag operation from positions held nearby.<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVAOTWPmMM4<br />
<br />
7. There was an ongoing battle in the region with "fluent" contact lines. Marinivka and Tarany, about 8 kilometers south-east and south of Pervomaiske, were controlled by Ukrainian National Guard as well as all of the border region. Marinivka would match well with the direction of the Torez plume photo.<br />
http://liveuamap.com/e/2014/16-of-july-saurivka-is-bombarded-over-and-over-by-rus-grad?ll=47.907137219641115;38.75392913818363&zoom=8<br />
http://www.interpretermag.com/ukraine-liveblog-day-149-russian-tanks-and-artillery-reach-donetsk/#3353<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_in_Shakhtarsk_Raion<br />
<br />
8. The Russian Defense ministry claimed in a news conference, that on July 17, Ukraine installed several BUK system near rebel held areas.<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bNPInuSqfs#t=1567<br />
<br />
9. In a popular 'zello' audio recording, witnesses in the area were talking about the launch of the missile hitting MH17. A witness from "Oktyabr" (Chervony Zhovten) claimed "it was flying as if from Saurivka". <br />
Two other witnesses said:<br />
[2:00] "Well, it appears everybody saw where the missile has flown from."<br />
[2:04] "Well, where you are, everybody saw it, but the Ukrainian media, as usual, will say, will say that that were us."<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkCcCmYlMZc<br />
<br />
10. A Reuter's witness also claimed that the missile was fired from Kiev held territory. Reuters, however, said, "off camera, he said that it was launched from a nearby rebel site. Asked why originally he said the opposite he said it was because he was afraid of the rebels."<br />
In a new interview this witness claims that "off camera comments were just made up by the [Reuters] journalist".<br />
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=497_1427729491<br />
<br />
11. BUK3x2 was again photographed in Lugansk with its 3 missiles, no missile fired since July 14.<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4HJmev5xg0<br />
<br />
12. The US presented a very low resolution satellite photo with the track of a missile added. The launch location does not match well with the direction geolocated with the Torez plume photo, it deviates by about 11 degrees in angle, hence either or both appear to be incorrect.<br />
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/01/27/is-this-the-launch-site-of-the-missile-that-shot-down-flight-mh17/#comment-12493<br />
<br />
13. Award winning investigative journalist Robert Parry reported about leaked US intelligence "that U.S. intelligence agencies do have detailed satellite images of the likely missile battery that launched the fateful missile, but the battery appears to have been under the control of Ukrainian government troops dressed in what look like Ukrainian uniforms."<br />
https://consortiumnews.com/2014/07/20/what-did-us-spy-satellites-see-in-ukraine/<br />
And later Parry wrote: "But I’m now told that U.S. intelligence analysts ... are concentrating on the scenario of a willful Ukrainian shoot-down of the plane, albeit possibly not knowing its actual identity."<br />
https://consortiumnews.com/2014/08/03/flight-17-shoot-down-scenario-shifts/<br />
<br />
14. During the coming months BUK shrapnel may have been collected from the AN26 wreckage and planted in the MH17 wreckage.--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 00:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Photographer Statement===<br />
[http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com.au/2014/12/interview-with-eyewitness-who-made.html Reported to say] : "That day did not foretell anything special would happen. In the morning I woke up and went to my work. At four ó clock in the afternoon I arrived home. And at 16:20 we heard an explosion. The first explosion was not very heavy. 15 seconds later, something like that, there was a second explosion, which was louder and it made the windows shake."<br />
: Did not foretell --an ass, --is this lawyer-written? 'We heard". --Took till December to polish up ? --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 16:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:: Agreed. 'I did not know in advance this would happen.' Uh, who said you might? And 15 seconds must be rocket travel. Did he hear the firing from there? Could be, not that far. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Time delay consideration ===<br />
Photographer reported two sound booms td=15 seconds apart; an interpretation may be launch and impact sounds arriving to him in Torez. If P=(0,0,0) is photographer cordinates, I=(d,0, h) is impact, with d ground distance between Torez and Rozypnoe, h is the height of flight at 10 km , and L =(x,y,0) is launch location, dist(A,B) is Euclidean distance between A and B, c is peed of sound, and n (about 2.5) is missile speed in Machs, then<br />
<br />
(1). dist (P,L) = dist(L,I)/n + dist (I,P) - td*c <br />
<br />
(2). dist (P,L) >= h/n + dist (I,P) - td*c <br />
<br />
(1) is a biquadratic equation for y given x (square enough times for square root to disappear); plotting that gives a closed 'ellipse-like' curve on (x,y) plane; once on that curve, time delay is exactly td seconds (doing this involves solving quadratic equations and removing spurious solutions not satisfying (1) ) . That curve is at distance about 13 km in NW direction from photographer in Torez, and about 22 km in SE direction from him on the Southern ( Saur Mogila side). <br />
<br />
(2) gives a simple estimate that distance between photographer and launcher is greater than the known right hand side; that distance is more than something like 13 km<br />
<br />
(3) Requiring launch withing the range, --launch is not more than 20 km horizontally from the impact-- selects a NW arc of the curve described in (1) ; that arc is to the NW from Torez, and goes slightly NW from the impact point (meaning its ground projection). <br />
<br />
Conclusion, based on the above, is that launch is too far from the photographer, to match the photo. <br />
<br />
(Knowing exact time delay can tighten the argument. With what's actually known, and objection can be raised that whatever actual time delay was, it appeared to be 15 seconds to the photographer. Graphics of the curve may be supplied if needed). --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Ooh. That kind of math could really come in handy with recorded audio cues, for example. But based on '15 seconds, something like that,' from memory months later, I wouldn't put any weight on it. If that turns out correct and pretty exact, there's a good point. Otherwise, the photo and other stuff is more solid, and says it's just about where it should be, as far as I've seen anyway. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Contrail ==<br />
This is what an "impressive launch contrail" of a big missile might look like.<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3lLwP1y0w8 АТО. Запуск двух ТРК Точка-У. Артемовск.] (ATO. The launch of two TRK Tochka-U. Artemivs'k.) – August 28, 2014<br />
-- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 22:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Something happens in the sky. This is the people's reaction:<br />
* ''20/09/2014 Over many parts of the DPR and LPR were seen circles in the sky.'' [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7310 1,] [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7311 2,] [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7312 3,] [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7313 4,] [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7314 5]<br />
-- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 03:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
Tochka U missile is single stage solid fuel, which is a mixture of ammonium perchlorate with rubber and aluminum powder (Russian [http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/tochka/9ch151.shtml "ДАП–15В" fuel] ).<br />
I could not find information on Buk with a comparable level of detail. Buk missile is single stage, solid fuel of some type, "dual-mode solid propellant (total work time - about 15 seconds)" [http://www.webcitation.org/67kZeZxeh] , [http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-9K37-Buk.html]<br />
Earlier "Куб" ("Cube") missile used [http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/kub/kub.shtml 'ballist' fuel,] [https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%85#.D0.91.D0.B0.D0.BB.D0.BB.D0.B8.D1.81.D1.82.D0.B8.D1.82.D0.BD.D1.8B.D0.B5 gunpowder] + plasticiser type (Russian "ВИК-2") at the start, followed by some sort of ramjet ("direct flow rocket engine") at final stage. It is not clear, but possible, that fuels and contrails of Tochka U and Buk are different. Here are some videos with Buk launch: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDXScnEKaP0] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EAtNpsXrgWs], and [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSXMhaFntrU a longer with stupid music version]. Those videos appear to be shot from a closer distance than Tochka U video; and a contrail on them does look quite impressive. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 10:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:The amount of smoke is highly dependant om Alumin(i)um loading. In general more aluminum is more 'oomph' and also more smoke.<br />
:On the other hand, it's common to alter the loading for other reasons. I refer to the Syrian Volcano (122mm variety) that started out as high Al-load and quite smokey but recent versions have low Al load but perhaps similar characteristics? --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 10:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Here is something that might be a BUK: Ukrainian AN-26 shot down from Russian border area on July 14th. Ukraine@war claims it as a BUK. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 10:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
* [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.fi/2014/11/unnoticed-video-of-26-downing-confirms.html Unnoticed video of AN-26 downing confirms shot down from Russian territory] – Ukraine@war, November 27, 2014<br />
** Video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoS4kgHxPnE Ukrainian Military Aircraft Su-25 Downed After Russian Attack Near Izvarino, July 16]<br />
:::Does not look like Buk, short contrail, --not all the way to the ground like on Buk video launches. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::It was a BUK. It flew 39 seconds in the video, a Pantsyr can't do this, see also first comment in this link http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/what-weapon-was-used-to-shot-down-ukraine-air-force-antonov-26-at-july-14/. Easy maths - at Mach 3 (1020m/s) it can fly for about 42 seconds (range 42 km, bit more because initially it is slower). According to the audio tape, BUK 3x2 was in the area on that day! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVAOTWPmMM4 Ukraine@war needed 5 months to find something else in the area, but the Pantsyr can't fly that long. This is how BUK 3x2 likely lost a missile.--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 21:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::::Well, yes, it does takes 42 seconds to fly 42 km at 1000 m/s , but that does not mean what we see '''must be''' a Buk. They start discussing that plane caught fire at 0:03 on the video already. We do not see what on hell is going on until some 30 s later. This plane likely was brought down by Igla or similar modern MANPAD. Possibly two hits, at 0:03 and another at around 0:30. Or it got on fire at the start of the video and than eventually went down (It is unlikely to have SU 25 pilot bailing out after Buk strike; or particularly likely catching fire as it's not aiming at the engine; contrail is weak for a Buk, too). Pantsir claims are much later from what I have seen,--- and no need for Pantsir to shoot SU 25. ---If something is there on SBU audio and some murky photo, does not mean it's all for real, and that what we do actually see all have to be linked to all that murky SBU stuff. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 22:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::::There may be some confusion here, just a recapture<br />
::::::First video https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xTT6BDRA8_k<br />
::::::0:03-0:11 buring object <br />
::::::0:17-0:33 contrail making a half looping<br />
::::::Second video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoS4kgHxPnE<br />
::::::0:29-0:39 contrail making a half looping + detonation.<br />
::::::ukraine@war http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/11/unnoticed-video-of-26-downing-confirms.html<br />
::::::says both videos show AN26 shoot down on July 14 (second video with wrong label SU-25)<br />
::::::says 2nd video impact at 0:39, claims missile has been burning for at least 39 seconds--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 06:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::::::After reconsideration, I would say ukraine@war is right, both videos show AN26 shoot down, but wrong, people were initially watching AN26 with engine burning and a second missile was fired. That missile was seen burning about 16 seconds in first video, and time has to be added to reach that altitude/location, so likely over 20 seconds. That would exclude man-pad, Pantsir (?), likely BUK, R73 air-to-air, ...--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 06:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Actually, it is interesting to know how contrail of Buk on a long haul launch looks like. It is said that it fires engine for some 15 seconds only (and unknown will it do less, if it can do away with less). That 15 seconds need to put it at a spot where it can reach the target with little, if any, engine work and doing turns only. It is not very clear how much targeting happens in the first 15 seconds, likely it does some; and it is self-guided and doing proportional navigation later on. Knowing details here allows to find exact trajectory, short of that thinking it goes straight to the collision point is a sensible idea. In any case, heavy contrail '''raising from the ground''', perhaps higher than the target is. Contrail is white, and stays put for a while. Seriously heavier than the stuff we see on social media. There are youtube videos of Buk launches giving an idea --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:These 15 seconds are wrong. Here is a video (start at 2:00) showing a SA-11 burn fuel for 35 seconds until its too far to distinguish. It is detonating at 42 seconds. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBlU2hHYJMg (I just copied the comment from here http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/what-weapon-was-used-to-shot-down-ukraine-air-force-antonov-26-at-july-14/ )--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 23:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::That video probably shows a modern version ('over horizon' capability was mentioned somewhere regarding modern developments; this one seems to be showing us something like that). 15 sec is coming from Russian sources [http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/buk/buk.shtml Зенитная ракета 9М38 выполнена с применением двухрежимного твердотопливного двигателя (общее время работы - около 15 секунд)]. Older versions also had shorter listed range. 22-25-35-42 km range, going through modifications. (Would be happier without 15 sec engine limit actually-easier to know trajectory) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::Actually what goes off is [https://digitalempire.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/9m38m1.jpg 9M38M1], the one supposed to have [http://pvo.guns.ru/buk/buk_02.htm 15 sec engine run], but the video lasts for 40 sec. This appears to be edited video, around 2:30 we got two tracks, than one slides right unreasonably for a natural recording. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 02:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::Since this is a point we haven't already covered around that I know of, I'll pop in for it. 42 seconds I gather is the time for the fuel to burn out and the thing to fall, like a grad rocket or the like can only do. But this is a missile with guidance, set to intercept a moving airliner. Therefore, app. 40-45 seconds is the longest, not the shortest, it can fly (or am I just confused?) But 15 seconds is plausible, depending. Still might be untrue, not trusting people saying stuff. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::::After the engine is off it is high up and and at high speed, still can fly until gravity acceleration brings it down, and is on guided flight -unlike Grad-because fins can move causing it to turn. Issues here are visuals (contrail all the way or only about 15 km in flight), and trajectory. With engine on for 40 +secs it will go straight to collision point doing proportional navigation all the way (exploding earlier if it needs to be). If it is only 15 sec, trajectory is less clear, it may for example use engine to climb high up, than do guided fall and proportional navigation to the target from a spot where engine delivered it (for low and close-by target, that may potentially end up with a hit from another side--some drawings from unclear sources were showing opposite side hits at under 1 km and direct hits at 10-15 km). Or it may use engine to end up on a ballistic trajectory hitting target (no side changing than). This is solid fuel engine so there is not much control on how quickly it burns off, that time is a set design feature. What we see on launch video is 40+ seconds of engine work-- will go direct to collision point in that case. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 12:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::::That's another clue that plume of smoke photo is not a Buk launch, that would give at least some 10-15 km worth of contrail, not a plume; with 40+seconds engine, contrail all the way to impact...(or else, launched from far away, over 40 km distance) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 12:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==About accents==<br />
<br />
[http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29109398 This report,] released one day before the preliminary official report, recycles visual imagery already discussed on this page, and attempts a new claim that a BUK crew spoke with Russian-'Muscovite' accent. The claim is made by (British-accent) actors representing 'eyewitness(es)', with a visual imagery of a car at unknown night-lighted location in the embedded video, and some text, provided in English. Regarding 'Muscovite' accent, first it is not easy to tell, for example [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBCfmlMkYMg this video] is Mr. Poroshenko speaking in Russian to a resident of Crimea, replying in Russian, and commented by a presenter, who is speaking 'Muscovite'. Although Mr. Poroshenko has a slight southern accent, there is little difference between the three speakers in practice. Moreover, actors and presenters can easily switch from Southern to Muscovite as required. <br />
<br />
Secondly, if somebody speaks 'Muscovite', this does not mean this person works for Russia or the rebels,--- he can work for any side (PS. No change of condition to the blue dumpster on Zuhres video was reported in this latest update). --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Thanks for bringing this. What a stupid report. "Three eyewitnesses, all civilians, separately told Panorama that they saw a missile-launcher in rebel-held territory a few hours before the Boeing jet was hit." Yeah, video shows the same. It was there. It probably shot down the plane. Accents, as you note, aren't the best indicator of anything, and even the reason sounds vague: the G thing, which even I know about (back to Olga/Olha). The "Russians" might even be Russian dissident mercenaries right from Moscow, for all we know. Who paid them? Their going up to the media and saying "you didn't see us" was not a good plan to stay secret. The witnesses: chosen at random? Directed to them? <br />
::''If correct, the Kremlin has to explain to the relatives of the 298 passengers and crew who died - including ten Britons - why Russian military personnel were allegedly seen in the area escorting a BUK shortly before MH17 was shot down.''<br />
:I think Russia could come up with a reason or two such allegations are made. Those ten Britons' tax dollars fund it. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: Hmm, this foreigner is confused by dat BBC talk: "If correct" ... doesn't that mean it ''wouldn't be'' merely "allegedly" but, well, correct? ;oP --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 23:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::It means "If {made up vague allegation) is correct....then "SHOCK HORROR CONCLUSION IS TRUE". this lets them be as wild or wide off the mark as they like and the magic "if correct" turns it true. Without any effort to check if it IS true in our understanding of that word.[[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 03:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::Another BBC weapon in its arsenal of innuendo and dissimulation is the quotation mark. Whenever they are dealing with something of dodgy provenance, or something of good provenance they want to weaken they put it in quotation marks. e.g. - ISIS beheaded 20 Syrians. becomes ISIS 'beheaded 20 Syrians' or 'ISIS' beheaded 20 Syrians or ISIS 'beheaded' 20 'Syrians' or ISIS beheaded '20' Syrians. No need for corrections later. Any version can be retrospectively justified or otherwise. --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 03:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== If Buk 3x2 Was in Russia ==<br />
Previously, it seemed quite likely the Buk launcher associated with the shoot-down was one of those owned and operated by the Kiev regime, simply snuck into separatist territory, maybe with some cover to make them even invite it in like a Trojan Horse. Then, I saw the November Bellingcat research on "Buk 3x2." As covered [[#Bellingcat and 3x2|above,]] this claims to match that unit with a distinct one seen three weeks earlier, driving in a military convoy well inside Russian territory. This is widely taken as clear proof the Russian military supplied the weapons, and it is strongly indicative of that. However, the general possibilities are worth laying out at this point.--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
All options below share these presumptions: <br />
* MH17 was brought down by the missing SA-11 missile AND/OR (in some cases) at least the launcher's appearance was coordinated to give that impression and is a clue to the plot <br />
* The videos and photos in question are genuine and not manipulated (my usual presumption, same here)<br />
* The Russia geolocations (many of them, making sense in context) are correct - Buk 3x2 as seen was seen in Russia, between Kurk, Stary Oskol, and a bit south of there (not verified but most likely correct) <br />
<br />
Presuming all that:<br />
* Buk 3x2 (seen in Russia) and the mystery one are not the same - this require paint job match and matching damage to the lip above the track to make a Kiev-owned unit look like that one. It's possible, but not the most compelling.<br />
* The two units are the same - it was in the convoy in Russia and also towed around Donetsk oblast July 17. <br />
<br />
If the unit is the same, there are a few possibilities for the nature of that connection, some of them silly or just there for logical fullness:<br />
* It was Kiev's unit and they snuck it over and into this convoy, and...<br />
** ... got it back later<br />
** ... the Russians kept it and used it for their own operation<br />
* It was Kiev's but some other way lost to the Russians <br />
* It was Russia's but Kiev managed to sneak over and steal it out of the convoy and then use it for the false-flag event<br />
* Same, but Donbass rebels then stole it from Kiev <br />
* It was Russian, and someone on the Russian side drove it over and then it was stolen by Kiev forces <br />
* Someone on the Russian side drove it over and it stayed in their control or handed over to their chosen parties, or transferred at the border - that is, no Kiev interference.<br />
<br />
So far, I'm inclined to call Bellingcat's reading (the last option, the widely accepted one) the single most reasonable one, though maybe outweighed by the ''combined'' alternatives. It's not fun to feel almost swayed to a view so close to Kiev's problematic narrative, but this is what I see, pretty basic. Some combined maybes go against the straightforward reading. As for other thoughts I might be missing, well, that's partly why it's here. Let me know, I'm all ears. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Starting from that reasonable if unproven last option, not one but three final types of possibility remain. If it was freely moving in convoy inside Russia, it probably belongs to Russia at the time. Presumed. However, it could be that...<br />
* '''A rogue officer''' at Kursk - maybe a closet Nazi who sympathizes with Kiev, hates Putin, or just took a bribe - provided this unit to Kiev. He would set up this convoy to anchor the thing in Russia, then send the shady unit on, with his own guys or to hand off to Kiev's, who took it from there as I've speculated. The strangely obvious manner it was displayed - on both sides of the border, with its number slowly fading away - is consistent with this motive + intelligence. <br />
* '''It happened as reported''' (one way or another) Putin's military signed off on the loan, apparently with a sent crew or maybe given to local handlers, who for their own purposes did fire that shot. The strangely obvious manner it was displayed is consistent with this + stupidity/sloppiness, providing proof that probably wasn't even needed, just helpful, to start the punishment. At that point, it would be a real problem about as trumpeted, and still I would suggest we consider what the real crime is under the circumstances, if the solutions pursued are fair, or if this is all just geo-politics and warfare by other means cloaked in a cynical disguise of concern for justice. ^ <br />
* '''Koo-koo (?):''' "as reported plus" - a mega conspiracy theory: it goes all the way to the top, and Putin is that rogue general selling the nation out, to demonize himself and Russia and be sure to get caught, in an elaborate staged play - Putin (or whoever's running things presumed to be run by HIM) is somehow controlled, his opposition scripted and ultimately geared towards provoking and achieving an expansion of "The West" into "The North." (I've always considered this possible, and one that's occurred to me more lately, and seems worth listing ... but I don't buy it. I'm going with "rogue officer" with a second bet on one of the other divergence points listed before that - unspecified. Third choice is "as reported.")--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::^ Not to apologize for egregious behavior if it really is that, but let's please compare this to the shoot-down of Iran Air 655 by the USS Vincennes in 1988. A US Naval ship illegally in Iranian waters shot down an Iranian passenger plane with 290 people aboard, despite all the safeguards and sensors working correctly (the consistent clues the ship's computers gave them saying "do not shoot" can only be overridden so totally by choice). But it was deemed by the US to be no crime, just accident and Iran's fault for being provocative, and useful in the effort to compel them to quit the war with Iraq they were just starting to win. In Ukraine, repeated Air Force attacks on rebel-held cities, often hiding their jets behind civilian airliners, might both justify arming the rebels with such defensive weaponry, and invite an honest mistake from a team running this machine in stand-alone mode. The SBU version however overrides this all: it was an accident, but the Russians' intent was never defensive, always planning to kill an airliner, just meaning it to be a different one. That would clearly be criminal in all regards, and it's a sub-set of "as reported" - not a very good one. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Sorry, I can't help you here as I don't share your presumptions. I consider it a waste of time and energy to connect dots that are laid out by "sources" like the SBU and Brown Noses - proven liars and at least in case of the former producers of fraud "evidence" - and therefore I didn't even read your logical chains based on them. Just saying to not make it appear that I agree. ;o) --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 10:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:Poking at specific presumptions could be helpful, but it all could go on and on and remain inconclusive anyway. And I take back what I say about leaning this way or that - I keep leaning different ways and on balance I'm feeling sort of weightless here. I think that comes through in the text... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I don't see the numbers matching, getting close is not good enough, and I quit it there. Yes, it is weird that they are close, and that this murky business is covered by Spiegel, but can't really help with any of that. There is lots of murky weird stuff going on all the time, can't change the whole world to stop it. (Also: the Russian Government would be fully capable of doing a painting job properly if deciding to starting painting at all, their food trucks are all nicely painted, etc; just too sloppy for them to be behind) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:The paint being what it is, between that and the bend and light patch below all lining up, I think we're down to the same unit, or faked to match, and the possibilities branching off those two. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::As discussed earlier, the dot is shifted off the middle, more on Russian video than in PM photo; in Russian video, number 2 has well-curved semi-circle; in PM, it is almost straight segment. Bad photos for comparison but it's off, as far as it's possible to tell. As for the skirt bend, too blurry and distorted on PM to tell; Russian video, I think it is actually dirt, not a bend. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Also, looks like two squares , a bit darker than background, over first digit in PM photo. Unclear is it paint or digital camera effect. Any sane person hiding something will paint over everything, not paint just specifically over the first digit. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::I think I got everything linesd up - it has to be de-skewed the same, and all ines up. You might be scraping bottom on this one. The curve is there, at its elongated part, at an angle. The dent/dirt looks the same, same place, relative to the light patch and all else. It's too much for coincidence by a couple of degrees. BUT I just shifted back to option ... should have numbered them. ... the middle starting option - image authenticity. I hardly ever call digital image fakery, and not calling it here, but... I still haven't checked the new (to us) June videos, so I'll stay presuming it might be okay - video's harder to fake than a photo. But on the other end, it all comes down to the one photo. That I noticed, no other views are close enough to say if these matching clues are present. (the bend, maybe). The squares you noticed, maybe a paint clue or just artifacting. It may too pixelly. I cannot really analyze the technicals properly to say. It looks okay, but possibly fishy too. Maybe the dirty windshield helps hid the painted in pixels to make this thing - just once - or maybe again in other images - look like that Russian 3x2 unit, exaggerated and going into rebel hands... Some kind of coincidences setting that up to work, but it's possible, and an expert should look closer at this picture. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC) <br />
::::I, --at the very start of discussion,-- zoomed picture on screen (by a lot), and measured length ratios (to the dot/ total panel length), parallel to the 2 sides of the panel, using ruler (millimeters one) over screen. I ended up with ratios in horizontal side of panel directions were off, by more than blurring; in vertical, could not tell-within blurring. This is not sensitive to skewing or zooming. So I don't think it's the same. May double-check measurement when have time; or somebody else can. Did not have time to try doing digital version of the same/similar method. Did not look carefully at comparison the 2 after de-skewing , but have an impression this is different; not that much skewing there; it looks essentially straight line on PM, skewing will not make circle into a line. May look at 2's some other time. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::::Finally took a closer look and PM was still off a bit on rotation and vertical-to-horizontal - in line with your observations. Still working out the adjusted graphic. The white is shifted a bit left of lining up perfectly... I think it's still close enough it's the same or is supposed to be, and not far enough off I'd call a bad fake - probably just pixel shift. Will see tonight. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 00:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Okay, I don't have a comprehensible graphic handy yet, but Maybe Resup is seeing what I am now. I was having a hard time aligning it all, so focused just one the one rectangle panel with the number. Still, on the PM photo I trace apparent edges, best line of dark pixels ... it lines up, proportion-wise, with the white spots on or a hair to apparent left. But when the whole image is placed by lining up that center, the rest of it doesn't line up - both sides seem shifted right, or the middle shifted left. (also the track areas appear far to the left, but they stick out a bit, and from the back angle flattened like this, that's why. Each difference in relief from "true flat" plane of the side will cause this... maybe I'm just not correlating it right, and maybe it's a clue the photo is messed with. possible offsets in both white patches as well, but maybe too in the natural fuzz zone. ?? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
If the launcher was driven over the Russian border, fired once then driven back again after it had carried out its mission, the part of the story that doesn't make sense is the sighting on a stolen flatbed truck outside Donetsk. If the Russians were prepared to supply a launcher but not a truck, the stolen truck would have had to be driven to the border to be loaded and there'd be no reason to risk a journey back to Donetsk. The west to east journey is more consistent with CL's original suggestion of a launcher from the Ukrainian base north of Donetsk. If this was a false flag, there would have had to be a paint job to give it Russian markings (maybe to match one in a recent video). Otherwise the videos would point to separatists with a captured Ukrainian BUK, leaving the Ukrainian government liable for failing to close its airspace when it knew that a BUK had gone missing. [[User:Pmr9|Pmr9]] ([[User talk:Pmr9|talk]]) 16:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:Now this sounds engaged, thanks P. Yes, why drive it to Donetsk? (Other than to be seen in the smoking-gun rebel capitol, before getting seen in Lugansk too) And I never thought of that why it had to be Russian. Indeed, for liability reasons, it had to be a snuck-in surprise, not captured (unless they could come up with a reason why they didn't learn about it, and I suppose they could). The suggestion has problems and was slow to gain adherents, but maybe this kind of thought has swayed people to realize Kiev "must be right" about that... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Sunday Times story: original is behind paywall but reprint [http://malaysiandigest.com/news/531506-ukraine-ignored-warning-to-close-malaysia-airlines-flight-mh17-airspace-before-tragedy.html here]. Eurocontrol's experts "spoke privately to their Ukrainian counterparts" about their concerns but Ukraine refused to close its airspace. "Ukraine intelligence sources said they had been made aware that several anti-aircraft systems had crossed from Russia into Ukraine at least a week before the MH17 incident. But they claimed the intelligence was not “100 per cent reliable” and could not have been used as grounds for 'drastic moves' such as shutting airspace". [[User:Pmr9|Pmr9]] ([[User talk:Pmr9|talk]])<br />
:::Okay, well there's a train headed this way then. Several units? The whole June convoy? We do have this alleged maybe-Buk launch just before on July 14, an associated loader seen later, etc. And Ukie intel somehow did point to this number "312" you can't see on the unit they tracked so quickly. Did they already have that obscure Russian video everyone missed until now? And more yet showing the "1" still there? That early on? (that's all very speculative, but interesting). It has to be snuck in, maybe, but then it helps that you can vouch for it - so they fudge and average this aspect. Main point then seems to be, whatever failures they mumble out on their own end, it has to implicate both Russia (provided weapon) and the rebels (held the space needing demonized).--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references /></div>Antidyatelhttps://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17/BUK_Tracking&diff=22562Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/BUK Tracking2015-06-06T04:14:21Z<p>Antidyatel: /* Screenshot from dashcam video? */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:MH17]]<br />
==Who Has the BUK Launchers in Ukraine?==<br />
=== Kiev's Holdings ===<br />
<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3MomxNHnUA#t=288 Ukrainian Buk in ATO area], 16 July 2014. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 23:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CBQbFC9loc#t=350 Captured map] of 1 battalion of UAF 95 air-mobile brigade, dated beginning of July 2014, show location of 2 positions of Ukrainian Buks. Basurin points them on the map; but video resolution is insufficient to see those. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 05:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Maps can be faked, but still I'm curious what it shows. I imagine there might be a flat image of the map somewhere. Resup, could you maybe have a look? It's too slow for me to try an image search with translated words. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
::I have not seen the map in news reports mentioning the finding; and now I see it says explicitly that they are not going to make it public, [http://real-info.info/novorossiya/13429-vlasti-dnr-ne-budut-obnarodovat-karty-vsu-do-okonchaniya-rassledovaniya-krusheniya-mh17 until MH 17 investigation is completed]--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 23:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::Here is a press conference report--with video but not the map --[https://vk.com/strelkov_info?w=wall-57424472_57351 (Basurin press conference)]--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 23:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
-Antidyatel June 6, 2015.<br />
It is possible to understand what it means when they say Ukr army controlled territory. But what us rebel controlled territory. Even if we take the maximum estimate for rebel numbers in July 2014 of 10,000 fighters, it gives a fraction of a rebel per square km, if we assume uniform distribution. In reality rebels very concentrated in Lughansk, Donetzk, Saur Mogila, 2 cauldrons. So everything else is free for all territory. When MSM declares rebel controlled territory, they just rely on Kiev's maps. Very reliable source.<br />
<br />
<br />
----Antidyatel <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==== BUK 312 and comrades ====<br />
[[File:Buk 312 sbu.jpg|thumb|left|BUK 312 on a trailer. Photo shown on SBU website and later removed. – ''[[:File:Buk 312 sbu.jpg|more...]]'']]<br />
Part of the material the Ukrainian SBU released to suggest that "rebels" shot down MH17 with a BUK, was photo material showing a BUK TELAR numbered 312 on a trailer, alleging it has been photographed on its way back to Russia. This was quickly shown to be extremely questionable as evidence surfaced showing number 312 in Ukrainian hands. The SBU then removed the photos from their website while other material like a suggestive photo showing a "plume" remained there. <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Buk 321.png|thumb|TELAR 321 as posted by @MOR2537 to illustrate what he alleges to have witnessed]]<br />
This was outlined (and a screenshot saved) in more detail [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/07/21/the-mh17-investigation-and-buk-312/ over at Human Rights Investigations]. A [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bj-VZB0ZdEA video embedded there] shows BUK 312 in Ukrainian hands back in March. The other two TELAR's seen in the video are numbers 323 and 321. BUK 321 [http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Ukrainian+government+forces+maneuver+antiaircraft+missile+launchers+they+transported+north+west+from+Slavyansk+eastern+Ukraine+Friday+July+2014+Photo+Dmitry+Lovetsky/10004193/story.html has been seen] in Ukrainian hands just two weeks before MH17 crashed, transported close to "liberated" Slavyansk. <br />
<br />
Interestingly enough, one of the tweets [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com/2014/07/reconstruction-of-whereabouts-of-buk.html spoon-fed by Ukrainian loyalists to imaginative Dutch blogger Ukraine@War] to suggest that there have been eyewitnesses for a "rebel" BUK, is then [https://twitter.com/MOR2537/status/489709431467171841 followed-up by the alleged eyewitness] with a picture of BUK 321 to illustrate what he has seen. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::yep, he is a conduit for Kiev but seems to have outside info, too. Like originals of photos he can get geolocations off (he says). But also has good collection of very early photos etc which have since become hard to find.Not sure I trust him though. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 15:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::I hadn't seen that before, thanks. I'll be considering... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 22:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: More photos: [http://www.armyrecognition.com/images/stories/east_europe/russia/missile_vehicle/sa-11_gadfly/pictures/sa-11_gadfly_anti-aircraft_missile_to_armoured_tracked_vehicle_Russian_army_russia_011.jpg 321] - [http://rt.com/files/news/2a/b1/40/00/640x480.jpg 312] - [http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1870560.1405614701!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_970/correction-ukraine.jpg 321] --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:Buk 312 in Lugansk.png|thumb|left|According to alleged former operator "A", this is BUK 312 after relocation sometime in Spring 2014 in Metallist settlement of Lugansk, with Yubileynaya mines in the background]]<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmI2KCOt_sA Anatolii Sharii] version of events, shows that Buk blamed on Russia has number 312 and was earlier photographed as part of Ukrainian convoy. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 20:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Sharii interviewed a Ukrainian soldier who served on Buk 312; this can be found on [http://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/1947657.html Cassad]. The guy does not know about MH17; but recalls SBU claiming it was this Buk 312 responsible. From this interview, meaning of 312: 3 is division number, 1 battery number, 2 unit number in a battery (there are loading and command vehicles, not just launchers). This UAF Buk is initially from Luhansk; than relocated to Kramatorsk; than places in a field. A serviceman took it on a ride with hand break on, leading to a small fire affecting electrics and requiring repairs. So it was traveling on a trailer at some point. It was than moved to Dnepropetrovsk, village of Novogrigorievka (apparently for repairs, and after trailer photo was taken, but exact date was not given). Buks from Luhansk which were not broken were moved by UAF elsewhere (and according to the soldier, were photographed in variaous places including Gorlovka; while 3 broken Buks remained in Luhansk) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: Interesting. I see that the "[http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Ukrainian+government+forces+maneuver+antiaircraft+missile+launchers+they+transported+north+west+from+Slavyansk+eastern+Ukraine+Friday+July+2014+Photo+Dmitry+Lovetsky/10004193/story.html has been seen]" link to the Montreal Gazette is dead by now. If anything I'm surprised that it lasted that long. Minitrue at work. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 04:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: [http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2014/12/17/shooting-down-mh-17-buk-312-story-false- Here] (and mirrored [http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2014/12/17/buk-312-crew-member-says-rebel-shoot-down-of-flight-mh17-story-is-false-transcript/ here]) is an English translation of the interview. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: And [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2rRCSNp33I here] is the video itself with English subtitles. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 20:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:What you said about the accident and the photo showing the damaged BUK on a trailer is about the very photo the SBU showed on their website as "evidence" and later removed. Also adding that he says friends in Lugansk saw "rebels" trying to repair the units they had left behind, but he knows that "whole equipment units" were lacking so the remaining stuff was "unusable". And that he says that he asked his ex-comrades still operating the BUK if they dunnit, and they said they didn't. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Good to see this section expand. Interesting additions from the alleged operator, and reasonable-sounding (the photo might show smoke stains to the back left side). But in the end, this issue might be not so relevant. I doubt it was Kiev's unit 312 that was used, and seeing how Kiev always was eyeing a supposedly Russian unit 3x2, maybe 312 ... In fact, if the middle number connotes unit number, and it's done the same, the launcher is always 1 and it would be 312 (or is that mixed-up?) So maybe all this really shows is how Kiev knew but didn't want to say all along, implausibly picking their own 312 to illustrate that knowledge with an embarrassing but harmless "error", while awaiting ... as it turns out, the independent Bellingcat investigation that finds 3x2 somehow in Russia... That tracked this ludicrous Buk field trip, as presented and followed on this page, which almost seems tailor-made for them, but Kiev wants us to know they they were secretly on the ball too from the start. (all thoughts in progress, a bit distracted too) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::::If SBU wanted to point out they knew the TELAR had number 312, why would they publish the photo in [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmI2KCOt_sA such a low resolution] that the number could not be read? -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 21:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: As Resup summarized, 1 is the battery number. The leading 3 means it's from the Lugansk division. If this is true, the fact that 312, 321 and 323 have been seen together on video in March perfectly fits with what the alleged operator said: That they were removing units in usable state from (all batteries of the division) Lugansk early on, leaving the crap behind. And the view that the SBU just published everything they could find to fit their tale that the "rebels" used a BUK to down the plane, including this photo, cut-together and taken out of context audio tapes and that ridiculous "plume" pic, and the 3x2 bellingcat nonsense from lately is meant to distract from these facts, is much simpler and straight forward than what you tried to come up with here on the fly. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::Ah, I see it now, not when I was typing, sorrys. Middle number could be anything, bust mostly we always see low numbers, so odds are good it was a "1". 3 means from Lugansk if that's true (presuming so) and it's Ukrainian. Diff. number paintjob though, as noted below. But I'm sure the Ukies just faked this exact 312 to a different style of 312 and then painted it out partly, and just let it slip with the one photo of how it looked before...? We'll have a hard time agreeing here, as the stuff you just dismiss as "nonsense" looks kind of like possible evidence with details I'm sort of trying to consider. I don't see how you can just ignore it as if it must be wrong somehow, and all made up to distract from ... this 312 disguised as 3x2 theory? Where it wasn't even at the end of that fake plume anyway and might be totally irrelevant or entirely fake? Or, what am I missing? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::Didn't you say that you haven't even watched the videos and checked the geolocation/origin yourself, if they really are from Russia etc.? Well, I certainly won't. Because I have no reason to believe that the sources are more truthful with the "evidence" than they have been before, and that track record is well established. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::::Yeah, which is why I'm neither in a good position to say they aren't wrong/fake, nor to go against my usual presumption it will be sound (has been so far, on this subject anyway) And by the supposed stills compare to supposed satellite imagery, it looked like a good match (I did skim the site once I could). I don't like the implication either, and I want it to be wrong. And it may well be, but I'll want to see how. And hey, there's a whole other section or two about this below... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
:::: I watched the video [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bj-VZB0ZdEA with the Ukie BUKs in March] again. There are actually more than the three I mentioned earlier. It starts with 323, which is not a TELAR. Followed by the two TELARs 321 and 312. Then comes what is also not a TELAR but what looks differently than 323: Number 301. Followed by two more TELARs, 331 and 332. So they could all be from the Lugansk division, parts of batteries 0 to 3. But one would suspect that the batteries are internal always numbered the same way. "A" says:<br />
::::: ''BUK is a complex of 4 specialized military vehicles: command post, mobile target detection and assignment station, loading and starting station, self-propelled fire installation.''<br />
::::So if 1 and 2 are TELARs, why are there two of them and why is 301 what could be the detection station with a radar? Is 323 a loading station? --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::::Too rusty, but good questions. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::: Ah, I think we can sort this out [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SA-11 thanks to wikipedia]:<br />
:::::''A standard Buk battalion consists of a command vehicle, target acquisition radar (TAR) vehicle, six transporter erector launcher and radar (TELAR) vehicles and three transporter erector launcher (TEL) vehicles. A Buk missile battery consists of two TELAR and one TEL vehicle.''<br />
:::: So our "A" didn't mean that a battery consists of 4 vehicles, but that the whole BUK consists of 4 different kinds of vehicles, some more than once. From this I deduce that "0" is for command and detection units (here our main radar 301) of the Lugansk division 3, and the batteries 1,2 and 3 each consist of two TELARs (numbered 1 and 2, here 312,321,331 and 332) and one TEL (numbered 3, the first vehicle in the video, 323). Makes sense? --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 13:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::Russia said Ukraine had 27 BUK launchers in the crash area, i.e. one brigade, or what ever comes in the hierarchy above battalion. If all units are numbered the same way, from 101 to 333, then one TELAR in 18 should be numbered 312. Maybe [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:9K37_Buk_of_the_Ukrainian_military,_Independence_Day_parade_in_Kiev.JPG not.] Russian numbers seem to reach higher. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 01:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::::Good find. The existence of 114 and 115 makes it more complicated. The [http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buk_M1 German Wikipedia article] says, contradicting the English one, that one battery consists of one command vehicle, one main radar, four TELARs and four TELs. But if that's true, there's no logical place for Radar 301, and why would one TEL be number 3 and the other three TELs numbers 6 to 8? --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 10:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
How to read BUK numbers<br />
This is how you decipher 312:<br />
<br />
3 stands for the third (Lugansk) division,<br />
1 stands for the battery number, ours was no. 1,<br />
2 stands for one of the 2. service units in each battery, ours was no.2<br />
<br />
according to a Ukrainian who explains it was "his" bUK (but not in his hands at the time)that shot down MH17. One of th many reports [http://www.opednews.com/articles/Shooting-Down-MH-17--BUK-by-Michael-Collins-Buk-312_False-Accusations-Of-Terrorism_False-Flag-Attacks_Mh17-Airline-Crash-141217-104.html about this interview] This claim is now superceded by the Capt Voloshin air-to-air claims. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 15:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
That solder knew nothing about who shot the Boeing. He was talking to Sharii, who previously made a video showing that Buk shown on SBU website is actually Ukrainian Buk 312. Later, the soldier emerged, saying that Buk 312 was his. (Claim of this one shooting Boeing is not his, it is SBU early claim) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 16:48, 26 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
While Voloshin story may be a play on destroyed by SBU evidence. There is supposed to be a log of flights, missiles fired, likely those logs no longer exist. Also before they claimed SU 25 were lost on 16 of July, but SBU denial of Voloshin story had SU 25 shot on 17 of July. And that Dnepropetrovsk airport traffic control lady vanished without a trace. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 16:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Supposed 321 belonging to KIEV<br />
::video shows three BUk sets [http://eurazya.today/2015/04/11/about-the-buk-312-who-allegedly-shot-down-mh17/ from 0.31 mark] but I can't really pick the number, they say it is 321. at Gorlovka in March. One on a white lowloader. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 12:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== Russian claims ====<br />
As part of their July 21 presentation of evidence, the Russian Ministry of Defense published satellite images allegedly showing Ukrainian BUK positions around Donetzk ([http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ RT report]). It's no secret the Ukrainian military maintains a base with anti-aircraft units. The facility shown in the Russian presentation (best seen [http://rt.com/files/news/2a/9a/00/00/4.jpg here]) I located - it's south of Avdeyevka, 3 km north of the airport, about 5 km north of Donetsk like they say. Visual match first, then noticed the label could have found it for me ... [http://wikimapia.org/#lat=48.0999781&lon=37.7578908&z=16&l=0&m=b&show=/16956839/ru/Зенитно-ракетный-дивизион-в-ч-А-1428&search=Donetsk on Wikimapia]. Labels, translated: Anti-aircraft missile battalion (in / h A-1428) One of the three anti-aircraft missile battalions ("Buk-M1"), located in Avdeyevka, Mariupol and Lugansk." BUK-type launcher photos included. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The counter-arguments to this at least sometimes fail. [http://www.interpretermag.com/mh17-and-moscows-magical-mystery-jets/ Interpreter rag] decided "the presence of Ukrainian government air defense systems is something of a red herring, not least given the clear evidence that the separatists had deployed at least one Buk system in the area." The side with a ''motive'' and clear, moving and likely operating units of the things on that day (see below) is irrelevant and shouldn't be considered because there's apparently also proof the presumed bad guys also had the units they needed to be so presumed. The very fact that separatists aren't ruled out means the other side should be free of any danger of being ruled in, and the separatists should ruled in just as automatically as they were ''before'' this social-media verification came in. This is clearly an irresponsible suggestion. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC) and --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Kiev's Buks Shuffled?===<br />
<br />
* From Russia's military press conference: [http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ RT, 10 Questions] - [http://www.ruaviation.com/docs/1/2014/7/22/83/ in more detail]<br />
:''3. Why was a large group of air defense systems deployed to the militia-held area if the self-defense forces have no planes?''<br />
:“As far as we know, the Ukrainian military had three or four air defense battalions equipped with Buk-M1 SAM systems deployed in the vicinity of Donetsk on the day of the crash. This system is capable of hitting targets within the range of 35 km at the altitude of up to 22 km.”'' <br />
:''4. Why did Kiev deploy BUK missile systems on the edge of militia-controlled zones directly before the tragedy?''<br />
:''“We have satellite photos of the places where Ukraine had its air defense units deployed in the southeastern parts of the country. The first three photos were made on July 14. The first photo shows Buk launchers 8 km northwest of Lugansk. You can clearly see a TELAR and two TELs. The second photo shows radars 5 km north of Donetsk. You can see two TARs along with other equipment and technical structures. The third photo shows air defense systems north of Donetsk. You can clearly see a TELAR launcher and about 60 military and auxiliary vehicles, tents for vehicles and other structures.''<br />
<br />
:''“Here’s a photo of the same area made on July 17. Please note that the launcher has disappeared. The fifth photo shows a battery of Buk missiles at the village of Zaroshchenskoye 50 km east of Donetsk and 8 km south of Shakhtyorsk on the morning of the same day. The sixth photo shows the same area on July 18. As you can see, the battery has left.”''<br />
<br />
Note: the <s>latter</s> fourth photo of July 17 has substantial cloud cover, but unless they happened to hide the launchers in those areas (or Russia's satellites waited until the area was covered) it appears the noted vehicles have left to go do something - on/by the 17th, where they say launchers appear and then disappear in a town closer to the crash on the 17th. Zaroshchenskoye [http://maps.yandex.com/?text=Ukraine%2C%20Donets'ka%20region%2C%20Shakhtars'kyi%20district%2C%20Zaroshchens'ke%20ville&sll=38.446008%2C47.98844&ll=38.517419%2C48.048098&spn=0.810242%2C0.300187&z=11&l=map on Yandex maps] - 13 miles SSW of the crash sitel, 9 miles W-SW of Torez..--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
On July 30, Vitalyi Naida, head of Ukrainian Security Service SBU’s counter-intelligence, came up with a series of slides ([http://euromaidanpress.com/2014/07/30/russia-fakes-mh17-crash-site-satellite-images-says-sbu/ short article], [http://www.sbu.gov.ua/sbu/control/en/publish/article?art_id=129610&cat_id=35317 announcement on SBU website] with link to [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ut1JExQKV-0 youtube-video showing the slides (presumably Ukrainian language)]) allegedly showing that the Russian material was "faked". He points to a patch of trees, claiming they had been cut down shortly before the 17th, while Russia's images show the trees intact. On August 1, the Russian Ministry of Defense published [http://eng.mil.ru/en/analytics.htm a rebuttal] advising that<br />
:''Instead of presenting hastily doctored evidence to the international community, the SBU could do with better control over all the mercenary units in the areas around Donetsk and Lugansk organized by Kolomoisky, Lyashko, Yarosh and others, who shell Ukrainian territory without any control from those in charge of the anti-terrorist operation.''<br />
<br />
The trees probably are cut down by now, but we'll have to wait for the true details of just when they were and when the image showing that was taken, or if the image shown is even of any one day and not a composite - "doctored" as Russia says. Other clues suggest launchers moving out of this area at that time: The [[#Paris Match Photo]] - ostensibly from the morning of the 17th - shows the infamous launcher-loaded truck seen in Lugansk, or one just like it, being carried on a truck belonging to a company just south of the missile base in northern Donetsk. That was seen carrying the launcher east out of town at 11:15 AM, purportedly on July 17 (and with the location completely fudged to say Snizhne, when it was only headed there).--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Zaro redeploy.png|left|600px]]The Russian military press conference said "The fifth photo shows a battery of Buk missiles at the village of Zaroshchenskoye 50 km east of Donetsk and 8 km south of Shakhtyorsk on the morning of the same day. The sixth photo shows the same area on July 18. As you can see, the battery has left." (#5 inset) The Ukraine@War blog's analysis decided this image as well was fake. That's mentioned [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com/2014/08/ukrainian-sbu-comes-with-conspiracy.html here] if not elsewhere. The reason: "the shadows of these BUKs have a different direction for all three of them. It means these were pasted into the image." I have to admit, it looks a bit like that. The trees have consistent shadows to the west, in a morning image. The furthest vehicle to the left has a visible shadow about like that. The other two don't seem to, and the one furthest right seems to have a shadow on the wrong side (looks like early PM). I wracked my brain just a little thinking of other explanations aside from just low resolution. Nothing much came up. Anyone else? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br /><br /><br />
<br />
<br />
: '''New video proves UKIE BUKS ACTIVE'''<br />
: video has surfaced, posted to Youtube on July 16, taken a few days before, showing a Ukie BUK radar [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3MomxNHnUA being rotated]. The reporter is taken somewhere in a helicopter and proudly shown the BUK. Segment starts around 4.17 in the chopper, BUK shown briefly at 4.45. Label does not say where exactly, just reads "Officers of Ukrainian Armed Forces patrolling in the ATO zone". <br />
: This ties in with claims that they were doing anti-aircraft exercises, probably in response to claims/fears the Antonovs were brought down not by the rebs but by aircraft from Russia. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 10:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::Thanks! We had this July 16 video [[Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17/BUK_Tracking#Kiev.27s_Holdings| elsewhere]], but here is a good place... The other video, from March, was not seen. There were few more early sightings of Ukrainian Buks, uncertain locations, with those 3** numbers; maybe should get a good place to keep them all --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::: Location of sighting is unclear. But according to some reports ([http://lifenews.ru/news/136731 LifeNews]), on July 16 UAF SU 25 was shot down from a height of 6 km by opolchenie MANPADs. That was near Russian border, --reports say the plane actually crossed into Russia, not far from Marinovka. It could be suspected by Ukraine that a Russian plane was involved, so it will be plausible to have Ukrainian coverage of the accident area by BUKS. On July 14, it was reported that [http://m.rosbalt.ru/ukraina/2014/07/16/1292690.html AN 26 was shot down in Luhansk] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Separatist Holdings===<br />
While much certainty has been shown it was a separatist BUK system responsible, everyone seems to acknowledge that ordinarily, they didn't have any, that were known of. Fresh sighting of them in the field, supposed admissions, and existing presumptions remain the strongest evidence. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;June 29 Seizure?<br />
The Open Newsroom team have latched onto a June 29 message from a Twitter account associated with the Donetsk People’s Republic, @DNRpress claiming separatist forces had conquered a base with anti-air BUK missiles. This is apparently the A-1402 base, as an Itar-Tass report specified. That report noted ... It seems to just cite the tweet which, it was found, used a dated photo online since mid-2013. In essence, there's no good evidence they ever did seize this place. But it was referred to by some as "Deleted DNR tweet confirming Russian rebels indeed have a BUK-M1." The crew at large seems a bit vague on the status of this base:<br />
:'' It appears that the A-1402 military unit was moved into the Donetsk region in 2007 from Odessa, and reports note that the unit was based near Donetsk airport. Local reports from June 29 cited ATO spokesman Alexei Dmitrashkivsky as stating that separatists had attacked the military unit.'' <ref name="Story1" /><br />
As we just found with geo-location, it's 3 km north of Donetsk airport, and it's the same place Russia believes is firmly government-held. It's the place they say at least one BUK-type launcher was removed from on July 17 for some reason, by Kiev's forces who run it. If [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Donetsk_Airport this basic Wikipedia article on the battle for the airport] is correct and/or in line with [[Attack on Donetsk Airport|our page on it]], the airport and anything military-related north of it would probably be government-held continuously to the present time. It's possible some launchers could have been lost during a brief seizure of the base, but this too seems doubtful. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
:Social media published many photos of the "liberated" Buk missiles. I searched for them on Google Image Search; all were old photos from more peaceful times. I have no idea what really happened. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 23:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Thanks. I hadn't looked into it myself, but recycled images made sense given the other clues that they never did take that base, or at least get anything out of it. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 00:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Something in English [https://www.facebook.com/TruthfromUkraine/photos/pb.1452285018328179.-2207520000.1409095455./1515506872005993/ on Facebook,] with links to Russian souces. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 23:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Your geolocation is wrong. The former [http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-SAM-Site-Configs-A.html SA-2 launch site] to the north of the runway is called A-1428, at least according to the [[:File:Donetsk Airport battles 5 Oct 2014.jpg|map by Komsomolskaya Pravda]]. The site was rebuilt sometime between 2002 and 2009 with new garages covering part of the SAM ring. Tactical maps say today it is still held by Ukraine, but may have been in NAF hands earlier. Base A-1402 is located south of the new terminal building along Stratonavtiv Street.<br />
<br />
When looking at the latest airport battles I noticed that Military Maps already shows structural damaged to the new terminal building. I did not expect Google to provide any relevant satelite data. In Libya we had almost daily satellite images of Tripoli, but in Syria we have seen no new photos of the battle-effected areas.<br />
<br />
I opened Google Earth to see what has changed during the war. It seems that the war has had no effect on either base. There is still a lot of military hardware parked on both bases. Most of the trucks and whatever are parked just where they were last year, or on many cases in 2007. I did not see anything that I could identify as a BUK launcher. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 02:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;Held by July 14?<br />
The US embassy in Kiev said in [http://ukraine.usembassy.gov/statements/asmt-07192014.html a press statement of July 19]:<br />
:''Intercepts of separatist communications posted on YouTube by the Ukrainian government indicate the separatists were in possession of a SA-11 system as early as Monday July 14th. In the intercepts, the separatists made repeated references to having and repositioning Buk (SA-11) systems.'' (also quoted [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/20/malaysia-airlines-mh17-videos-missile-launcher-torez-snizhne at the Guardian])<br />
As "Corporal Frisk" [http://corporalfrisk.wordpress.com/2014/07/21/comment-on-the-us-assessment-of-the-downing-of-flight-mh17/ aptly responded:]<br />
:''Having perhaps the world’s best intelligence network, and then using easily faked videos of separatist communications posted on YouTube as evidence sure has a degree of ridicule attached to it, but is also an inidcation that US intelligence believes at least some of these transcripts are real.''<br />
That's totally apt if one suspends the usual definition of "believe" (to include "wants to appear to believe," etc.) In the same piece, the author apparently gives more "credibility to the charges that the Buk-M1 is indeed Russian supplied (and possibly crewed), as opposed to stemming from captured Ukrainian stocks." As covered below, this I can agree with if we suspend the usual definition of "Russian" (to include "allegedly Russian villains," "the Ukrainian version of [http://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2011/07/african-mercenaries.html Libya's African Mercenaries] and [http://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/wiki/The_Shabiha:_Ghost_Stories%3F Syria's Shabiha]," etc.) this would be spot-on. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:54, 10 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
(more allegations to cover?)<br />
<br />
;The One That Matters<br />
Whatever the evidence rebels had Buk systems by the 14th, Kiev also has suggested, and many have accepted, that ''the one that mattered'' at least - the launcher unit that shot down MH17 on the 17th - wasn't theirs at all, but brought in and operated by Russians for the day only. If only for that reason, all the above is likely moot. See next section. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Russian Buk Field Trip? ===<br />
The Kiev regime's narrative also suggests separatists had no BUK systems of their own. Rather, someone else brought one in to their area, took it on some kind of tour through several towns thought accessible only to rebels and allies, and got it seen in each place. Then these people '''shot the airliner down themselves on the separatists' behalf.''' That party is the Russians, they say. This is perhaps best encapsulated by "counter-terrorism" chief Vitaly Nayda's early assessment. AP's July 25 report summarized it, saying "the account was based on information from intercepts, spies and resident tips."<br />
:''Nayda laid the blame fully on Russia: He said the missile launcher came from Russia and was operated by Russians. ... According to Nayda, at 1 a.m. on July 17 the launcher rolled into Ukraine across the Russian border aboard a flatbed truck. He cited communications intercepts that he would not share with the AP. By 9 a.m., he said, the launcher had reached Donetsk, the main rebel stronghold 125 miles (200 kilometers) from the border. In Donetsk it is presumed to have been off-loaded from the flatbed and started to move in a convoy on its own.''<br />
:''Nayda said the Buk turned back east toward Snizhne. Townspeople who spoke to the AP said it rolled into Snizhne around lunchtime.''<br />
:''...As for the Buk, Nayda said, intelligence suggests it went back on the move shortly after the attack. That very night, he said, it crossed the border, back into Russia.''<br />
<br />
This is full of details that don't line up with the emerging record, but the gist including a grand-circuit tour including both separatist stronghold/capitols Donestk and Lugansk plus the disaster zone, seems about right. But the evil they allowed came from and returned to Russia.<br />
<br />
This does however jibe with the Kiev allegation (I learned of through [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/07/25/snizhne-mh17-and-rebel-held-territory/ this excellent and relevant HRI article] that '''Russian jets''' violated Ukrainian airspace to '''bomb an apartment building in Snizneh on July 15th, killing 11 civilians.''' This all makes a bit of sense in context; that false flag attack was blamed by locals on Kiev'a noble Air Force - almost understandably! It "created the conditions" by which people ''might'' accept apparent a team of apparent Russians with a Buk launcher in their town two days later. The best guess for any single firing location is a field just southeast of that town (see [[#Possible Launch Sites|below]]). The locals might smile at, and later even cover for, this poisonous gift. But a trojan horse is a trojan horse, of course. They should have looked it in the mouth better, and been more aggressive with their questions. Because Russia has it in for the separatists, Kiev implies, using its skilled and well-documented team to murder 298 people in a horrific way on the separatists' behalf. This is not an accident, Kiev must know, but proof that Russia and its "inhuman" terrorists they must hate (and who do not seem to have any Buk launchers of their own, BTW) are the new global menace du jour. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Markings and the Mystery Launcher ===<br />
[[File:MH17 Buk 321 Parismatch comp.png|right]]A serial number on the launcher's side is apparently standard in Ukraine's arsenal (see [[#BUK 312 and comrades|above]]). Inset, an image comparing the side of the unit seen in [[#Paris Match Photo]], the one blamed for the shoot-down on the 17th, to TELAR unit 321. The side panels are easy enough to correlate and see the unit in the photo lacks a number, but does have a sliver of white paint (or similar) in one corner. Whoever was moving this painted it it out before this, so there is some attempt at concealment. Is this color of paint only available in Russia? The white sliver here could be part of the number, if it were painted higher up/larger than Ukraine usually does. I can't say yet how they do it. I did a Dogpile Photo search, lots of pictures, context unclear, different vehicles from different sides, mainly Vitaly Kuzmin photos so app. Russian military parades and such: --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
* Number shown, diff. vehicle: [http://military-vehicle-photos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/9881.jpg #1(loader?)] - [http://pix.avaxnews.com/avaxnews/8a/6f/00006f8a_medium.jpeg #2 same?] <br />
* Launchers with no visible numbers: [http://77rus.smugmug.com/Military/May-5th-Parade-rehearsal-2014/i-t7RjrzP/0/M/5may14-33-M.jpg #1] - [http://77rus.smugmug.com/Military/12-April-Parade-2013-rehearsal/i-KHVD3Tv/0/M/12aprilrehearsal_33-M.jpg #2] - [http://livedoor.blogimg.jp/gunzichannel/imgs/b/e/be60ae58.jpg #3] - [http://military-vehicle-photos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/9880.jpg #4] - [http://77rus.smugmug.com/Military/13th-April-rehearsal-Alabino/i-fKQdjW4/0/M/13April-Rehersal-Alabino-26-M.jpg #5] <br />
* Same vehicle, Buk TELAR launcher with numbers: not found. <br />
<br />
At the moment, the lack of a number almost makes it look Russian. The next panel over seems to have smaller numbers, or characters anyway. Nothing yet tells me the Russians add a smaller number on the panel behind that, with or without special stencils available only in Russia. Is that even a number, or does it say return to Putin? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== Bellingcat and 3x2 ====<br />
:''moved from [[#Paris Match Photo]]''<br />
<br />
Adam: somebody's favorite Bellingcat is now saying, I understand, that he is capable to read off the number of this Buk from this blurry low resolution Paris Match photo, using unspecified colored magic and some expertly fitted proprietary boxes. Well actually this is so proprietary that he can ONLY read the first number 3, and the last number 2, but is completely unable to read the middle one. Because, he does not want this to be this Ukrainian [http://uainforg.livejournal.com/1811500.html Buk 312] , nah, noway. He rather want it to be the Russian Buk 3 X 2, where X stand for Russian, and for secret, as somebody is said to unearth this dirty monster in Russia, as he says (I guess). This looks too much baloney as far as I am concerned; you can read any number you set in advance from this blurry photo, and fit there any other crap, boxed-shaped or wiggly, all essentially at will. Just recording this latest saga page in case somebody has more enthusiasm to chase it than myself. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 00:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
:No, you didn't quite understand, but thanks for the tip. An interesting twist I wish I'd caught sooner. First, this helps the West at large get in synch finally with Kiev - it was Russia, not the separatists, who owned and perhaps ran that unit. Second, it seems to me the match is at least as good as they say, but there's at least one aspect of it I think is hilarious and I wouldn't be surprised if they managed to miss it. I'll be back - this one deserves a quick blog post. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: I agree with Resup, this stinks of baloney designed to divert attention from the [[#BUK_312_and_comrades]] story. The worst thing about Brown Noses and cohorts is the amount of coordinated promo they get in pre$$titute media. SPIEGEL today [http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/jan-fleischhauer-ueber-wladimir-putin-und-mh17-abschuss-kolumne-a-1004898.html has a op-ed piece by a particularly douchebaggy example] on those independent genius investigators as well. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::I need to brush up on what that 312 story is... because it looks like this used to say 312. Ultimately I suspect its some kind of baloney, but just where it breaks down I don't know. It is amazing how they get such praise for investigating the right things (never did get back to the Houla Massacre) and finding the right truth... Daily Fail says "The authors said that 'our investigation was made possible by the examination of open source material overlooked by other organisations'." Oh goodness, that technique they must have invested ... maybe if we started doing that we'd get praises too! --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/11/08/origin-of-the-separatists-buk-a-bellingcat-investigation/<br />
The report and whole site was not coming up when I tried (might be a problem on my end), so I don't even know what's behind their pay-wall. In the interim I checked around. [http://thetruthserumblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/an-open-and-transparent-investigation.html Here's a critical blog article I like] that mentions another article praising the report. But what was useful was [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2827853/Russian-military-supplied-missiles-ahead-MH17-shooting-says-new-independent-report-evidence-points-Russian-separatists-responsible.html the Daily Mail's Australian promo article] with the cover and a few images from the report as well as a summary. The 3x2 ... This lets me quickly see what 3x2 refers to. And actually, it looks like a good description and even a good match. The number is not from Paris Match photo but from footage I haven't noticed, they say from inside Russia - presumably a Russian unit then - seen conspicuously moving towards Ukraine in late June. (the source of these images and details might be worth checking into) ... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 3x2 Comp.png|right]]Bottom is Paris Match, skewed to match. Top is the new (to me) Bellingcat June 23 image As I just put together [http://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2014/11/how-russians-covered-up-truth-partly.html here,] they seem to be onto something here. It's something silly. But it's something strongly suggested by real paint in recognizable patterns.<br />
<br />
Implied: Russians wanted to hide this thing's identity, maybe because they were about to do something secret with it. So first they painted out the number in the middle - I think it was a one. Except they left one little corner of white visible. Just got tired. It's identifiable (in both images). <br />
<br />
Then before it appeared in Ukraine, it was rendered totally unidentifiable: they boldly blacked out the 3, and perhaps at the same time even, the 2 - except for a larger identifiable sliver. Just got tired. It's next to the other dot. <br />
<br />
Haha, no way to connect these now! Also a light patch next to the small number (and the number, as far as we can see) matches, as does a light patch along the lip below that. My guess: this is the same suspect vehicle seen gettin' hauled all over on the "stolen" truck with the phone number left on. Was it actually in Russian territory as well as near so many rebel checkpoints around dawn? For how long was it there? Bellingcat cannot confirm that Russian unit 3x2 ever returned to its base in Russia ... nor, I guess, that it ever actually left, or was ever Russian, or didn't have its truncated paint job simulated and expanded on another vehicle... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
::He got some photos of an actual [http://www.kavicom.ru/news-view-12861.html convoy], almost certainly in Russia, fairly hi-res photos, no 3*2 there. Than out-of-a-blue-or-elsewhere, he gives photos from convoy made by 'local residents', now with discolored 3*2 photo(s) there; I could not spot details where this photo is now coming from. He claims it "shows on 8 out of 16 videos", but I do not know where is a single one. He also compares tank track and plate above profiles for these 2 photos; details are blurred (and also those profiles change from use), can't say how much they match each other by eye; don't trust his fitted lines, or his conclusion accepting those, but did not try matching myself (no tools to do it quickly; or enough photo resolution to feel strongly motivated). This is doable but doing it tool-free takes time; and not knowing that second photo is definitely in Russia, I am not convinced spending a lot of time is worthwhile. This is clearly a well-supported operation, so the burden of proving their own version is on them; and they did not bother even linking the videos, no clue where are those. His report downloads without problems at this time. <br />
::Also details such as dirty rear skirt and a bend there likely are common; dirt is because exhaust is through the opening above; skirt likely is bent when there is servicing, or example changing tracks or doing something else, like maybe servicing engine. Buk 321 above on this page has dirt and bend, for example. This bend is something which can be easily produced, same goes with the painting job, both things together can be done in well under 1/2 hour. If they had an example of how something in Russia looks like, not difficult to do it for a blurry photo. Clearly, with phone well-displayed, etc, the purpose of all this is a demo job. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Here is a publication [http://censor.net.ua/video_news/274823/ukraina_zaschischaet_donetsk_ot_napadeniya_rossii_zenitnoraketnye_kompleksy_buk_zanimayut_pozitsii_fotovideo Ukraine defends Donesk from Russiam attack, missile complex Buk takes positions], with photo, video of Ukrainian BUks, numbers 323, 321, 312, 301, 331,332. (Some of them have dirty skirts, e.g. 301 looks dirty and bent...). Ukrainian radio is playing on the video. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 21:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Thanks, and I get the lack of motivation, and the ambiguity. That #312 I'll compare later ... looks like a different number style (thinner) with vehicle color less clear ... I guess this could be innocent dirt instead of black paint, but it's some thick dirt, and by the end almost totally covering the numbers on this particular unit ... or two that can seem the same. (?) So it still seems most likely paint, that is deliberate obfuscation - that was also comically slow and incomplete (with clean edges to the white parts and no visible parts of gray half-covered numbers) . It must be a problem with my system (updating soon) but I still can't connect to the site or get the report. I'm not mad motivated myself, but will want to check the alleged video source and geolocation eventually. Before I was seeing this as a Kiev unit simply snuck across the internal line. So the big wrinkle of course is it being in Russia. Options if the geolocation of June 23 is right: <br />
* it wasn't there (faked match-up - As you say, all matching features ''could'' be faked, not just the paint) <br />
* or Ukraine snuck theirs across (with a whole convoy?) just to get it seen there <br />
* or they snuck over and stole this one while it was near the border <br />
* or Russia willingly sent it over, with or without a subsequent theft by people intent on misusing it on the separatists' behalf. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
There is actually a 3*2 Buk in Russia, he put links to videos on his [https://www.mapbox.com/labs/bellingcat/index.html map], I looked at 06/23 Troitskiy (Odnoklassniki) goroskop odnoklassniki ru/video/14723648043?fromTime=25 . But I doubt it can be concluded that Paris Match is a match (number itself can't be read, this is just bogus). For example, that dot in the Russian version appears to be a bit further to the right (60 % of total panel length) , while Paris Match is closer to 50 (I got 52 %). Also, in Russian version, it is almost level with protruding to the right part of number 2; in Donetsk photo, I'd say it's a bit lower (but blurriness creates problems to measure) . Panel to the left of number panel appear to look very different; in Russian case, clear horizontal line above the main bottom line; not so in Donetsk, a messy lower line. As for the skirt, it it dirty but actually does not look broken in the Russian version, just some frames create such impression. In Donetsk, hard to know (to blurry to tell crack from dirt) but there is serious change in angle there somehow; (could be the windshield playing some tricks). (Also, in Donetsk, it is dirty windshield, not actually certain what makes the dot; but it is roughly where expected, so I can go with this being paint assumption). <br />
:No point for the rebels to display it prominently in Donetsk (not far from UAF BUK base), than go towards Snizhne; this just has no point at all. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 00:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
:I'm the one, ironically, claiming to see things in that griny mess. I'd never do it unless I saw t spot well whiter than the others AND seen in another view ... didn't even notice until then. To note, your descriptions are of the first version of the graphic, now updated. Becuase of overall problems, I cut what seemed just the number panel (including shadowed edge) and put it on top of where it should be. Same proportions, within a pixel or two, "find edges" to mark the white patches, and it remains lining up. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 3x2 comp 2.png|right|420px]]At right: it can't be the embarrassingly misrepresented Ukrainian 312 they're hiding, unless that was painted over before this other one .... FWIW, the middle dot would still line up with the serif on that "1." As the updated blog article notes, if "the Russians" were smart, they would have painted this slender 312, or other recognizable number and style, on there. Instead, this nonsense.... <br />
<br />
I suppose that Ukraine ''might'' have known about this 3x2 video and match in advance (and never mentioned it?) and that's why they found a photo of ''a Buk 312''' (not checking what it actually showed, and just claimed they knew was en route to escape into Russia, after parking for yet another photo?) No, that doesn't make much sense. But I sense a link. Maybe that's because I'm seeing 312 when maybe it's 872, for all we really know. Maybe instead of partly painted out it was just left never fully painted in. Too many unknowns and now I'm unenthusiastic about it. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Whatever one thinks of this graphic comparison and interpretation, the strange and suspect thinking it implies is consistent with what else we know about how this "secret" operation was carried out. If true, it would fit this broader pattern (real or reported clues left by whoever, all open to interpretation, and here couched in the terms of allegations by Kiev and supporters):<br />
<br />
* Recalling that this whole weapon itself would have no normal business in the area and would be denied later, it should have been kept secret. Instead, it was driven around in broad daylight on the same day as the crime, just partly covered with a tarp but revealing all clues needed to identify it, its hidden ID number, and its full rack of missiles.<br />
* The truck it was so displayed on was stolen in Donetsk, and kept with the huge sign on its side with the apparent owner's phone number on it. When the media called that number, little surprise, the owner told them pro-Russian "fighters from Slaviansk" who took over his whole trucking company on July 8 (see [[#The Truck Owner's Story|here]]) Put lightly, this is a stupid way to secure a rig one intends to use for a secret operation like this was supposed to be.<br />
* They loaded the truck in Donetsk, likely at the commandeered site in the north of Donetsk, near the Ukrainian base with Buk launchers, in a coincidence. This truck then got seen leaving Donetsk on the 17th, parked pointing east at the east outskirts, then seen driving in convoy (a couple civilian cars with the operational crew moved with the truck) past Zuhres and then through Torez to the east. They were seen arriving in Snizhne around noon, then the Buk unit seen off the truck and driving in stand-alone, and it was then seen again driving south out of Snizneh, towards the apparent launch location.<br />
* The people running the convoy made sure AP journalists saw them in Snizhne just before the shoot-down from a bit south of there. The convoy stopped, and a man in unusual uniform "approached the journalists. The man wanted to make sure they had not recorded any images of the missile launcher. Satisfied that they hadn’t" filmed that secret missile launcher there, but had noticed it, and their intention to remain sooper seekrit "the convoy moved on." All this was made quite clear to the media and apparently published even before the news that MH17 was shot down. ([http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/what-happened-the-day-flight-17-was-downed/2014/07/25/716c36e4-142b-11e4-ac56-773e54a65906_story.html AP Via Washington Post]) <br />
* After the disastrous attempt to secretly provoke a Russian invasion, with utmost discretion the operators put the smoking gun, its rack of one-less missiles left uncovered, back on the same truck and drove it and the phone number back to Russia - by a strange detour on a long route towards the other easily-recognizable smoking gun rebel capitol, Lugansk ... when government ATO forces had just battled their way to the edge of Lugansk ... and got seen there passing at dawn on the main highway south, apparently having come from the center of town, and then presumably drove to Krasnodon (rebel-held) and to Russia....<br />
<br />
The fail delivery here is almost flawless, with no mistake left unmade and hardly any reasonable gaps to call for deduction. Letting multiple camera views on both sides of the porous border capture and track the gradual move to this stealth mode seems pretty consistent to me.--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Note: the implications of this contested finding, and the visual basis for it as well, is continued below under [[#If Buk 3x2 Was in Russia]] --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== General Observations === <br />
*It is clear that pro-Kiev side produced early and persistent stream of fakes, misrepresentations, or selective half-truths, all aimed to place the blame on Russia and/or "separatists" as a part of well organised and supported information warfare. This information warfare did not establish an objective to prove the blame of Russia or "separatists", as any of those media creations will not survive a rigorous scrutiny, and there is nothing to bring to court in particular. However it successfully altered Western perceptions in early days past the catastrophe, and helped to impose sanctions and other 'increased costs' on Russia, bringing the world on the brink of another cold war. It brought situation in Ukraine closer to perpetual chaos, and kept closely related people to continue killing each other every day. Although those fakes and misrepresentations were later realized to be such, those costs and calamities were not reversed. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*After moving equipment close to border, why would Russia send just a single TELAR to Ukraine in a highly visible manner as it was alleged? For meaningful operation of Buk, one would send at least 1 TELAR, 1 TEL (to be able to load missiles), and 1 command vehicle (as radar on TELAR gives only poor basic operation)? There are also lots of support vehicles seen, in case of something meaningful all that is needed. So moving single TELAR is all but pointless from military standpoint. Single TELAR is mostly for a show of sort. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Reported SIghtings == <br />
(consider along with the visual sightings below) <br />
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/what-happened-the-day-flight-17-was-downed/2014/07/25/716c36e4-142b-11e4-ac56-773e54a65906_story.html AP via Washington Post] <br />
shows the separatists strategy to not be seen as they rolled the murder weapon around:<br />
:''Even before the plane was downed, the AP had reported on the presence of the missile launcher in the town July 17. Here is what that dispatch said:''<br />
:''“An Associated Press reporter on Thursday saw seven rebel-owned tanks parked at a gas station outside the eastern Ukrainian town of Snizhne. In the town, he also observed a Buk missile system, which can fire missiles up to an altitude of 22,000 meters (72,000 feet).''<br />
:''AP journalists saw the Buk moving through town at 1:05 p.m. The vehicle, which carried four 18-foot (5.5-meter) missiles, was in a convoy with two civilian cars.''<br />
:''The convoy stopped. A man in sand-colored camouflage without identifying insignia — different from the green camouflage the rebels normally wear — approached the journalists. The man wanted to make sure they had not recorded any images of the missile launcher. Satisfied that they hadn’t, the convoy moved on.''<br />
<br />
That kind of pro-Russian sooper-seekrisy aimed at the media in front of the media should stop them being seen, right? No, oddly, it didn't. See below. The clumsy bastards could hardly have implicated themselves any more thoroughly than they did that day. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
One interesting post at the Ukraine@War blog mentions two tweets, both from July 17 and before the crash, mentioning this BUK launcher on a trailer at places consistent with the video record. [https://twitter.com/MOR2537/status/489702736766586880 One of them] (translated) sounds perhaps ''too'' informed, and says "Was driven missile system on the tractor cover + two cars after Thorez (Torez) in snowy (Sniznoyeh) in 12-10 (at 12:10? Too early...)." [https://twitter.com/_StradivariuS_/status/489704260045910016 The other one] says "(someone this) morning wrote that (the truck) stood (parked for some time) on b.Shahtostroiteley not intersection with Ilchicha, aside (heading towards) Makeevki. waiting to see (to be seen?) If that's an intersection named, it's a different parking spot identified as being [https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=48.002515,37.854917&spn=0.010222,0.02444&t=h&z=16 here on Google Maps,] one km west of the spot it was parked for the "Paris Match" photo. Otherwise, it refers only to the same place. The contributor noted "Another interesting detail in that tweet is that “it was standing” and “they were waiting”. My understanding of that phrasing is that the #Buk was actually parked there for some time. Meaning there might be witnesses." <ref name="UWD">[http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com/2014/07/reconstruction-of-whereabouts-of-buk.html CONFIRMED the BUK that shot down MH17 has indeed been in Donetsk] P. Martin, Ukraine@War, July 23, 2014</ref> There was a witness with a camera, and a photo sent to the Western media. That almost seems to have been the idea - to get witnessed like that. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== SBU Wiretap Clues ==<br />
I just had a look at the SBU wiretap transcripts, ones released July 19. In it is a segment tying in with the above stop or stops in Donetsk, the exact spot of the [[#Paris Match Photo]], and the general orders to drive east with the launcher. I'm not up on the wiretap stuff - if this is the same material said to be corroborated by the US as the real people talking. But briefly, know that parking spot in just past a roundabout, by a motel and a bus station, well short of a crossing Hornostaivska street halfway to Makiivka. Important clue to why it was here this thing had to get seen and talked about: one source claims this roundabout at the edge of town is "a big separatist checkpoint established on Jun 3 at the road circle." <ref name="UWD" /> This is supposed to all be pretty damning, and I must say it's at least looking like a pretty slick plan may be going on here, with pre-scripted parts that come into play later, etc. From Kiev mouthpiece UaToday, parts of a transcript they ran with the video and other allegations, on the 19th - How credible is this evidence?<br />
:''Khmuryi: Sergei Nikolaevich Petrovskiy, year of birth 1964, officer of Main Intelligence Directorate of Russian Federation, Deputy Chief of Ihor Girkin on Intelligence, at the time of the interception he was in Donetsk.''<br />
:''“Buryat” – militant of terrorist organization “DNR” (to be indentified).''<br />
:''Buryat: – Where should we load this beauty, Nikolaievich?''<br />
:''Khmuryi: Which one? This one?''<br />
:''B: Yes, the one I’ve brought. I’m already in Donetsk.''<br />
:''K: Is it the one I’m thinking about? “B…,”M” one?''<br />
:''B: Yes, yes, yes. “BUK”,”BUK”.''<br />
:''K: Is it on a tractor?''<br />
:''B: Yes, it’s on it. We need to unload it somewhere, '''in order to hide.'''''<br />
:''K: Is it with a crew?''<br />
:''B: Yes, with the crew.''<br />
:''K: '''Don’t hide it anywhere.''' She’ll go there now.''<br />
:...<br />
:''Khmuryi: – Tell me, have you brought me one or two?<br />
:''Buryat: One, one. Because they had a misunderstanding there. They didn’t give us a tug. We loaded it and went at their own pace.''<br />
:''K: Did it go on her own or on a tug?''<br />
:''B: It crossed the line (border).''<br />
:''H: And now have you brought it on a tug? Don’t put in anywhere… I’ll tell now where it should go, it will go together with “Vostok” tanks.''<br />
:...<br />
:''K: Sanych, the point is that my “BUK–M” (modified Russian SAM system) will go with yours, it is on a tug. Where should I drive it to put in a column?''<br />
:''Sanych: There, behind “Motel”, not reaching Hornostaevka.''<br />
:''K: Just after the Motel, right?''<br />
:''Khmuryi: Listen to me carefully, behind the circle near “Motel” there will be you know what. Call to “Bibliotekar” (Librarian).'' <br />
The next part, to me, suggests that as far back as the 19th or earlier, people talking on tape were seeding, or working by, the SBU-proposed Aeroloft plot with the town mix-up. In that light:<br />
:''...Bring inside only those, who just came back, only as much as you need for the convoy. Leave everyone else here. Not far away '''there is Pervomaiskoe, look at the map.'''''<br />
:''DNR militant: I got it.'' (Or did he not quite get it?) <br />
:''Khmuryi: Settle somewhere in that area, bring there those who are left. Your task is reserve, plus protection of this piece (BUK–M), which you will drive now. “Giyrza” will come there too. If anything, I’m on line.'' <ref name="Trans">[http://www.uatoday.info/?p=2579&lang=en SBU releases more conversations implicating Russia in shooting down Malaysia Airlines flight (VIDEO, TRANSCRIPT)] UAToday, July 19, 2014</ref><br />
--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The veracity of that recording needs challenged well now ... the day too early claim [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17#SBU wiretap video|did not pan out,]] so it won't be that easy. Has anyone really done a good analysis tearing it apart some other way? Could it even be half-legit, with some local rebels tricked by some undercover (wire-wearing, not wire-tapping) supposed defector delivering it "with a team" coming "from Russia" (meaning Parubiy et al.)? Who knows? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Imagery Mapping ==<br />
[[File:MH17 Storyful video mapping.png|right|330px]]There have been quite a number now of photos and videos showing BUK launchers ostensibly in separatist strongholds, on July 17. The geo-location of these in such towns by social media networks has been the subject of some recent media commentary. These purported placements are worth collecting and considering here. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
One somewhat comprehensive and updated/evolving page: [http://blog.storyful.com/2014/07/19/how-social-sleuthing-uncovered-evidence-of-anti-aircraft-missile-system-in-eastern-ukraine/#.U9oY_Ua3498 How Social Sleuthing Uncovered Evidence of Surface-to-Air Missile Systems in Eastern Ukraine] Inset is a small preview of the interactive map they made of all placed images (as it stands at the end of July - [https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=200399683004956931329.0004feca5d1fbab0a1d25&msa=0&ie=UTF8&t=h&source=embed&ll=48.206371,38.968506&spn=1.281328,2.334595&z=8 full-size presentation with links, on Google Maps]) <ref name="Story1" /> <s>Note that one of them is way up in Lugansk - which one is a little unclear at the moment - the site may be wrong</s>) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;List of Scenes, placed or not<br />
* Billboard Video: released by Interior Ministry, filmed in Krasnodon before dawn, the Interior Minister says. Russian military analysis places it in Krasnoarmeysk, and the Open Newsroom crew contradicts both and decided "collaborative geo-location was able to place the footage in southwestern Luhansk.'' <ref name="Story1">[http://blog.storyful.com/2014/07/19/how-social-sleuthing-uncovered-evidence-of-anti-aircraft-missile-system-in-eastern-ukraine/#.U9oY_Ua3498 How Social Sleuthing Uncovered Evidence of Surface-to-Air Missile Systems in Eastern Ukraine] Storyful blog, July 19, 2014 and onward (updated)</ref> <br />
* Surveillance Video: located to Snizhne by Eliot Higgins, date unclear. <ref name="Story1" /><br />
* Zuhres video: Pre-geo-located by the uploader [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=48%C2%B0+1'1.38%22N++38%C2%B018'6.04%22E&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=48.034019,38.391724&spn=0.629958,1.564178&gbv=2&hnear=H21,+Zuhres,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&gl=us&t=h&z=10 here in Zuhres.] Higgins confirms, 100% sure, and others concur. Driving east. <ref name="Story1" /><br />
* Torez square photo - located by an associate of Higgins - filmed app. 11:40 AM in central Torez. See below. <br />
* Another photo placed: Snizneh, nearest the shoot-down area (f/c)<br />
* [http://www.parismatch.com/Actu/International/EXCLU-MATCH-Un-camion-vole-pour-transporter-le-systeme-lance-missiles-577289 Paris Match photo] - allegedly Snizhne, reportedly placed '''in northern Donetsk city.''' See below. <br />
<br />
===Billboard Video===<br />
(to be condensed) <br />
A video released by the Ukrainian Interior Ministry is highly dubious and worth some analysis. It shows what seems to be a BUK launcher loaded on a truck driving some direction in some town at what seems to be early twilight (or pre-dawn, depending). The [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4HJmev5xg0 original posting] (with almost 2 million views already) gives no details: "Militants take out missile system "Buk" to the border with Russiam" the title translates. "No description available," it says below, and no comments allowed.<br />
From what I've seen no one knows where this is filmed. Daily Mail says it's a "separatist stronghold," unnamed, and headed south, back towards Russia. "Ukrainian spies reportedly filmed the launcher used in the attack being smuggled to Russia - with two missiles missing." Eliot Higgins was cited by [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/20/malaysia-airlines-mh17-videos-missile-launcher-torez-snizhne the Guardian] with his new team of fundraistigators as geolocating some video and photo but not, apparently, this one. As explained at [https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1278239551/bellingcat/posts/919158 the kickstarter link] they give, Higgins writes:<br />
:''In the above video, posted by the Ukranian Ministry for Interior claiming to show the Buk missile launcher being driven towards Russia it was possible to match the transporter in the video to the transporter in Torez, details of which... (you have to subsidize their operation to see)'' --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== Avakov's Placement: Krasnodon or Lugansk ====<br />
Interior Minister Arsen Avakov said in [https://www.facebook.com/arsen.avakov.1/posts/670837696339673 a Facebook post of July 18] Google-translated: <br />
:''Covert surveillance units of MIA of Ukraine today July 18 at 4.50 am was recorded caterpillar tractor loaded with missile complex, moving in the direction through Krasnodon, toward the border with the Russian Federation. The video can be seen uncovered missiles. Two missiles in place - the average is not visible. ''<br />
:''There is an analysis of this and other information gathered. Presumably this is the missile system "Buk" that made a last shot at a civilian plane from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur .. ''<br />
:''Criminals try to hide the traces of this heinous crime. Not succeed. Security Service and Interior Ministry of Ukraine has collected and collects more irrefutable facts and evidence, the author points out the tragedy of the terrorist organization DNI / LC and its Russian backers Putin.'' <br />
:''The investigation of events MIA issue a comprehensive report on the information. This fragment consider it necessary to publish immediately.''<br />
<br />
By the 22nd, "online sleuths" had placed it in Lugansk (see below). Avakov then confirmed this - he was wrong the first time. One article makes it sound like he wasn't just echoing the sleuths:<br />
:''On July 22, Ukraine's Minister of Internal Affairs, Arsen Avakov, gave the exact coordinates of the video’s location: separatist-held Luhansk, about a 45-minute drive from Krasnodon. Locals quickly verified this claim by photographing the scene, which perfectly matches the landmarks seen in the video.'' ([http://globalvoicesonline.org/2014/07/29/russia-ukraine-mh17-conspiracy-buk/# article by one of the sleuths])<br />
<br />
====Krasnoarmeysk====<br />
One source venturing a guess is [http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ the Russian government and RT witrh their 10 intriguing questions:]<br />
:''“For example, media circulated a video supposedly showing a Buk system being moved from Ukraine to Russia. This is clearly a fabrication. This video was made in the town of Krasnoarmeisk, as evidenced by the billboard you see in the background, advertising a car dealership at 34 Dnepropetrovsk Street. Krasnoarmeysk has been controlled by the Ukrainian military since May 11.”''<br />
[[File:MH17 Billboard Vid Russian Analysis.png|right|250px]]There is a sign, but I cannot make it out just yet, if ever. Can they really? Even if that's so, surrounding towns might be good places for a dealership in Krasnoarmeysk to advertise. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
At right now is a still from a video claiming to show this, I still don't see it. They seem to think the gray span says that, perhaps from seeing a clearer view of this ubiquitous sign elsewhere. Opps. There's no reason to say a dealership in one town can only have billboards in that town. This alone fails. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 14:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Krasnoarmiis'k,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&hl=en&ll=48.323387,37.919312&spn=1.252829,3.128357&sll=48.226502,37.386475&sspn=0.627601,1.564178&oq=Krasnoarm&t=h&doflg=ptk&hnear=Krasnoarmiis'k,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&z=9 on Google Maps as Krasnoarmiis'k] - ''not'' to be confused with the Krasnoarmeisk not far away in Russia. Distance: about 100 km almost due west of the crash site. Panorama, possiblt location, directions/implications forthcoming. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Dnepropetrovsk Street is the main street of Krasnoarmeisk, leading northwest to Dnepropetrovsk. It tried matching this to the street corner where the car dealership is located. Yandex Maps did not provide a street view. It could be there, but too few details to make a positive match. Whatever this is, it is not evidence for anything. The least the SBU could have done is provide the location and some corroborating photographs.<br />
:The same applies to all so called "evidence" provided by Ukraine and the US State Department. As far as I can tell it is only cut-and-paste of unrelated footage to ''illustrate'' the claims made. A perfect example of this illusion is the "satellite photos" of Russian artillery shelling Ukraine released on Sunday morning. A photo of Russian GRADs on some unidentifiable field was placed next to a satellite image with an arrow pointing "Here Be Monsters!" Purely illustrative and no proof. There is a difference between legerdemain Hocus Pocus and outright forgery. The Russian video presentation displayed screen capture recording from the ATC radar, usually stored for two weeks. For this to be a hoax, Russia would need to create a forged tape of the radar data. Highly unlikely, as the the claim of authenticity had support of the full authority and prestige of the Russian Armed Forces. If the US presentation turns out to be hoax, State Department will claim the photos were never meant to be evidence. Some internee was told to prepare a presentation using stock images for some facts they ''knew'' to be true – trust us! -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 14:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: You must have missed [https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BtZSVQrIMAARzKr.jpg:large this], Petri! ;oP --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 18:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
::: That is an awesomely perfect picture for this sorry episode so far. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 14:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
::It would be neat though if we could show where this is and thus which way its's headed. The Kiev authorities, I think, know what happened. They say it was this exact launcher missing two missiles. It could be. Where is it at filming time and where headed? If it's true this same one was in Torez (dubious but possible) we'd have a direction traveled until that point also, and a rough time, 8:30 or so. [http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jul/27/mh17-storyful-social-media-twitter-youtube The Guardian again] citing Storyful's open-source investigation: <br />
::::''“There are now four pieces of content – three pieces of video and one image – which, in the case of three, conclusively show a Buk [surface-to-air] missile within rebel-held territory and in the case of the fourth, almost definitely in their territory,” says Storyful executive editor David Clinch. “Of those four pieces, individual groups or companies probably verified in or around the same time one or another of them.”''<br />
:''Open Newsroom verified three pieces of content and is investigating the fourth, thanks to its 900-strong network of journalists and experts. ''''<br />
:The fourth is this video. Wouldn't it be a coup if we were the first to place it? Force that intern excuse and then laugh at it. That said, it's not the most likely to place but you, Petri, especially, might be able to. I think I might. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 22:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* [https://plus.google.com/118234537318646233652/posts/LZV1XZD854E James Miller Google + July 21] "Was a Buk sighted in Krasnoarmeysk or Krasnodon (continued analysis)? We've taken a new look at this video which has been debated since it was posted days ago. We're fairly confident, though not 100% confident, in this geoanalysis, but we're making significant progress. Any more information would be extremely helpful. " Cited: [http://www.interpretermag.com/russia-this-week-lurid-anti-ukraine-propaganda-broadcast-on-state-tv/#1753 Russia This Week: Defense Ministry Claim on Buk in Billboard Video Doesn’t Add Up]<br />
:''...As we reported on our Ukraine Liveblog, the Buk was spotted before the shoot-down of the Malaysian airplane and ultimately geolocated to the town of Torez, near the location of the crash in Grabovo. Then the video, taken early the next morning on 18 July, showed a scene in Krasnodon,... <br />
--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Google Earth has one photo [http://www.panoramio.com/photo/55329278 from ул. Днепропетровская.] The street has about the same width. The streetlights are not quite the same. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 14:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
::That image doesn't help a match, especially since by now it looks like Lugansk. For the record, there was a go by pro-rebel social media people at identifying a spot in town to explain the video scene, but it didn't do that either. [http://wikimapia.org/#lat=48.276196&lon=37.176087&z=18&l=0&m=b this spot on Wikimapia] is what they pointed to - filmed from the marked building, they say, looking southwest to the mall. No matching anything. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 02:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== Placed in Lugansk! ====<br />
[[File:MH17 Billboard Vid-Lugansk Match.png|right|800px]]Storyful's rundown states of this video:<br />
:''The footage is not the original, however we believe that the first instance of this footage was removed by the uploader and the version below is the earliest we can find. Ukrainian Interior Minister, Arsen Avakov, made early claims that the video was filmed in the Ukrainian town of Krasnodon near the Russian border, however collaborative geo-location was able to place the footage in southwestern Luhansk.'' <ref name="Story1" /> <br />
It links to "Bellingcat," which you have to pay to see much of. [https://plus.google.com/118234537318646233652/posts/bMdeBzY8yty James Miller] passes on that it's "Mystery SOLVED: Video released by Ukraine's Interior Ministry does in fact show a Buk, possibly missing several missiles, in Lugansk headed east from the MH17 crash site and in the direction of Russia." The spot they think matches the video (better panorama coming) is [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=48%C2%B032'44.7%22N+39%C2%B015'52.6%22E&ie=UTF8&ll=48.545926,39.265147&spn=0.002436,0.00611&t=h&cid=0&z=18 here on Google Maps]. Was that a highway? Where's the cross-street? I see elsewhere they have a high view showing the same basic billboard there, but that's going to be true of several spots in this area. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
My impression of the scene - based on the panoramic view below - is far from matching with this. That does not look like a highway, and it just seems like a small town. However, I finally saw some of the supporting images (see [http://news.bigmir.net/ukraine/827864-V-Lygansk-vehala-kolonna-voennoi-tehniki--SMI here] and [https://twitter.com/djp3tros/status/491651820188860416/photo/1 here] - source of the inset image.) It seems a likely match after all. I won't say I confirm it with any certainty, but I don't think I'll be challenging it like I was preparing to do. Note the different billboard in the right spot, and the matching one over there. There are other images, apparently more current, showing that that they moved the one sign over to the right spot They don't point to the pinkish roofed building beyond the red-roofed one, but that adds to the match (compare to below). Whenever this video was made and whatever it really means, it seems quite likely it was at this spot in Lugansk shortly before dawn. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
There is another video from June 2014 showing the same billboard with the same car ad:<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ez8cZ3nqjCs Луганск 02 07 14]<br />
The video shows a column of BMPs with one 9K35 Strela-10 short-range surface to air missile system passing the intersection in Lugansk. I suspect they came from Russia, as [https://www.facebook.com/groups/IOUCO/permalink/584402078339517/ I specifically asked] for Putin to send in the Russian tanks that morning. They passed exactly when I expected them to, at 6 minutes past 4 am. (I estimated it would take 2 hours 6 minutes from the border.) -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 17:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== ACLOS Review ====<br />
As noted above, my review agrees with the placement agreed by the others. For what it's worth, the huge panorama I made (the middle is full-resolution) and starting notes from before I realized no work was needed. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 03:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
[[File:MH17 Billboard Video Pan.png|center|880px]]<br />
It seems to be filmed near the edge of town, or edge of a hill anyway, with a clear view ahead, two vague homes/buildings seen down the slope. Otherwise, very non-descript. The angle of intersection will be one of the better clues - it looks to me not 90 degrees ( |- ), but with the road the truck is on either slanting or curving somewhat towards the camera ( /- ). One important observation: '''there's no logical reason he should have been just happening to film this area''' unless he knew something interesting would drive by at just this odd time. That's clarified by how he zooms in just before it enters frame - he was waiting for that truck. How did he know about it? Informants on the other side of town phoning ahead makes enough sense, I suppose. <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 launcher truck composite.png|left|480px]]Another issue: If this is dusk (sunset 8:20 PM local), isn't this facing roughly northwest? If so, this vehicle is driving roughly north, not south. And we might start looking on the west edge of town. There's a highway out to the northwest, back towards Kiev. This street is too narrow and unmarked to be the highway, obviously, but it might be driving that way, for example. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
:Or, alternately, he's facing towards the sun about to rise, early on the 18th, as alleged by the Interior Ministry) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
::That he happened to be filming just before dawn is even less likely than dusk. He clearly knew this was coming, whatever that means. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 03:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Above is the composite scene without truck. At left is the truck without background. Besides lightening the scene, it seemed worth getting the clearest details from different frames into a composite view of the truck and its load. This helps compare to the launchers seen in other areas and different times. So far, they all seem to look the same and perhaps be the same. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 03:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br /><br />
<br />
==== HRI ====<br />
Pretty good points [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/08/05/mh17-the-lugansk-buk-video/ from Human Rights Investigations]:<br />
:''To sum up, the statement of Avakov, the film and its location suggest the Ukrainian authorities had advance knowledge of this BUK and trailer’s movements or control over it. It is also extremely strange that this BUK, allegedly after shooting down MH17, is supposedly filmed by a Ukrainian surveillance team in ostensibly rebel territory, with its covering missing, as if to show the world a missile is missing.''<br />
--[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Paris Match Photo ===<br />
[[File:MH17 Paris Match.png|770px]]<br /><br />
* [http://www.parismatch.com/Actu/International/EXCLU-MATCH-Un-camion-vole-pour-transporter-le-systeme-lance-missiles-577289 Originally published by Paris Match] on July 25, with the claim the picture was taken by their own reporting team near Snizhne at mid-day on the 17th. Note the prominent, apparent, telephone number prominently centered in the picture - (050) 471-41-80. The truck and launcher, as far as can be seen, are quite similar to or the same as the one seen in the billboard video anyways. How many of its missiles the unit has at this moment is unclear. <br />
<br />
* [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/07/28/why-is-paris-match-on-the-location-of-a-buk/ Human Rights Investigations:] "it turns out to have been taken in Donetsk, 75km away" (citing someone else's geo-location - [https://www.google.com/maps/@48.004592,37.87265,3a,75y,63.38h,82.21t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sRGnHwZ5YZnuGO-n_VvruWg!2e0 site link given.] <br />
:''We know this because the phone number on the truck panel (050 471 4180) leads straight to this hire place (photo):<br />
:''According to Paris-Match, the proprietor of this establishment claimed “rebels” had stolen a number of his vehicles earlier in the month. If we go from here to towards Snizhne we find the location of the Paris-Match photo, near a car dealership on Makiivske Highway on the outskirts of Donetsk:''<br />
:''After informing Paris-Match of the mistake regarding the video location, the author of the article Alfred De Montesquiou has now got back and explained:''<br />
:''Hello, indeed, it appears there was a mixup in caption : the picture was taken leaving Donetsk on road to Snijne, not in actual Snijne'' <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Donestk Buk Map.png|thumb|right|480px|Map: this truck location, the company's apparent headquarters ([https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Molodykh+Shakhtariv+St,+19,+Donetsk,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&ll=48.044923,37.783184&spn=0.079187,0.195522&hnear=Molodykh+Shakhtariv+St,+19,+Donetsk,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&t=h&z=13 GM link]), and the A-1402 missile base relative to each other.]]<br />
<br />
'''Questions:''' Was it a caption mix-up, or did their team really not know where it was taken, and just believed the real source when he said Snizneh? Who is the true photographer who knew to catch this picture near the company's base, apparently at the outset of a rather epic journey? Why did the rebel thieves leave the prominent phone number on the stolen truck used for such an important task? It wound up leading to man who pointed right to the rebel thieves, and prove yet again separatists, not Kiev allies, were the ones driving BUKs around. Was that so hard to foresee? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''To Do:''' Verify the geo-location - set a time, presuming July 17, by sunlight and that location - establish which way it's traveling relative to the government-run anti-aircraft base just a few km north of here and relative to the other places and times this truck and others were spotted rolling around prominently and getting filmed a lot by the right kind of people, in areas presumed to be impenetrable to any such frame-up operation - look into this company, etc. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''Location:''' I can't confirm it with certainty, but it's extremely consistent. Two standard but distinct pole types that close together on the right with a pull-over lane ending at the blue one, and consistent-scale foliage behind. Proceding on the location as likely enough to warrant the work. The stretch of highway identified runs northeast, heading 33 degrees. The truck is most likely not driving at the moment, as it's in the pull-over lane. But it's pointed as if ready to leave Donetsk as soon as they finish doing something in theis spot. All we can see they're doing is getting filmed, and maybe that's just what they're waiting for. Ahead would be the an industrial area, the eastern suburb of Makiivka, then Khartsyzk, etc. and further east Torez and Snizhne (driving times unsure, date also unsure. Russia claims the one launcher left the northern base sometime between in August 14 and 17 images. <ref name="RT10">[http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ 10 more questions Russian military pose to Ukraine, US over MH17 crash] RT. July 21, 2014</ref><br />
<br />
'''Time:''' I'm not sure how exactly to set this up, but the shadows appear to stretch almost right across the highway, with only a slight northern shift. The azimuth thus appears to be fairly close to to 140˚ (reached at 11:09 AM). As for solar altitude, trying to line up the launcher's corner with its shadow gives a reading of app. 56˚ (= 10:50 AM, with azimuth 133˚) or perhaps 59˚ (= 11:18, az 143.5). The graphic shows both readings. Which is better? I used [http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/solcalc/ NOAA solar calculator], with coordinates: lat 48.017102 long:37.9037626 time=GMT+2, DST +1 --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
There is more to consider about this truck, its company, its owner, and his story. But other than this photo's extra-clear view of the phone number and apparent proximity to headquarters, those are better covered in the section below [[#The Truck Owner's Story]].<br />
<br />
==== Time? ====<br />
[[File:MH17 Paris Match elev.png|right|220px]]<br />
Bellingcat was originally claiming that photo was taken at 9 am. [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/09/08/images-show-the-buk-that-downed-flight-mh17-inside-russia-controlled-by-russian-troops/] [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/11/08/origin-of-the-separatists-buk-a-bellingcat-investigation/]<br />
<br />
Then they were claiming 11 am as an obvious time without retracting previous 9am claim. Seems like 9am was more comfortable for them to match to photos from Zuhres and Torez. <br />
<br />
Sorry, using smartphone. Not very easy to comment --[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 01:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:<small>Looks like you put the same link twice, -it says 11 a.m.--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)</small><br />
::Antidyatel, welcome! Resup, thanks! I'd like to see any 9 am citation. But otherwise they agree on it being around 11? Good. The significance below is if the Zuhres square photo was taken at 11:40 AM as they say, it's basically impossible these images are from the same day as alleged - 69 km, 1 hour 14 mins drive between the spots, when there's only 20-40 minutes between the images. However, fudging it - let's say this is 10:50 and the other is 12:00 as I read it - that's 1:10 between, almost a perfect match. So maybe this isn't a great lead (I was never convinced it was). But 9:00 is way off and suggests they were fudging it to fit at that point. Would be good to document. BTW, on talk pages you can sign with <nowiki>--~~~~</nowiki> or the sign/scribble button. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: [https://web.archive.org/web/20141109132514/https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/11/08/origin-of-the-separatists-buk-a-bellingcat-investigation/ First archive.org snapshot] from the day after publishing (edit: a good three months after you called it :o)) says 11 am already. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 10:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: Okay, the links were fixed once or twice and [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/11/08/origin-of-the-separatists-buk-a-bellingcat-investigation/ the November report] says 11 am, not citing an azimuth or anything, just Paris Match saying it was "about 11 am," which doesn't count much for verification. The [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/09/08/images-show-the-buk-that-downed-flight-mh17-inside-russia-controlled-by-russian-troops/ earlier report from Sptember] might be based on something else when it mentions "a well known image from Paris Match, which shows a Buk in Donetsk at 9am on July the 17th." Neither one sounds like a firm final version. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== Screenshot from dashcam video? ====<br />
It it possible to identify if the photo was made by dashboard camera, smartphone, or other type of camera. Paris Match claimed that they made the photo. There are no date markings on the photo, which is strange. Position of the camera is such that it was either dashboard camera or the driver was making a photo (front and left side of the car). Paris Match was also implying in their report that it was a group of people in the car. "A sytem BUK missile launcher is photopgraphie by the team of Paris-Match in the suburbs of Donetsk, on the road to Snizhne the morning of July 17, hours before the flight Malaysia Airlines MH17 crash."[http://m.parismatch.com/Actu/International/EXCLU-MATCH-Un-camion-vole-pour-transporter-le-systeme-lance-missiles-577289]<br />
<br />
Why would they ask driver to make a photo? Dangerous or uncomfortable - illogical. If it was a dashboard camera, why not to release a video? And most importantly it would have a time stamp. <br />
<br />
Also in this report [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/01/17/new-images-of-the-mh17-buk-missile-launcher-in-ukraine-and-russia/] gives a new, a bit extended photo. Surprisingly the back of the BUK is nicely in focus, same as the truck cabin. While middle of the BUK is defocused. No wonder Paris Match cropped it. Bellingcat, that likes being so strict about photos, totally ignores this part. <br />
-- [[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 23:55,, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Yes, I agree. The two photos are crops from screenshots from a dashcam video. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 00:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
::Those must be two different shots at close-by time --look at position of street lamppost with respect to the truck cabin, one has it over black pipe, and the other more to the right from there. Can't think of a natural way for camera to focus on two different distances (maybe dirty and curvy windshield can be blamed but on tricky side here)-- FWIW. Usually dashboards have short focal length so that anything appear to be in focus; don't know why not the case here --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
RESUP, you are right. Those are two different shots. There is cable reflection from the windshield. Probably the cable is another indication of the dashboard camera.<br />
<br />
=== Torez Square Photo ===<br />
[[File:MH17 Torez Buk Analysis.png|left]]This is another image geo-located by the Brown Moses network (ally Aric Toller) to central Torez, [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Donetsk&hl=en&ll=48.023472,38.614014&spn=0.004923,0.01222&hnear=Donetsk,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&t=h&z=17 here on Google Maps.] Like others, it was initially stated as in another locale - Snizhne - and that had to be corrected. I can agree the location pointed to is either the photo's site or one strangely like it. [http://mashable.com/2014/07/23/citizen-journalists-mh17-spies/ Mashable noted] "Toler and Higgins were able to establish that the photograph was shot around 11:40 a.m. local time." I tried a quick azimuth measure, eyeballed relative only to the blue car, and got 165 degrees (yellow line, read backwards). This equates to a time of almost exactly 12:00 noon (about 30 minutes before solar noon, and 20 minutes later than their estimate). Seeing they're close to right, I'll presume they're closer than me and defer to 11:40. <br />
<br />
If this photo is taken at 11:40 AM, and it's the same truck seen leaving Donetsk around 11-11:20 AM, it's impossible these images are from the same day as alleged (Gmaps says it's 68.8 km, 1 hour 14 mins drive, when there's only 20-40 minutes between the images). That would mean multiple mobile launchers with multiple "Titan" trucks, or just one but with some date fudging. The company says a number of its trucks were stolen, so matching multiples are entirely likely. But so is date fudging, multiples or not. If that's so, I suspect the Donetsk photo was from July 15 or 16, and this one more likely from the day of the crime. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 04:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br /><br /><br /><br />
=== Zuhres Video ===<br />
[[File:Buk Zuhres Vid.png|right|480px]]Again, a truck of that same type loaded with the same apparent weapon is briefly seen driving east (detail at right). This one was never reported wrong and was in fact pre-geo-located by the uploader [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=48%C2%B0+1'1.38%22N++38%C2%B018'6.04%22E&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=48.034019,38.391724&spn=0.629958,1.564178&gbv=2&hnear=H21,+Zuhres,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&gl=us&t=h&z=10 here in Zuhres.] Higgins confirms, 100% sure, and others concur. <ref name="Story1" /> Zuhres location: on highway H21 halfway between Donetsk and the general disaster zone - 36 km east by road from the position of the truck in the Paris Match photo. I agree with the location, refined below as I lined up in the still used here - the blue line runs between the blue thing and the building corner (footprint, not roofline) to the front of the truck as it passes. <br />
<br />
The sky is fairly overcast, so solar angles can't be measured precisely; the differences in facet lighting are clear but not massive. A broad and inclusive azimuth range of 167˚ to 214˚ (rounded) is shown by the yellow arrows below. This yields a range (to the nearest minute) of 12:09 PM and 1:45 PM. The best middle is a bit early - 185 degrees. That would be 12:44 PM. Altitude, at solar noon, helps little. 12:09, 12:44, and all times between round off to 63˚. if that simply looks too high, we're forced to the later end of the time frame. - 57˚ at 1:45. My super broad-estimate: 12:45 +/- 50 minutes. Weather at this time on whatever day - as noted, it partly overcast, and it's windy. The clouds are moving fast, with slight lighting changes visible in just these few seconds. Winds by the swaying trees are from the southeast, perhaps, blowing northwest - at least at the building with a face running that way.<br />
[[File:Buk Zuhres analysis.png|center|680px]]<br />
<br />
==The Truck Owner's Story==<br />
The apparent owner of the white truck so important to the MH17 operation was of course tracked down via the giant phone number for his compant on its side. Interviewed at least twice now, first by Paris Match, then by Lithuanian agency Alfa, this businessman has been anonymized as Vassili (then Vasilijus). Thorough summary of the related, alleged facts, from each (translated) report:<br />
* [http://www.parismatch.com/Actu/International/EXCLU-MATCH-Un-camion-vole-pour-transporter-le-systeme-lance-missiles-577289 Paris Match, July 25:]<br />
:''Photographs of Paris Match showed that the rebels had failed to remove the billboard on the truck they had stolen. Thus we joined the owner of the vehicle. Vassili said the rebels occupied warehouses on the outskirts of Donetsk since July 8. "They are fighters Slaviansk. They landed and told me they loved my premises and we had to escape. They shipped me a dozen large vehicles, including the white truck. I do not know what happened to them, "admitted Vassili, distraught.'' (that was actually just what they published, aside from context material) <br />
<br />
* [http://www.alfa.lt/straipsnis/472203/alfa-lt-isskirtinis-interviu-su-raketas-buk-kuriomis-buvo-numustas-malaizijos-avialiniju-lektuvas-gabenusio-vilkiko-savininku?p=1#.U-GIxeOSyuZ Alfa.lt, July 29:]<br />
:''This person's testimony is crucial. After it becomes indisputably known that anti-missile system, which shot down a passenger plane was precisely the Kremlin-sponsored terrorist hands. ''<br />
Here, separatists are throughout called "terrorists" (Bezler is "the "People's Republic of Donetsk" terrorist gangs ringleader"). Vassili says these took over and occupied his company premises on July 8, taking the white truck - they said because it was needed He says they stayed in control of his facility for 8 days, apparently departing on the 9th day - July 17. Becuase of this, he and his staff - especially his drivers - were unable to do anything that whole time. He's entirely certain it's his truck in the videos (the phone number says so) as it's the only one of its type in that part of Donetsk (Žinoma, ji – vienintelė tokia Donecko srityje, tokios kitos nėra. Tokios „Volvo“ su tokia kabina). He says he still hasn't seen it since.<br />
:''...more and more irrefutable evidence that Russia supported the terrorists shot down over the temporary control of the territory in the east of Ukraine aboard passenger "Malaysia Airlines plane, and later sought to hide evidence.''<br />
But as Paris Match noted, they couldn't be bothered to detach the phone number to the guy with the whole dang story. <br />
:''Alfa.lt knowledge of the personal data, company name, knows his responsibilities and phone numbers (one is (050) 471-41-80), but because of '''the danger to his life''' that can not be published. "Stop saying my name, and I already have enough problems," said new horrific crime witness Vasilijus.'' <br />
This is valid; of course his best defense would have been to simply ''not'' implicate the separatists mostly running Donetsk, but it's too late now. DPR authorities might want him for questioning. And especially now that he's been publicized as a "crucial witness," others will want him to '''appear to have been brutally murdered by them''' (he will have served his main purpose by now, perhaps). I hope someone's able to arrange protective custody quickly enough, or that he can arrange his own vacation, or convince his friends (he'll know the ones) of his continuing usefulness to them alive. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Titan Gate blurry.png|left|380px]]Further bits on the business: Wikimapia has labels. One for the front building is generic. In English writing: [http://wikimapia.org/#lat=48.0399571&lon=37.794637&z=16&l=0&m=b&show=/24479492/Ochakivska-vulytsia-19 Ochakivska vulytsia, 19]. Beneath: Category: safety, '''private security company.''' Around this, a bigger labeled area including the back building and surrounding lot. Label: Территория службы охраны "Титан" Translated, it says "Territory protection service "Titan" (Donetsk)." Beneath it: "Category: '''Do not display name''', fenced area." (не отображать название, огороженная территория) Below, their gate area as it appears in Human Rights Investigation's still, and three versions I've seen randomly changing over the last day or so with different parts that could be the name blurred out (most recently back to not blurred). Is that unusual? I predict further twists in this, with the truck found somewhere bolstering the Kiev story, and with the company's "outing" being manipulated somehow. Feels a little spooky. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
;Assessing "Vassili's" Story<br />
<br />
There are a number of problems with and interesting questions about this witness' story and how it meshes with other allegation (details forthcoming).<br />
<br />
In Vassili's defense, I'll say the world needs to hear more. What happened in these eight days? Were Russian officers coming and going? Poring over air charts in the side room, before closing the door with an annoyed look? A lot could have happened - this could be a gold mine of direct evidence for war crimes trials of these terrorist gang's leaders (as understood). --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
[[File:MH17 Vassili's Truck August 1c.png|right|400px]]<br />
An apparent support: as HRI found, [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/08/07/new-sighting-of-volvo-linked-to-buk/ New sighting of Volvo linked to BUK?] August 7 - One of those provocatively deleted tweets, quite recent with a supposedly same-day (dawn or sunset) photo from somewhere in Donetsk - outskirtsy, like where <s>rebel</s> I mean Kiev junta forces proudly claim to almost be. this photo (saved by HRI) shows "a truck" carrying a tank, driving behind another tank. The posted thought it was for a new roadblack/barricade (concrete slabs were also being hauled). It appears to be the same truck Vassili says he lost, or one just like it. And this does look like the type of thing seaparatists would do if they had seized it, and still didn't realize how famous it had become. This thing likes to drive at dawn, doesn't it? How are checkpoints then, a little sleepy maybe? Hmmm... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::(added later: inset image - from the photo, color-corrected and cropped on just the truck - for full view see the article or below) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: FTR I took up HRI's challenge to identify the truck on that picture and did so with almost 100% certainty. It's a Volvo FH second generation (2001-2013) with low cabin. Like [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Volvo_LKW_Fahrerhaus.JPG this one] which has a higher cabin but other than that is quite a match. Also FTR, I noticed that the twitter account has "Donbass Bandera" as location, which can but must not mean anything. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: Bandera might mean something, in context, but no time to puzzle too much. Good ID work there. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Vassili's Truck August 1 Loc.png|left|380px]]The article passes on a geo-location I can confirm: [https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Makiivka,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine/@48.04073,37.967479,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m5!1e2!3m3!1s78165143!2e1!3e10!4m2!3m1!1s0x40e08e984a0db9a9:0xe4e52efde2e0641c Here on Google Maps,] photo taken, as described, from "opposite the Vostochno-evroppeyskiy restaurant & lounge “Atrium” in Makiivka on the H-21." A site photo of the "Atrium" is included. The graphic I made at left shows the approximate view, including the stairwell (to a subway station?), though the billboard is less clear. The view is roughly towards the rising sun northeast - a rough azimuth measure suggests the sun is shining from about <s>66</s> 71 degrees from north, for a time of around <s>5:24</s> 5:52 AM (elevation: <s>1.8</s> 6 degrees). --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC) and corrections --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
FWIW, I went over to militaryphotos.net and scanned [http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?236005-Situation-in-the-Ukraine-Crimea-*Photos-Videos*-ONLY/page200 the thread about Ukraine starting on page 200] in very early July, up until page 225 when all the known truck/BUK info and disinfo was posted. Watched countless military convoys, including a whole bunch from Donetsk in the time between. Not a sign of the truck in question. If it was in "rebel" hands since July 8 like the alleged owner claims, they used it only for "special ops", alone in the early morning or so, not in their larger relocation operations. Two things remotely interesting: in an operation [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0JdcC324Ek reactivating a WWII tank from a war museum in Donetsk], a similar trailer is used, but the truck is a different one. And in [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2eGNPJlkMo this video from July 5] but without given location, the Ukie army does some operations and two BUK TELARs are seen. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Possible Launch Sites ==<br />
*Launch site discussion here is based on a photo of disputed provenance, said to be made '''near [[Category_talk:Ukraine#Torez|Torez]]''', showing a plume of smoke (see on the right and below). Exact date is disputed, but it was posted shortly after the accident. A late update or second version of the photo emerged in December 2014; this is further discussed in the [[File_talk:MH17_Launch_Plume.png|talk page for the photo]]. A different launch location in '''Artemovsk''', based on Bezler account, is discussed elsewhere [[Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17#Bezler_Account|(link).]] . <br />
<br />
===What do we know? ===<br />
Questions about the photo, --if it is genuine-- include:<br />
<br />
*What is shown on the photo? (Likely a missile launch, but can be MANPAD, or some other launch; raising fire smoke not excluded though less likely) <br />
*When was the photo made? (Claimed to be couple of minutes after the MH 17 shootdown launch; but could be made on earlier days)<br />
*Where was the photographer, and where is than the 'launch site" Photograph claimed to be made in Torez (4 microdistrict?) . Claimed launch sites locations are [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/launch-location-detected-of-missile.html SE] or [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2107 NE] from the photographer. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
A site, or maybe a couple of locations, have now been forwarded, based on compelling evidence, as likely SAM launch sites of July 17 or thereabouts. This is worth careful consideration here. To start:<br />
<br />
* [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10984530/MH17-the-clues-which-may-lead-to-missile-launch-site.html UK Telegraph, July 22] This report with some detail and a photo visits a few areas where signs of possible BUK launcher movement and firing occurred recently. Caterpillar tracks, mostly light, signs of burning, various debris left behind, all or mostly "in the area of the town of Snizhnoye." These details might suggest whoever did this had multiple launchers set up in different areas that left as soon as the operation/accident was done. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
::So far, signs are saying it was just the one. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Below: The site shown on video, stitched panoramic view (with confusing curve). This helps get the fullest set of geo-location clues. I may even check if this is the same spot identified by Ukraine@War, below. It should be, or we might have two firing locations pretty near each other, which would be odd. The firing direction from here would be northwest, almost directly along MH17's flight path. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
[[File:MH17 Telegraph site.png|center|940px]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Launch Plume.png|right|340px]]Ukraine@War: [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/launch-location-detected-of-missile.html Launch location detected of missile that brought down MH17] The photo at right, cited by Kiev as proof of a BUK launch in the right area, July 17. The anlysis here looks good on first blush and lines the filming to northern Torez, plume on a line including a supposed patch of cat tracks just revelaed by fresh Google/GeoEye images of some fields [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Donetsk&hl=en&ll=47.989347,38.773155&spn=0.078813,0.195522&t=h&hnear=Donetsk,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&z=13 here] by Snizhne. As traced, the tracks look realistic to me. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: There is (a disappeared) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUvK5m2vxro BBC video ] suggesting that smoke is from a direction of Saur-Mogila (= constant fighting) and a coal mine. <br />
::Thus smoke may be unrelated to the launch. Also timing of photo is unclear. <br />
:: Buk trail from unrelated launch videos appears considerably [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDXScnEKaP0 more impressive than on the photo] , and traces well visible trajectory, likely attracting attention of many people . But there appears to be no witness reports. <br />
::Buk appears to use [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_navigation proportional navigation method], and if so, its navigation control will try to guide it on a straight path to impact.<br />
::Unless it was doing something else (but can it??? the answer requires expert knowledge), it was most likely on a straight line trajectory which can be deduced from the impact direction.<br />
--[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 00:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Yes, an odd video. I'm not certain they even picked the right view, but it looks about right - I think she and Oliphant (Telegraph) point to the same monument as a landmark - a place of fighting. Seems like they got close, but didn't have a specific spot like U@W picked, and didn't find anything. As for angle, I think it can maneuver around, but would prefer to fly straight (not an expert, don't know what "prefer" means here). And if it was hit head-on like the impact marks suggest, then it probably did fly just about straight into the jet. Obviously if it came over the wing, and was fired from here, it would have to curl around, but I don't think that's the case. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
<br />
The satellite images cited at Ukraine@War are available if you have Google Earth. As explained [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/satellite-images-reveal-how-buk-has.html here,] there's a .kmz package you can download [https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxEeOqcjSE5uQXlkWkxKeVhDaEk/edit here] that loads on Google Earth new, murky images from July 20 (but the display still says August, 2013). The tracks he highlights are visible, faintly. There are a couple sets perhaps connecting - some could be local paths - there's no recent enough images to say there weren't there July 16. One important missing thing is a patch of burnt grass it seems should show up up differently - it's not identified there, and not evident right around these tracks. From this, it's not a great fit, except that line of sight pointing here. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Plastic Debris 1.png|left|280px]]So is the Telegraph site and the Ukraine@War site the same thing? Well, the Telegraph article says they went to the spot identified on a blog, but found, as the image suggests: Two possible launch sites – a rundown collective farm and a nearby wheat field – showed some track marks but no sign of any rocket launch whatsoever." It was a farmer plowing his fields there who pointed them to ''a field nearby'' that burned the other day, and that 's the unclear site they show. "The location of the fire lies on the supposed flight path of the rocket, and track marks – though indistinct – are present. Some unidentifiable bits of green plastic littered the site of the fire." There were also discarded bottles (type unclear) and apparently this oddity, shown in a photo but not mentioned - soft bakelite-type plastic ... thing, with years in the 1980s and 1990s stamped in it. It's all near enough to the rebel town, the Russian border, and concealed rebel positions that they think only rebels could operate there. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
First, let's note that author "P. Martin" connects these possibly relevant tracks with the surveillance video showing the Buk launcher driving south The Telegraph spot, from the burnt grass, must the spot the exhaust pushed off from, and the burn line should probably be to the northwest. There's no sign of that alongside these track marks found on that visual line. That's a problem, as the exhaust never said a luncher was driving around thataway, but rather launching from thataway. <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Telegraph Spot Mapped.png|right|380px]][[File:MH17 Telegraph Spot Cleared.png|right|320px]]Rather, it's the nearby "Telegraph spot" - not quite on his line but close - that [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com/2014/07/exact-location-pinpointed-of-mh17.html Martin thinks is the EXACT location] That, he thinks, is in the next field south. It should be visible in the updated imagery, but it turns out this is just off the edge of the area they provided, so it can't be verified or ruled out based on that. The inset graphic shows this cut-off line, his previous possible firing locations (track-based, seemingly un-burnt, in yellow) The spot yields a best placement with coordinates already noted by Petri in a section [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Map#Buk locations and flight paths|here.]] (I picked out the spot myself, best guess, and got the same but 3 seconds east) It can't be checked like that for the telltale stripe to the northwest, but it looks pretty likely to me. The main view down the tracks (left half of the panorama above) would be looking south, and the near line of trees on the right running west. The pretty obvious tracks he identifies as likely launcher tracks, and they do seem to curve in where it stopped. Otherwise, to me, this has more the look of a pre-travelles semi-road on the line between fields. Either way, it probably drove that way, and fired from here, and not from the un-burnt spots north. All the tracks he notes, none certain in themselves, are supported in their possible relevance by this being what's at the end of the trail. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC) and [[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Added in November, the image below that. I noticed Google Maps had new post-crash imagery up, and re-checked the spot for burn marks, since it was just off the grid before. This replacement - overlayed with translucence - seems too late. The strip most likely to show the signs has apparently been harvested/cleared before this image Some will say that constitutes a coverup. And it might, but probably just out of stupid reflexive nervousness. I just wanted to measure its angle and stuff. There is a nice track right up to the spot, likely pre-existing and just unclear before, and what they used to get there. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Location Challenged ===<br />
<br />
The above stuff, as of now and as I've been running it mainly, seems to bear out the vaunted "social media sleuths" placing the launcher and probably the launch in "separatist-held territory." I agree with all locations provided, and times too. Everyone acknowledges date is less sure. There are compelling clues pointing to concrete firing spot, that seems to be lined up the hit the jet head-on, as it's starting to seem the airliner was hit. In this narrative, the questions people should be asking is who was really running that. But readings differ, and some differing views can be considered here. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* [https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByibNV3SiUoobnpCVDduaHVORHM/edit?usp=sharing MH17 Analysis] – CDN <br />
<br />
Petri posted this to the front page, a 25-page report with many graphics and explained reasoning. One of its conclusions, based on range to impact, mainly, meant that "the missile that downed MH17 was not fired from Snizhne." At the moment, I disagree. Petri, who is CDN, and are they soliciting feedback? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::The anonymous PDF was published via Saker's blog: [http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/08/detailed-expert-analysis-of-mh17-downing.html Detailed expert analysis of the MH17 downing] "CDN" has [http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/08/detailed-expert-analysis-of-mh17-downing.html?showComment=1407347983141#c8862773971299986141 responded] [http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/08/detailed-expert-analysis-of-mh17-downing.html?showComment=1407350196815#c7564049628743605813 twice] in the comments. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 00:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
I think these might be part of what threw the author(s) off:<br />
# the heading seems to be off, too southerly to trace back like that. At the end, maybe close enough<br />
# possibly too-wide debris field starting too early - final breakup likely E-NE of their spot (ie closer to in range)<br />
# Wrong presumed angle of impact <br />
# Lack of knowledge, specified on page 23, of this contrail image or, obviously, the supporting clues pointing to what might be "the Telegraph site" excluded here. "Why are there no images of the rebel missile and its impressive launch contrail?" Oops, there is and it point there. <br />
--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: I just skimmed it before coming here. It was posted [http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.de/2014/08/detailed-expert-analysis-of-mh17-downing.html over here] where you can join the discussion (which I haven't read yet just saw that Petri is there chiming in in comment 2 of currently 93). I think it's first valuable in presenting the known capabilities of the Buk etc. If your stuff above is true and it is one single truck with one single TELAR that was seen in the different locations, then it shows quite conclusively that the Telegraph position can not be the launching point, because even if the Ukie claim of disappearance from Radar 50km from the Russian border is not true, due to the position of the debris it could only be further away, not closer, which adds to the argument. My 2 cents for the moment. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
: Oh, not directly related to the critique, but driving around with a huge phone number that leads to a Titan security of all places is more than a bit suspicious, I'd say. ;o) --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: "the Telegraph position can not be the launching point" if my "stuff above is true and it is one single truck with one single TELAR that was seen in the different locations" - how? "because even if the Ukie claim of disappearance from Radar 50km from the Russian border is not true, due to the position of the debris it could only be further away, not closer, which adds to the argument." Huh? I think the field is placed really vaguely in that report, and that's what sets the impact point - it looks maybe kilometers off, to the west. Placed right, the implied impact point is further east, ie closer to the launcher. It is a valuable report, but that point should be re-checked more carefully before I could be convinced to write off all the other evidence pointing there. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::: Take a careful look at pages 9 and 10 of the PDF. Place the spot to where you think it's "right". Think how that would change the picture. The argument is based on the empirical location of the debris and unless I've missed some serious flaw in the numbers and basic calculations made on the pages leading to that, I think it's by rule of thumb a very sound argument. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 13:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::: I'll do my own soon - I can say it would end further east, relative to the border there, and probably start further east too, but maybe I'm unaware of some outlying debris - but first a though on the debris field I just had, even more relevant than size and placement - what does it actually say re: the plane? He presumes it would follow the trajectory east. Not much, really. With only so much momentum and breaking up, with five miles to fall, the main factor will be wind. Even a breeze has five miles to act on it. That was so with PA 103 - the wind was about perpendicular to the path, and that determined just where stuff scattered on a line across the borders area right to the north sea - only the cockpit and a few things were off much from that line. Here, if it blewa along the flight path, the reasoning would work fine. If it blew back, to the west, the plane was probably shot further east than the field suggests. Ie, closer yet to in range. The Zuhres video above shows wind apparently to the northwest, and pretty strong. Worth a review and re-think in that light. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 14:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::: With an initial speed of 907 km/h I see no reason to take wind into serious account. I see no reason at all for going into more detail in this rule of thumb argument, not on the debris, not on the alleged launching point. But I'm as always looking forward to what you can come up with. ;o) --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::: btw there's no exact calculation of the traveled distance of the falling pieces, it's just found plausible resulting from other data. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::::: There's good reason. [http://martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/PA103_debris.gif past precedent.] I did read it wrong - the blue oval is about right, I thought the scale by it, which is way off. That's the 20 km drift - if the wind was blowing due east at the right speed... to the near edge of the oval and 30 km to the far edge... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 15:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 four last points.png|center]]<br />
<br />
Debris fields as shown in MH17 WSJ data combined.jpg. The two tracks, 118 per Flightradar24 and other sources, and 111 from a Russian graphic (see label C), just in case. They cross at point E just to look cool - superimpose wherever to visualize a track-back on these or any line between. <br />
<br />
The four red "last points", eyeballed onto the map as shown in the various graphics used here (all pretty approximate): <br />
<br />
A: last return, flightradar 24 (erred, I think, way too far along - I suspect some inherent offset...)<br />
<br />
B: Russian ATC last return, '50 km' from the border (vague description, likely close to accurate)<br />
<br />
C: end of 111 track shown in MH17 radar 1.png (maybe arbitrary, lower resolution)<br />
<br />
D: report, deduced point of impact (presuming 20-30 km flight due east after impact, wind app. not considered at all)<br />
<br />
E: My guess for breakup point, where the damaged front came apart (should maybe be further east, right over the south part of the first orange blob). Actual impact point, an unclear distance back. probably not very far - downward flight could start anytime after that, decreasing the lateral distance traveled) . <br />
<br />
The cockpit, aerodynamic, shows the most like forward trajectory of this, relatively minimal wind complication. The heavy forward parts had more drag, wound up NW of there. A bit further NW, the light, high-drag, punctured upper fuselage. That these parts aren't spread further out suggests the jet managed to descend some ways before the front totally fell apart, and/or that the wind was fairly light. From there, most of the plane remained together, kept more momentum and little wind effect, and crashed kilometers east. The last part of this plummet, about one minute seen on video, it was nose-free and essentially nose-diving. A slight north trend, perhaps curtailed eastward progress, largely just down, leaves it all hitting together by Hrabove, scattering woth the fireball trajectory and wind deciding where these bits landed. That it only got so far from the forward parts again suggests this breakup was fairly low in the fall - maybe just before the start of the one video. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I'd say forget point D, it is way too far west, this plane was not going to fly 25km once hit. On debris, I'd put breakup where the "f" is in your word "forward" and impact not very far NW of that, lifting the whole 118 line a little northwards. You can't bring breakup below impact and count on wind pushing wreckage "uphill" because that first group of wreckage included 37 bodies, which would not "sail". The impact would be enough to knock the course slightly south, to drop the cockpit at Rozspyne, where it turned NE to end up at Grabovo. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 03:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Thanks. D is the presumed point used to rule out this launch location, the original point of this sub-section. That dot fails by a good margin. My E and your guess are both north of the flight path, along which all the red dots are (this graphic is confusing, needs updating, if I didn't flatten it). I was thinking a NNW wind did the north and west spreading, but the records say the wind was flat "east" (to the west). I'm left suspecting now the plane banked hard left just before it started breaking up. Actual impact, just before that. The "C" label is pretty arbitrary, but it keeps seeming about right. On the imagined red line 1t 117-118, I dunno, maybe 20-30 pixels back. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::Winds are described as 'from' not 'to. So a wind blowing to the NNW is reported as a SSE wind.<br />
::::A slip - I'm trying to say it that way now. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::Getting on to the wind. The actual breeze direction is usually a function of altitude - veering or backing from ground level observation. It can easily be 90 degrees out from ground level. You need to look at the vertical profile used in aeronautical soundings to see where debris will in the main blow to. --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 11:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::Sounds like a real headache to map. There's also changes over time, where east at 5:00 may change briefly ten minutes later, or 10,000 feet up. All that seems can be counted on is easterly winds in general - no exception to that. And generally, even if they measure it at the airport, it must extend up to the clouds, which can be seen swirling east over the area. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::No it doesn't extend to the clouds except by accident. Major direction change can happen in hundreds of metres altitude especially at night. Examples of wind shift between ground level and 700 millibars (9800 ft) in day time can show a direction change of 90 degrees - e.g. North to West. This is significant with MH17 where the breakups occurred between 33,000 feet and probably a few thousand feet for the final disintegrations. --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 11:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::FYI Here is all about [http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/48/ Veering and Backing] --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 11:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::As for the spread issue, I'm re-thinking it. As for the bodies, it depends on a few things but I take your point - bodies are dense. And I didn't know that detail - worth considering. Also a sad side-note: most bodies would be alive and aware, from what I learned looking at Lockerbie. Lack of O2 would black them all out at first, but gravity makes it so there's enough in that final stretch those not dead already (the lucky few) would probably "wake up" in time to both feel their injuries and their fall, and to see the "separatist-held" fields rushing up to kill them. :( ---[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::: My indications are they were all dead when they hit the ground. That's not to say some didn't suffer from the first blast up there. Using my (very long ago) rescue triage training, I examined all the body photos for type of injury. The main findings were (a) almost no blood (as the separatist intercepted call rightly claimed) (b)a lot of legs at angles suggesting hip/pelvic fracture (a very common injury in air crashes to people wearing seat belts) and (c) all the bodies appear swollen (in first-day photos). We are thinking of what happened as a decompression, a low-pressure event. But that was preceded by the blast detonation of the missile just outside... a high-pressure event. The very high pressure shock wave compresses the blood vessels and severely damages the lungs. Blood pressure and heart rate go sky high trying to compensate. In 1/2 a second the blast wave is gone and they are in decompression.The heart can't adjust fast enough. The lack of blood flow makes the brain and liver swell up, too, so normal blood circulation cannot be re-established even if the heart recovers. The Lockerbie bomb, and various exploding fuel tank cases, were lower pressure explosions; sadly many would have survived those until ground/water impact.[[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 20:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::So there is evidence of blast wave, not _just_ decompression alone? But no shrapnel wounds? --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 21:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::(cut my comment - I had misread - taken to [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Debunked topics#Bloodless bodies – fake Facebook profiles?|bloodless bodies spot]] FWIW - but I disagree with both the lack of blood and the validity of many "separatist" communications, but if we're not arguing a planeload of corpses being shot down, I won't argue it much.) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
More to the point, leaving the above graphic aside, would be this newer one I should finally add. Basic straight path, 118 and placed as agreed by most sources. Alleged launch location, measures app. My best guess is a 2 km range from 22.75 to 24.75, weighted to the center. Or most likely about 23.75 km out (irrespective of actual projectile flight path, that's where it made contact, but this helps visualize how the alleged launch site might line up with [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Forensics#Direction of projectiles?|the directional forensics]]). --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
[[File:MH17 missile intercept distances.png]]<br />
::Straight line from launch is okay. But impact has to be further north, ie before the most westerly debris. You've used the map which assumes that debris to be blown back by wind. That can't be right, as it included bodies (too dense to blow back) and witnesses saw them and plane sections falling straight down. This only makes about 1 mile difference to the missile range, so does nothing to exclude that launch location. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 01:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::The map of spread is only app., some orange area I made. The pink dot and lines are from a map, Russian analysis, as you say apparently presuming a SSE wind. Debris including people ''would'' be blown back to some degree, all of it, varyingly; trajectory can only do so much when you have five miles of falling, with the breezes acting the whole time, and the lightest parts will be back a bit, whatever direction and as mentioned above, a SSE winds at some time or altitude still isn't ruled out at all). Do we know just where in that area those passengers landed, and what types of things are its far end? ? <br />
(<br />
:::I mean, you could be right and it's a bit further back, maybe with a continuation due east from there and no real wind effect except slightly back. It was only 9-12 mph, and maybe it fell halfway before starting to fall apart, which means less spread. I'm thinking about a possible left turn to explain the north aspect, or it could be wind, or being further back (more north, as well as west), or a combination. The turn has to be a certain size, the wind direction is not certain aside from east prevailin, ... whatever point best explains whatever happened ... we're down to a shrinking agreed range, and as you say, it's all within range of the one spot, so it's not ruled out after all. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 04:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
At this stay of play, I feel it will be helpful to have displayed prominently an overall map reflecting best guess on impact location as well as already flagged suspected launch sites, that is the two launch sites we have been discussing (near Snezhny ; near Chernukhino) , PLUS launch locations flagged and TIMED by released satellite data (currently only Russian data is available). I would be generous with the range here, we can find range suggested by public sources but presumably actual range depends on a number of things (height, radar range, trajectory, wind), and may exceed the "official" range. Another useful graphics piece info would be indicating the front lines, if there is a way to have those known. '''I would be extremely cautious with displaying graphics reflecting just one way of thinking (whether "worst", "best", or "middle of the way"), for the reason that any graphics is easy for human brain to absorb, more than words spread out on all our numerous pages, and ''no graphics at all'' is better than displayed ''skewed'' graphics.''' One-sided graphics may be '''inviting''' even more noise releases "supporting" some already skewed scenarios, and I feel that was already happening way too often. I feel that most helpful stance at this point would be as neutral as it gets. (Regarding trajectories, a default guess is a straight line, anything else requires an explanation. Straight line is implied so no strong need to actually display it, especially if it ends up curling in suggestive funny ways on graphics). --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 09:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::I've been doing a lot of graphics, so not all fired up for more. But if you are, I wouldn't mind making another if it helps. Maybe this is best taken to [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Map#Interception Location]] (a lot of this is redundant, and I might move it, but at least I can say let's stop piling intercept stuff here as well as there). Up to picking a certain spot around Chernukino? Some outskirts area, on a major road, it'll be a guess. A couple guesses could be mapped. Also, if it seems worth it, I can do updates and upload the new version as needed. Any timed satellite launches, let me know. Front lines, not known and IMO misleading in this case. Those who would know would try - and maybe manage - to sneak this thing behind them... the caution about leading labels, I can leave to you - you could just tell me what to put. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
:::::Would take me forever, may try later on, but not immediately; some cleanup/re-arrangement seems the easiest option. (If there are tools for collaborative mapping, may be good to start using those; but not aware of any) --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 11:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The preliminary [[Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Dutch preliminary report|Dutch report]] says the flight recorders were suddenly lost at 13:20:04 UTC at a point that almost exactly matches the 22.6 km mark. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 22:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Plume Location Re-challenged ===<br />
There is another video, essentially giving a bellingcat in voice-altered Russian. We discussed all that essentially; but he seems at least to end up with a claim for geolocation for the plume photo. Seems to be a new one (or I forgot the old one already by now). The claim is based on [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2055 unrelated panoramic photo] somebody took nearby, and [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2025 claimed to be geolocated by presenter]. Here it is on <br />
[http://maps.yandex.ru/-/CVG0nLo~ yandex map] ; it is taken from a terricon located at Lutuginskii bugor(=hill). There is a cableway from there to TsOF (remember, Khuevyi Torez tells about cableway from Lutugino to TsOF, so here they are); [http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=48.012722&lon=38.665695&z=14&m=b&show=/10590043/ru/ЦОФ-им-Киселёва TsOF is central enrichment plant]; photos from TSOF do show a similar [http://photos.wikimapia.org/p/00/00/62/81/85_big.jpg cableway] . So based on that and an audio of locals of unknown provenance and authenticity, discussing a missile-looking trail in the direction of [http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=48.041767&lon=38.741055&z=14&m=b&show=/18687650/ru/Химмаш Khimmash], our presenter [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2107 ends up] with this [http://maps.yandex.ru/-/CVG0rMnO claimed plume location] , somewhere near this Mochalino village. And apart from this, his contribution to the topic is the claim of a white spot on the other side of 3'2 Buk which he claims to match on the way out. I do not believe all those Buk sightings were taken on the same day, and so do not believe in the overall glue-up of the story, but geolocating the plume, no matter what the plume is, remains legitimate. This author gives his answer to that question. Is this geolocation correct? I do not know, it is not tight, there are lots of cableways out there I presume, and some posts nearby are not too unusual. I do not see a tight fit between Lutuginski bugor photo and the plume photo--some elements do match, but those are obviously not identical places. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 02:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Excellent. Let's keep the title. But I guess you just forgot the previous location. This is the same view. The plume could be added, but I doubt it, and it's to that view at a consistent time on a consistent day. I'm not convinced ''all'' Buk sightings are same day, but most of them being so is a good fit with this plume that way, and a plane down with damage that seems consistent to me. (I hate this case) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::Are you sure it's the same? This new one is NNE from Torez, I thought it was placed SE from Torez by [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/launch-location-detected-of-missile.html U@W ]--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::Going back to check, this is a different filming location proposed. Line of sight isn't included, but it seems to be the same line over the same area to the same place. Even before he could see the distinctive mound, Petros (U@W) had [http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-cfSqhRb2dKo/U80x2OxK1XI/AAAAAAAATNk/r42WpH-Bf-Q/s1600/missile+trail+9.jpg this lineup], which includes this spot. Right where Petros pic says "trees" is what this guy decided were the foreground trees where it was filmed. I wondered when checking but decided on the further version. And seems to be the same result either way. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::I don't think this is accurate, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2107 video at this timestamp] gives 'место пуска ракеты' (launch location) near [http://maps.yandex.ru/-/CVGgVPJN Molchalino]. I have not seen this elsewhere, I only seen the one claimed to be SE of Torez. He does not discuss filming location, but shows it on video and assumes it is in Torez near the terricon, which is close to what other sources assume. He does show the line of site on the video; it is nearly perpendicular to U@W. Lots of terricons, coalmines (so likely cableways), and power lines leading there in this area, so location now seems uncertain. As I understand, no solid evidence for either of these two being the correct geolocation (those cableways seems to be quite common) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::::I am/was confused then. I thought it showed a SW view, just from closer to the mound. Now I see at 33:45 a view from right by it, looking NE? Can't explain the other one you see in the distance in the fuller view (right ?) That's kind of towards Molchalino, but that won't explain anything I suspect. (and what a bad fake or odd coincidence to have a plume up there and a the Buk tracking imagery lead to south of Snizhne, oops!) We'll see south and west faces of buildings if looking NE, so sun will be shining from well east of south, but also quite high, like mid-day in the early AM - or maybe just earlier mid-day, like 11 am. That would be another sloppy mistake. I doubt the details will line up. BUT a couple minor things didn't quite seem to the other way, so maybe worth a try (later). --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I will send this comment also to<br />
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/01/27/is-this-the-launch-site-of-the-missile-that-shot-down-flight-mh17<br />
The US map launch location can best best and almost exactly located from the last magnified picture:<br />
https://wp4553-flywheel.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/32.jpg<br />
That location is here:<br />
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.9571993,38.7466343,488m/data=!3m1!1e3<br />
The triangulation result in the last 3 pictures of the article introduces unnecessary error and clearly does not match the magnified picture.<br />
There is a structure that looks similar to an airfield and it is just south of Chervony Zhovten (=Oktyabr), matching with a witness observation in that place ("it was flying as if from Saurivka", though not matching 2 other witnesses in the zello audio, indicating it came from government held positions further south, [2:00] "Well, it appears everybody saw where the missile has flown from." [2:04] "Well, where you are, everybody saw it, but the Ukrainian media, as usual, will say, will say that that were us.")<br />
It would be outside the range of the plume picture geolocation bounds, which may be either an error given the long distance, or, the plume picture was taken the day before from the reported grad missile launch (as well as the burned field). (The photographer gave his camera to the SBU after twittering the first picture, so later pictures and dates can not be taken for sure).<br />
http://7mei.nl/not-buk-m1-new-video-proof/--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 19:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:(1) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkCcCmYlMZc That audio], as it turns out, was posted by Torezinfo on 24 July, and updated on 1 February. Torezinfo is a favorite posting place of Khuevyi Torez(=KT), who posted a very [https://twitter.com/WowihaY/status/489914266439671808 similar location map on 17 July already]. KT mentions zello recordings on 25 July in the follow-up, so shortly after it gets on torezinfo. With all that stuff linked to this KT poster, I would not put much trust that any of that is genuine. (Or that this KT poster is not acting as a medium for SBU). (2)[http://fr1.sidcdn.net/maps/nsdc/2014/07/large/map-nsdc-2014-07-17-uk-w3000.jpg Ukrainian map] does give us some Ukrainian held area somewhere to the South, but from that map it is hard to tell where exactly opolchenie ends and UAF begins--(I would not know) (3) Actually, going from there, not likely to hit on the left side--so having it from Artemovsk (as Bezler told, indeed) seems most probable --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 21:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:: Here is another map http://liveuamap.com/e/2014/16-of-july-saurivka-is-bombarded-over-and-over-by-rus-grad?ll=47.907137219641115;38.75392913818363&zoom=8<br />
::And here is an article which says that both Marinovka and Tarany were held by National guard. http://www.interpretermag.com/ukraine-liveblog-day-149-russian-tanks-and-artillery-reach-donetsk/#3353<br />
::I just opened bellingcat https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/01/27/is-this-the-launch-site-of-the-missile-that-shot-down-flight-mh17 and see that large parts of the article disappeared, I think they are working on it. That location given by the US photo does not really match well with the plume direction anymore, lets see what they come up with--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 21:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::I believe Marinovka was [http://lifenews.ru/news/136715 taken by opolchenie on 16 July] (lifenews report). Tarany--do not know, perhaps still Ukraine, but not totally sure. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 21:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::: other sources say attack was repelled and forced them to retreat to Stepanivka http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_in_Shakhtarsk_Raion http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/213817.html--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 22:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::: That US photo launch location differs by an angle of about 11 (?) degrees from the brown line in the bellingcat plot (measured from the photographer's location). https://wp4553-flywheel.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/101.jpg (launch location is just visible below the letter 'p' of 'the word 'suspected'). I think this a lot and puts the 'plume' into question. But then there is only the US photo, which itself could be a production based on social media (or worse).--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 22:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Well some believed this is for real, then they got a case to answer [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/22/mh17-us-intelligence-russia-separatists-report Guardian: Photograph: US intelligence community] [https://twitter.com/barbarastarrcnn/status/491559153559932928/photo/1 @barbarastarrcnn] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
In the following, I assume that most of the social media pieces and leaked audio tapes are correct and connect the dots in a different way:<br />
<br />
1. On July 14, an Ukrainian Antonow 26 airplane was shot down by a missile near the Russian border town of Donetsk.<br />
http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/what-weapon-was-used-to-shot-down-ukraine-air-force-antonov-26-at-july-14/<br />
The video in above link showed the missile flying for 39 seconds until it hit. Only a BUK can fly that long, a manpad or Pantsir, also claimed to have been used, not (see first comment in link).<br />
<br />
2. According to a recorded audio tape published by the Ukrainian Secret Service SBU, rebels possessed a BUK ('BUK3x2') in the Donetsk area at least since July 14 ('we already have BUK'). At that date it may have been either on Russian or already rebel held territory.<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVAOTWPmMM4<br />
<br />
3. A social media search discovered only one other system in the area, capable of shooting down AN26 - a Pantsir. However, a Pantsir can't fly for 39 seconds. Based on a max.speed of 780m/s and max range of 20km, it can only fly for about 25s.<br />
http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.co.nz/2014/11/unnoticed-video-of-26-downing-confirms.html<br />
Therefore and because of the crew's intent to engage in the civil war, it is likely that AN26 was shot down by BUK3x2. Afterwards BUK3x2 had only 3 missiles left.<br />
<br />
4. On July 16, Ukrainian and rebel statements both confirmed the shoot down of a SU-25 plane near the "Marinivka border crossing", which is only a few kilometers south-south east of Pervomaiske, the destination of BUK3x2. Ukraine's defence ministry said: "It is likely that [the hit] was carried out by air-to-air rockets from the Russian air force which were patrolling the border in a pair." <br />
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-28345039<br />
This may have been another reason to install a BUK system in this area on the next day, leaving room for an accidental Ukrainian shoot down, apart from an accidental rebel shoot down and a willful Ukrainian false flag shoot down.<br />
<br />
5. On July 16, rebels fired grad missiles from a location near Pervomaiske. The plume may have been photographed as well by an SBU informant in Torez and twittered on the next day, claiming to show the launch of the missile hitting MH17.<br />
http://7mei.nl/not-buk-m1-new-video-proof/<br />
<br />
6. On July 17, BUK3x2 was seen in rebel territory on its way to Pervomaiske, south of Torez. Ukrainian SBU knew about the arrival latest since July 14 and about its destination latest July 17 morning, allowing a false flag operation from positions held nearby.<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVAOTWPmMM4<br />
<br />
7. There was an ongoing battle in the region with "fluent" contact lines. Marinivka and Tarany, about 8 kilometers south-east and south of Pervomaiske, were controlled by Ukrainian National Guard as well as all of the border region. Marinivka would match well with the direction of the Torez plume photo.<br />
http://liveuamap.com/e/2014/16-of-july-saurivka-is-bombarded-over-and-over-by-rus-grad?ll=47.907137219641115;38.75392913818363&zoom=8<br />
http://www.interpretermag.com/ukraine-liveblog-day-149-russian-tanks-and-artillery-reach-donetsk/#3353<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_in_Shakhtarsk_Raion<br />
<br />
8. The Russian Defense ministry claimed in a news conference, that on July 17, Ukraine installed several BUK system near rebel held areas.<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bNPInuSqfs#t=1567<br />
<br />
9. In a popular 'zello' audio recording, witnesses in the area were talking about the launch of the missile hitting MH17. A witness from "Oktyabr" (Chervony Zhovten) claimed "it was flying as if from Saurivka". <br />
Two other witnesses said:<br />
[2:00] "Well, it appears everybody saw where the missile has flown from."<br />
[2:04] "Well, where you are, everybody saw it, but the Ukrainian media, as usual, will say, will say that that were us."<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkCcCmYlMZc<br />
<br />
10. A Reuter's witness also claimed that the missile was fired from Kiev held territory. Reuters, however, said, "off camera, he said that it was launched from a nearby rebel site. Asked why originally he said the opposite he said it was because he was afraid of the rebels."<br />
In a new interview this witness claims that "off camera comments were just made up by the [Reuters] journalist".<br />
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=497_1427729491<br />
<br />
11. BUK3x2 was again photographed in Lugansk with its 3 missiles, no missile fired since July 14.<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4HJmev5xg0<br />
<br />
12. The US presented a very low resolution satellite photo with the track of a missile added. The launch location does not match well with the direction geolocated with the Torez plume photo, it deviates by about 11 degrees in angle, hence either or both appear to be incorrect.<br />
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/01/27/is-this-the-launch-site-of-the-missile-that-shot-down-flight-mh17/#comment-12493<br />
<br />
13. Award winning investigative journalist Robert Parry reported about leaked US intelligence "that U.S. intelligence agencies do have detailed satellite images of the likely missile battery that launched the fateful missile, but the battery appears to have been under the control of Ukrainian government troops dressed in what look like Ukrainian uniforms."<br />
https://consortiumnews.com/2014/07/20/what-did-us-spy-satellites-see-in-ukraine/<br />
And later Parry wrote: "But I’m now told that U.S. intelligence analysts ... are concentrating on the scenario of a willful Ukrainian shoot-down of the plane, albeit possibly not knowing its actual identity."<br />
https://consortiumnews.com/2014/08/03/flight-17-shoot-down-scenario-shifts/<br />
<br />
14. During the coming months BUK shrapnel may have been collected from the AN26 wreckage and planted in the MH17 wreckage.--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 00:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Photographer Statement===<br />
[http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com.au/2014/12/interview-with-eyewitness-who-made.html Reported to say] : "That day did not foretell anything special would happen. In the morning I woke up and went to my work. At four ó clock in the afternoon I arrived home. And at 16:20 we heard an explosion. The first explosion was not very heavy. 15 seconds later, something like that, there was a second explosion, which was louder and it made the windows shake."<br />
: Did not foretell --an ass, --is this lawyer-written? 'We heard". --Took till December to polish up ? --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 16:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:: Agreed. 'I did not know in advance this would happen.' Uh, who said you might? And 15 seconds must be rocket travel. Did he hear the firing from there? Could be, not that far. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Time delay consideration ===<br />
Photographer reported two sound booms td=15 seconds apart; an interpretation may be launch and impact sounds arriving to him in Torez. If P=(0,0,0) is photographer cordinates, I=(d,0, h) is impact, with d ground distance between Torez and Rozypnoe, h is the height of flight at 10 km , and L =(x,y,0) is launch location, dist(A,B) is Euclidean distance between A and B, c is peed of sound, and n (about 2.5) is missile speed in Machs, then<br />
<br />
(1). dist (P,L) = dist(L,I)/n + dist (I,P) - td*c <br />
<br />
(2). dist (P,L) >= h/n + dist (I,P) - td*c <br />
<br />
(1) is a biquadratic equation for y given x (square enough times for square root to disappear); plotting that gives a closed 'ellipse-like' curve on (x,y) plane; once on that curve, time delay is exactly td seconds (doing this involves solving quadratic equations and removing spurious solutions not satisfying (1) ) . That curve is at distance about 13 km in NW direction from photographer in Torez, and about 22 km in SE direction from him on the Southern ( Saur Mogila side). <br />
<br />
(2) gives a simple estimate that distance between photographer and launcher is greater than the known right hand side; that distance is more than something like 13 km<br />
<br />
(3) Requiring launch withing the range, --launch is not more than 20 km horizontally from the impact-- selects a NW arc of the curve described in (1) ; that arc is to the NW from Torez, and goes slightly NW from the impact point (meaning its ground projection). <br />
<br />
Conclusion, based on the above, is that launch is too far from the photographer, to match the photo. <br />
<br />
(Knowing exact time delay can tighten the argument. With what's actually known, and objection can be raised that whatever actual time delay was, it appeared to be 15 seconds to the photographer. Graphics of the curve may be supplied if needed). --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Ooh. That kind of math could really come in handy with recorded audio cues, for example. But based on '15 seconds, something like that,' from memory months later, I wouldn't put any weight on it. If that turns out correct and pretty exact, there's a good point. Otherwise, the photo and other stuff is more solid, and says it's just about where it should be, as far as I've seen anyway. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Contrail ==<br />
This is what an "impressive launch contrail" of a big missile might look like.<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3lLwP1y0w8 АТО. Запуск двух ТРК Точка-У. Артемовск.] (ATO. The launch of two TRK Tochka-U. Artemivs'k.) – August 28, 2014<br />
-- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 22:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Something happens in the sky. This is the people's reaction:<br />
* ''20/09/2014 Over many parts of the DPR and LPR were seen circles in the sky.'' [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7310 1,] [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7311 2,] [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7312 3,] [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7313 4,] [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7314 5]<br />
-- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 03:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
Tochka U missile is single stage solid fuel, which is a mixture of ammonium perchlorate with rubber and aluminum powder (Russian [http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/tochka/9ch151.shtml "ДАП–15В" fuel] ).<br />
I could not find information on Buk with a comparable level of detail. Buk missile is single stage, solid fuel of some type, "dual-mode solid propellant (total work time - about 15 seconds)" [http://www.webcitation.org/67kZeZxeh] , [http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-9K37-Buk.html]<br />
Earlier "Куб" ("Cube") missile used [http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/kub/kub.shtml 'ballist' fuel,] [https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%85#.D0.91.D0.B0.D0.BB.D0.BB.D0.B8.D1.81.D1.82.D0.B8.D1.82.D0.BD.D1.8B.D0.B5 gunpowder] + plasticiser type (Russian "ВИК-2") at the start, followed by some sort of ramjet ("direct flow rocket engine") at final stage. It is not clear, but possible, that fuels and contrails of Tochka U and Buk are different. Here are some videos with Buk launch: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDXScnEKaP0] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EAtNpsXrgWs], and [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSXMhaFntrU a longer with stupid music version]. Those videos appear to be shot from a closer distance than Tochka U video; and a contrail on them does look quite impressive. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 10:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:The amount of smoke is highly dependant om Alumin(i)um loading. In general more aluminum is more 'oomph' and also more smoke.<br />
:On the other hand, it's common to alter the loading for other reasons. I refer to the Syrian Volcano (122mm variety) that started out as high Al-load and quite smokey but recent versions have low Al load but perhaps similar characteristics? --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 10:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Here is something that might be a BUK: Ukrainian AN-26 shot down from Russian border area on July 14th. Ukraine@war claims it as a BUK. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 10:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
* [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.fi/2014/11/unnoticed-video-of-26-downing-confirms.html Unnoticed video of AN-26 downing confirms shot down from Russian territory] – Ukraine@war, November 27, 2014<br />
** Video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoS4kgHxPnE Ukrainian Military Aircraft Su-25 Downed After Russian Attack Near Izvarino, July 16]<br />
:::Does not look like Buk, short contrail, --not all the way to the ground like on Buk video launches. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::It was a BUK. It flew 39 seconds in the video, a Pantsyr can't do this, see also first comment in this link http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/what-weapon-was-used-to-shot-down-ukraine-air-force-antonov-26-at-july-14/. Easy maths - at Mach 3 (1020m/s) it can fly for about 42 seconds (range 42 km, bit more because initially it is slower). According to the audio tape, BUK 3x2 was in the area on that day! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVAOTWPmMM4 Ukraine@war needed 5 months to find something else in the area, but the Pantsyr can't fly that long. This is how BUK 3x2 likely lost a missile.--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 21:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::::Well, yes, it does takes 42 seconds to fly 42 km at 1000 m/s , but that does not mean what we see '''must be''' a Buk. They start discussing that plane caught fire at 0:03 on the video already. We do not see what on hell is going on until some 30 s later. This plane likely was brought down by Igla or similar modern MANPAD. Possibly two hits, at 0:03 and another at around 0:30. Or it got on fire at the start of the video and than eventually went down (It is unlikely to have SU 25 pilot bailing out after Buk strike; or particularly likely catching fire as it's not aiming at the engine; contrail is weak for a Buk, too). Pantsir claims are much later from what I have seen,--- and no need for Pantsir to shoot SU 25. ---If something is there on SBU audio and some murky photo, does not mean it's all for real, and that what we do actually see all have to be linked to all that murky SBU stuff. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 22:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::::There may be some confusion here, just a recapture<br />
::::::First video https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xTT6BDRA8_k<br />
::::::0:03-0:11 buring object <br />
::::::0:17-0:33 contrail making a half looping<br />
::::::Second video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoS4kgHxPnE<br />
::::::0:29-0:39 contrail making a half looping + detonation.<br />
::::::ukraine@war http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/11/unnoticed-video-of-26-downing-confirms.html<br />
::::::says both videos show AN26 shoot down on July 14 (second video with wrong label SU-25)<br />
::::::says 2nd video impact at 0:39, claims missile has been burning for at least 39 seconds--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 06:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::::::After reconsideration, I would say ukraine@war is right, both videos show AN26 shoot down, but wrong, people were initially watching AN26 with engine burning and a second missile was fired. That missile was seen burning about 16 seconds in first video, and time has to be added to reach that altitude/location, so likely over 20 seconds. That would exclude man-pad, Pantsir (?), likely BUK, R73 air-to-air, ...--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 06:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Actually, it is interesting to know how contrail of Buk on a long haul launch looks like. It is said that it fires engine for some 15 seconds only (and unknown will it do less, if it can do away with less). That 15 seconds need to put it at a spot where it can reach the target with little, if any, engine work and doing turns only. It is not very clear how much targeting happens in the first 15 seconds, likely it does some; and it is self-guided and doing proportional navigation later on. Knowing details here allows to find exact trajectory, short of that thinking it goes straight to the collision point is a sensible idea. In any case, heavy contrail '''raising from the ground''', perhaps higher than the target is. Contrail is white, and stays put for a while. Seriously heavier than the stuff we see on social media. There are youtube videos of Buk launches giving an idea --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:These 15 seconds are wrong. Here is a video (start at 2:00) showing a SA-11 burn fuel for 35 seconds until its too far to distinguish. It is detonating at 42 seconds. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBlU2hHYJMg (I just copied the comment from here http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/what-weapon-was-used-to-shot-down-ukraine-air-force-antonov-26-at-july-14/ )--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 23:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::That video probably shows a modern version ('over horizon' capability was mentioned somewhere regarding modern developments; this one seems to be showing us something like that). 15 sec is coming from Russian sources [http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/buk/buk.shtml Зенитная ракета 9М38 выполнена с применением двухрежимного твердотопливного двигателя (общее время работы - около 15 секунд)]. Older versions also had shorter listed range. 22-25-35-42 km range, going through modifications. (Would be happier without 15 sec engine limit actually-easier to know trajectory) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::Actually what goes off is [https://digitalempire.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/9m38m1.jpg 9M38M1], the one supposed to have [http://pvo.guns.ru/buk/buk_02.htm 15 sec engine run], but the video lasts for 40 sec. This appears to be edited video, around 2:30 we got two tracks, than one slides right unreasonably for a natural recording. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 02:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::Since this is a point we haven't already covered around that I know of, I'll pop in for it. 42 seconds I gather is the time for the fuel to burn out and the thing to fall, like a grad rocket or the like can only do. But this is a missile with guidance, set to intercept a moving airliner. Therefore, app. 40-45 seconds is the longest, not the shortest, it can fly (or am I just confused?) But 15 seconds is plausible, depending. Still might be untrue, not trusting people saying stuff. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::::After the engine is off it is high up and and at high speed, still can fly until gravity acceleration brings it down, and is on guided flight -unlike Grad-because fins can move causing it to turn. Issues here are visuals (contrail all the way or only about 15 km in flight), and trajectory. With engine on for 40 +secs it will go straight to collision point doing proportional navigation all the way (exploding earlier if it needs to be). If it is only 15 sec, trajectory is less clear, it may for example use engine to climb high up, than do guided fall and proportional navigation to the target from a spot where engine delivered it (for low and close-by target, that may potentially end up with a hit from another side--some drawings from unclear sources were showing opposite side hits at under 1 km and direct hits at 10-15 km). Or it may use engine to end up on a ballistic trajectory hitting target (no side changing than). This is solid fuel engine so there is not much control on how quickly it burns off, that time is a set design feature. What we see on launch video is 40+ seconds of engine work-- will go direct to collision point in that case. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 12:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::::That's another clue that plume of smoke photo is not a Buk launch, that would give at least some 10-15 km worth of contrail, not a plume; with 40+seconds engine, contrail all the way to impact...(or else, launched from far away, over 40 km distance) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 12:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==About accents==<br />
<br />
[http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29109398 This report,] released one day before the preliminary official report, recycles visual imagery already discussed on this page, and attempts a new claim that a BUK crew spoke with Russian-'Muscovite' accent. The claim is made by (British-accent) actors representing 'eyewitness(es)', with a visual imagery of a car at unknown night-lighted location in the embedded video, and some text, provided in English. Regarding 'Muscovite' accent, first it is not easy to tell, for example [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBCfmlMkYMg this video] is Mr. Poroshenko speaking in Russian to a resident of Crimea, replying in Russian, and commented by a presenter, who is speaking 'Muscovite'. Although Mr. Poroshenko has a slight southern accent, there is little difference between the three speakers in practice. Moreover, actors and presenters can easily switch from Southern to Muscovite as required. <br />
<br />
Secondly, if somebody speaks 'Muscovite', this does not mean this person works for Russia or the rebels,--- he can work for any side (PS. No change of condition to the blue dumpster on Zuhres video was reported in this latest update). --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Thanks for bringing this. What a stupid report. "Three eyewitnesses, all civilians, separately told Panorama that they saw a missile-launcher in rebel-held territory a few hours before the Boeing jet was hit." Yeah, video shows the same. It was there. It probably shot down the plane. Accents, as you note, aren't the best indicator of anything, and even the reason sounds vague: the G thing, which even I know about (back to Olga/Olha). The "Russians" might even be Russian dissident mercenaries right from Moscow, for all we know. Who paid them? Their going up to the media and saying "you didn't see us" was not a good plan to stay secret. The witnesses: chosen at random? Directed to them? <br />
::''If correct, the Kremlin has to explain to the relatives of the 298 passengers and crew who died - including ten Britons - why Russian military personnel were allegedly seen in the area escorting a BUK shortly before MH17 was shot down.''<br />
:I think Russia could come up with a reason or two such allegations are made. Those ten Britons' tax dollars fund it. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: Hmm, this foreigner is confused by dat BBC talk: "If correct" ... doesn't that mean it ''wouldn't be'' merely "allegedly" but, well, correct? ;oP --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 23:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::It means "If {made up vague allegation) is correct....then "SHOCK HORROR CONCLUSION IS TRUE". this lets them be as wild or wide off the mark as they like and the magic "if correct" turns it true. Without any effort to check if it IS true in our understanding of that word.[[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 03:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::Another BBC weapon in its arsenal of innuendo and dissimulation is the quotation mark. Whenever they are dealing with something of dodgy provenance, or something of good provenance they want to weaken they put it in quotation marks. e.g. - ISIS beheaded 20 Syrians. becomes ISIS 'beheaded 20 Syrians' or 'ISIS' beheaded 20 Syrians or ISIS 'beheaded' 20 'Syrians' or ISIS beheaded '20' Syrians. No need for corrections later. Any version can be retrospectively justified or otherwise. --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 03:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== If Buk 3x2 Was in Russia ==<br />
Previously, it seemed quite likely the Buk launcher associated with the shoot-down was one of those owned and operated by the Kiev regime, simply snuck into separatist territory, maybe with some cover to make them even invite it in like a Trojan Horse. Then, I saw the November Bellingcat research on "Buk 3x2." As covered [[#Bellingcat and 3x2|above,]] this claims to match that unit with a distinct one seen three weeks earlier, driving in a military convoy well inside Russian territory. This is widely taken as clear proof the Russian military supplied the weapons, and it is strongly indicative of that. However, the general possibilities are worth laying out at this point.--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
All options below share these presumptions: <br />
* MH17 was brought down by the missing SA-11 missile AND/OR (in some cases) at least the launcher's appearance was coordinated to give that impression and is a clue to the plot <br />
* The videos and photos in question are genuine and not manipulated (my usual presumption, same here)<br />
* The Russia geolocations (many of them, making sense in context) are correct - Buk 3x2 as seen was seen in Russia, between Kurk, Stary Oskol, and a bit south of there (not verified but most likely correct) <br />
<br />
Presuming all that:<br />
* Buk 3x2 (seen in Russia) and the mystery one are not the same - this require paint job match and matching damage to the lip above the track to make a Kiev-owned unit look like that one. It's possible, but not the most compelling.<br />
* The two units are the same - it was in the convoy in Russia and also towed around Donetsk oblast July 17. <br />
<br />
If the unit is the same, there are a few possibilities for the nature of that connection, some of them silly or just there for logical fullness:<br />
* It was Kiev's unit and they snuck it over and into this convoy, and...<br />
** ... got it back later<br />
** ... the Russians kept it and used it for their own operation<br />
* It was Kiev's but some other way lost to the Russians <br />
* It was Russia's but Kiev managed to sneak over and steal it out of the convoy and then use it for the false-flag event<br />
* Same, but Donbass rebels then stole it from Kiev <br />
* It was Russian, and someone on the Russian side drove it over and then it was stolen by Kiev forces <br />
* Someone on the Russian side drove it over and it stayed in their control or handed over to their chosen parties, or transferred at the border - that is, no Kiev interference.<br />
<br />
So far, I'm inclined to call Bellingcat's reading (the last option, the widely accepted one) the single most reasonable one, though maybe outweighed by the ''combined'' alternatives. It's not fun to feel almost swayed to a view so close to Kiev's problematic narrative, but this is what I see, pretty basic. Some combined maybes go against the straightforward reading. As for other thoughts I might be missing, well, that's partly why it's here. Let me know, I'm all ears. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Starting from that reasonable if unproven last option, not one but three final types of possibility remain. If it was freely moving in convoy inside Russia, it probably belongs to Russia at the time. Presumed. However, it could be that...<br />
* '''A rogue officer''' at Kursk - maybe a closet Nazi who sympathizes with Kiev, hates Putin, or just took a bribe - provided this unit to Kiev. He would set up this convoy to anchor the thing in Russia, then send the shady unit on, with his own guys or to hand off to Kiev's, who took it from there as I've speculated. The strangely obvious manner it was displayed - on both sides of the border, with its number slowly fading away - is consistent with this motive + intelligence. <br />
* '''It happened as reported''' (one way or another) Putin's military signed off on the loan, apparently with a sent crew or maybe given to local handlers, who for their own purposes did fire that shot. The strangely obvious manner it was displayed is consistent with this + stupidity/sloppiness, providing proof that probably wasn't even needed, just helpful, to start the punishment. At that point, it would be a real problem about as trumpeted, and still I would suggest we consider what the real crime is under the circumstances, if the solutions pursued are fair, or if this is all just geo-politics and warfare by other means cloaked in a cynical disguise of concern for justice. ^ <br />
* '''Koo-koo (?):''' "as reported plus" - a mega conspiracy theory: it goes all the way to the top, and Putin is that rogue general selling the nation out, to demonize himself and Russia and be sure to get caught, in an elaborate staged play - Putin (or whoever's running things presumed to be run by HIM) is somehow controlled, his opposition scripted and ultimately geared towards provoking and achieving an expansion of "The West" into "The North." (I've always considered this possible, and one that's occurred to me more lately, and seems worth listing ... but I don't buy it. I'm going with "rogue officer" with a second bet on one of the other divergence points listed before that - unspecified. Third choice is "as reported.")--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::^ Not to apologize for egregious behavior if it really is that, but let's please compare this to the shoot-down of Iran Air 655 by the USS Vincennes in 1988. A US Naval ship illegally in Iranian waters shot down an Iranian passenger plane with 290 people aboard, despite all the safeguards and sensors working correctly (the consistent clues the ship's computers gave them saying "do not shoot" can only be overridden so totally by choice). But it was deemed by the US to be no crime, just accident and Iran's fault for being provocative, and useful in the effort to compel them to quit the war with Iraq they were just starting to win. In Ukraine, repeated Air Force attacks on rebel-held cities, often hiding their jets behind civilian airliners, might both justify arming the rebels with such defensive weaponry, and invite an honest mistake from a team running this machine in stand-alone mode. The SBU version however overrides this all: it was an accident, but the Russians' intent was never defensive, always planning to kill an airliner, just meaning it to be a different one. That would clearly be criminal in all regards, and it's a sub-set of "as reported" - not a very good one. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Sorry, I can't help you here as I don't share your presumptions. I consider it a waste of time and energy to connect dots that are laid out by "sources" like the SBU and Brown Noses - proven liars and at least in case of the former producers of fraud "evidence" - and therefore I didn't even read your logical chains based on them. Just saying to not make it appear that I agree. ;o) --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 10:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:Poking at specific presumptions could be helpful, but it all could go on and on and remain inconclusive anyway. And I take back what I say about leaning this way or that - I keep leaning different ways and on balance I'm feeling sort of weightless here. I think that comes through in the text... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I don't see the numbers matching, getting close is not good enough, and I quit it there. Yes, it is weird that they are close, and that this murky business is covered by Spiegel, but can't really help with any of that. There is lots of murky weird stuff going on all the time, can't change the whole world to stop it. (Also: the Russian Government would be fully capable of doing a painting job properly if deciding to starting painting at all, their food trucks are all nicely painted, etc; just too sloppy for them to be behind) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:The paint being what it is, between that and the bend and light patch below all lining up, I think we're down to the same unit, or faked to match, and the possibilities branching off those two. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::As discussed earlier, the dot is shifted off the middle, more on Russian video than in PM photo; in Russian video, number 2 has well-curved semi-circle; in PM, it is almost straight segment. Bad photos for comparison but it's off, as far as it's possible to tell. As for the skirt bend, too blurry and distorted on PM to tell; Russian video, I think it is actually dirt, not a bend. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Also, looks like two squares , a bit darker than background, over first digit in PM photo. Unclear is it paint or digital camera effect. Any sane person hiding something will paint over everything, not paint just specifically over the first digit. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::I think I got everything linesd up - it has to be de-skewed the same, and all ines up. You might be scraping bottom on this one. The curve is there, at its elongated part, at an angle. The dent/dirt looks the same, same place, relative to the light patch and all else. It's too much for coincidence by a couple of degrees. BUT I just shifted back to option ... should have numbered them. ... the middle starting option - image authenticity. I hardly ever call digital image fakery, and not calling it here, but... I still haven't checked the new (to us) June videos, so I'll stay presuming it might be okay - video's harder to fake than a photo. But on the other end, it all comes down to the one photo. That I noticed, no other views are close enough to say if these matching clues are present. (the bend, maybe). The squares you noticed, maybe a paint clue or just artifacting. It may too pixelly. I cannot really analyze the technicals properly to say. It looks okay, but possibly fishy too. Maybe the dirty windshield helps hid the painted in pixels to make this thing - just once - or maybe again in other images - look like that Russian 3x2 unit, exaggerated and going into rebel hands... Some kind of coincidences setting that up to work, but it's possible, and an expert should look closer at this picture. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC) <br />
::::I, --at the very start of discussion,-- zoomed picture on screen (by a lot), and measured length ratios (to the dot/ total panel length), parallel to the 2 sides of the panel, using ruler (millimeters one) over screen. I ended up with ratios in horizontal side of panel directions were off, by more than blurring; in vertical, could not tell-within blurring. This is not sensitive to skewing or zooming. So I don't think it's the same. May double-check measurement when have time; or somebody else can. Did not have time to try doing digital version of the same/similar method. Did not look carefully at comparison the 2 after de-skewing , but have an impression this is different; not that much skewing there; it looks essentially straight line on PM, skewing will not make circle into a line. May look at 2's some other time. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::::Finally took a closer look and PM was still off a bit on rotation and vertical-to-horizontal - in line with your observations. Still working out the adjusted graphic. The white is shifted a bit left of lining up perfectly... I think it's still close enough it's the same or is supposed to be, and not far enough off I'd call a bad fake - probably just pixel shift. Will see tonight. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 00:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Okay, I don't have a comprehensible graphic handy yet, but Maybe Resup is seeing what I am now. I was having a hard time aligning it all, so focused just one the one rectangle panel with the number. Still, on the PM photo I trace apparent edges, best line of dark pixels ... it lines up, proportion-wise, with the white spots on or a hair to apparent left. But when the whole image is placed by lining up that center, the rest of it doesn't line up - both sides seem shifted right, or the middle shifted left. (also the track areas appear far to the left, but they stick out a bit, and from the back angle flattened like this, that's why. Each difference in relief from "true flat" plane of the side will cause this... maybe I'm just not correlating it right, and maybe it's a clue the photo is messed with. possible offsets in both white patches as well, but maybe too in the natural fuzz zone. ?? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
If the launcher was driven over the Russian border, fired once then driven back again after it had carried out its mission, the part of the story that doesn't make sense is the sighting on a stolen flatbed truck outside Donetsk. If the Russians were prepared to supply a launcher but not a truck, the stolen truck would have had to be driven to the border to be loaded and there'd be no reason to risk a journey back to Donetsk. The west to east journey is more consistent with CL's original suggestion of a launcher from the Ukrainian base north of Donetsk. If this was a false flag, there would have had to be a paint job to give it Russian markings (maybe to match one in a recent video). Otherwise the videos would point to separatists with a captured Ukrainian BUK, leaving the Ukrainian government liable for failing to close its airspace when it knew that a BUK had gone missing. [[User:Pmr9|Pmr9]] ([[User talk:Pmr9|talk]]) 16:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:Now this sounds engaged, thanks P. Yes, why drive it to Donetsk? (Other than to be seen in the smoking-gun rebel capitol, before getting seen in Lugansk too) And I never thought of that why it had to be Russian. Indeed, for liability reasons, it had to be a snuck-in surprise, not captured (unless they could come up with a reason why they didn't learn about it, and I suppose they could). The suggestion has problems and was slow to gain adherents, but maybe this kind of thought has swayed people to realize Kiev "must be right" about that... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Sunday Times story: original is behind paywall but reprint [http://malaysiandigest.com/news/531506-ukraine-ignored-warning-to-close-malaysia-airlines-flight-mh17-airspace-before-tragedy.html here]. Eurocontrol's experts "spoke privately to their Ukrainian counterparts" about their concerns but Ukraine refused to close its airspace. "Ukraine intelligence sources said they had been made aware that several anti-aircraft systems had crossed from Russia into Ukraine at least a week before the MH17 incident. But they claimed the intelligence was not “100 per cent reliable” and could not have been used as grounds for 'drastic moves' such as shutting airspace". [[User:Pmr9|Pmr9]] ([[User talk:Pmr9|talk]])<br />
:::Okay, well there's a train headed this way then. Several units? The whole June convoy? We do have this alleged maybe-Buk launch just before on July 14, an associated loader seen later, etc. And Ukie intel somehow did point to this number "312" you can't see on the unit they tracked so quickly. Did they already have that obscure Russian video everyone missed until now? And more yet showing the "1" still there? That early on? (that's all very speculative, but interesting). It has to be snuck in, maybe, but then it helps that you can vouch for it - so they fudge and average this aspect. Main point then seems to be, whatever failures they mumble out on their own end, it has to implicate both Russia (provided weapon) and the rebels (held the space needing demonized).--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references /></div>Antidyatelhttps://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17/BUK_Tracking&diff=22559Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/BUK Tracking2015-06-06T00:49:25Z<p>Antidyatel: /* Kiev's Holdings */ what is rebel controlled territory</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:MH17]]<br />
==Who Has the BUK Launchers in Ukraine?==<br />
=== Kiev's Holdings ===<br />
<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3MomxNHnUA#t=288 Ukrainian Buk in ATO area], 16 July 2014. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 23:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CBQbFC9loc#t=350 Captured map] of 1 battalion of UAF 95 air-mobile brigade, dated beginning of July 2014, show location of 2 positions of Ukrainian Buks. Basurin points them on the map; but video resolution is insufficient to see those. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 05:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Maps can be faked, but still I'm curious what it shows. I imagine there might be a flat image of the map somewhere. Resup, could you maybe have a look? It's too slow for me to try an image search with translated words. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
::I have not seen the map in news reports mentioning the finding; and now I see it says explicitly that they are not going to make it public, [http://real-info.info/novorossiya/13429-vlasti-dnr-ne-budut-obnarodovat-karty-vsu-do-okonchaniya-rassledovaniya-krusheniya-mh17 until MH 17 investigation is completed]--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 23:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::Here is a press conference report--with video but not the map --[https://vk.com/strelkov_info?w=wall-57424472_57351 (Basurin press conference)]--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 23:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
-Antidyatel June 6, 2015.<br />
It is possible to understand what it means when they say Ukr army controlled territory. But what us rebel controlled territory. Even if we take the maximum estimate for rebel numbers in July 2014 of 10,000 fighters, it gives a fraction of a rebel per square km, if we assume uniform distribution. In reality rebels very concentrated in Lughansk, Donetzk, Saur Mogila, 2 cauldrons. So everything else is free for all territory. When MSM declares rebel controlled territory, they just rely on Kiev's maps. Very reliable source.<br />
<br />
<br />
----Antidyatel <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==== BUK 312 and comrades ====<br />
[[File:Buk 312 sbu.jpg|thumb|left|BUK 312 on a trailer. Photo shown on SBU website and later removed. – ''[[:File:Buk 312 sbu.jpg|more...]]'']]<br />
Part of the material the Ukrainian SBU released to suggest that "rebels" shot down MH17 with a BUK, was photo material showing a BUK TELAR numbered 312 on a trailer, alleging it has been photographed on its way back to Russia. This was quickly shown to be extremely questionable as evidence surfaced showing number 312 in Ukrainian hands. The SBU then removed the photos from their website while other material like a suggestive photo showing a "plume" remained there. <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Buk 321.png|thumb|TELAR 321 as posted by @MOR2537 to illustrate what he alleges to have witnessed]]<br />
This was outlined (and a screenshot saved) in more detail [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/07/21/the-mh17-investigation-and-buk-312/ over at Human Rights Investigations]. A [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bj-VZB0ZdEA video embedded there] shows BUK 312 in Ukrainian hands back in March. The other two TELAR's seen in the video are numbers 323 and 321. BUK 321 [http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Ukrainian+government+forces+maneuver+antiaircraft+missile+launchers+they+transported+north+west+from+Slavyansk+eastern+Ukraine+Friday+July+2014+Photo+Dmitry+Lovetsky/10004193/story.html has been seen] in Ukrainian hands just two weeks before MH17 crashed, transported close to "liberated" Slavyansk. <br />
<br />
Interestingly enough, one of the tweets [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com/2014/07/reconstruction-of-whereabouts-of-buk.html spoon-fed by Ukrainian loyalists to imaginative Dutch blogger Ukraine@War] to suggest that there have been eyewitnesses for a "rebel" BUK, is then [https://twitter.com/MOR2537/status/489709431467171841 followed-up by the alleged eyewitness] with a picture of BUK 321 to illustrate what he has seen. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::yep, he is a conduit for Kiev but seems to have outside info, too. Like originals of photos he can get geolocations off (he says). But also has good collection of very early photos etc which have since become hard to find.Not sure I trust him though. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 15:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::I hadn't seen that before, thanks. I'll be considering... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 22:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: More photos: [http://www.armyrecognition.com/images/stories/east_europe/russia/missile_vehicle/sa-11_gadfly/pictures/sa-11_gadfly_anti-aircraft_missile_to_armoured_tracked_vehicle_Russian_army_russia_011.jpg 321] - [http://rt.com/files/news/2a/b1/40/00/640x480.jpg 312] - [http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1870560.1405614701!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_970/correction-ukraine.jpg 321] --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:Buk 312 in Lugansk.png|thumb|left|According to alleged former operator "A", this is BUK 312 after relocation sometime in Spring 2014 in Metallist settlement of Lugansk, with Yubileynaya mines in the background]]<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmI2KCOt_sA Anatolii Sharii] version of events, shows that Buk blamed on Russia has number 312 and was earlier photographed as part of Ukrainian convoy. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 20:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Sharii interviewed a Ukrainian soldier who served on Buk 312; this can be found on [http://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/1947657.html Cassad]. The guy does not know about MH17; but recalls SBU claiming it was this Buk 312 responsible. From this interview, meaning of 312: 3 is division number, 1 battery number, 2 unit number in a battery (there are loading and command vehicles, not just launchers). This UAF Buk is initially from Luhansk; than relocated to Kramatorsk; than places in a field. A serviceman took it on a ride with hand break on, leading to a small fire affecting electrics and requiring repairs. So it was traveling on a trailer at some point. It was than moved to Dnepropetrovsk, village of Novogrigorievka (apparently for repairs, and after trailer photo was taken, but exact date was not given). Buks from Luhansk which were not broken were moved by UAF elsewhere (and according to the soldier, were photographed in variaous places including Gorlovka; while 3 broken Buks remained in Luhansk) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: Interesting. I see that the "[http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Ukrainian+government+forces+maneuver+antiaircraft+missile+launchers+they+transported+north+west+from+Slavyansk+eastern+Ukraine+Friday+July+2014+Photo+Dmitry+Lovetsky/10004193/story.html has been seen]" link to the Montreal Gazette is dead by now. If anything I'm surprised that it lasted that long. Minitrue at work. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 04:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: [http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2014/12/17/shooting-down-mh-17-buk-312-story-false- Here] (and mirrored [http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2014/12/17/buk-312-crew-member-says-rebel-shoot-down-of-flight-mh17-story-is-false-transcript/ here]) is an English translation of the interview. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: And [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2rRCSNp33I here] is the video itself with English subtitles. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 20:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:What you said about the accident and the photo showing the damaged BUK on a trailer is about the very photo the SBU showed on their website as "evidence" and later removed. Also adding that he says friends in Lugansk saw "rebels" trying to repair the units they had left behind, but he knows that "whole equipment units" were lacking so the remaining stuff was "unusable". And that he says that he asked his ex-comrades still operating the BUK if they dunnit, and they said they didn't. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Good to see this section expand. Interesting additions from the alleged operator, and reasonable-sounding (the photo might show smoke stains to the back left side). But in the end, this issue might be not so relevant. I doubt it was Kiev's unit 312 that was used, and seeing how Kiev always was eyeing a supposedly Russian unit 3x2, maybe 312 ... In fact, if the middle number connotes unit number, and it's done the same, the launcher is always 1 and it would be 312 (or is that mixed-up?) So maybe all this really shows is how Kiev knew but didn't want to say all along, implausibly picking their own 312 to illustrate that knowledge with an embarrassing but harmless "error", while awaiting ... as it turns out, the independent Bellingcat investigation that finds 3x2 somehow in Russia... That tracked this ludicrous Buk field trip, as presented and followed on this page, which almost seems tailor-made for them, but Kiev wants us to know they they were secretly on the ball too from the start. (all thoughts in progress, a bit distracted too) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::::If SBU wanted to point out they knew the TELAR had number 312, why would they publish the photo in [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmI2KCOt_sA such a low resolution] that the number could not be read? -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 21:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: As Resup summarized, 1 is the battery number. The leading 3 means it's from the Lugansk division. If this is true, the fact that 312, 321 and 323 have been seen together on video in March perfectly fits with what the alleged operator said: That they were removing units in usable state from (all batteries of the division) Lugansk early on, leaving the crap behind. And the view that the SBU just published everything they could find to fit their tale that the "rebels" used a BUK to down the plane, including this photo, cut-together and taken out of context audio tapes and that ridiculous "plume" pic, and the 3x2 bellingcat nonsense from lately is meant to distract from these facts, is much simpler and straight forward than what you tried to come up with here on the fly. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::Ah, I see it now, not when I was typing, sorrys. Middle number could be anything, bust mostly we always see low numbers, so odds are good it was a "1". 3 means from Lugansk if that's true (presuming so) and it's Ukrainian. Diff. number paintjob though, as noted below. But I'm sure the Ukies just faked this exact 312 to a different style of 312 and then painted it out partly, and just let it slip with the one photo of how it looked before...? We'll have a hard time agreeing here, as the stuff you just dismiss as "nonsense" looks kind of like possible evidence with details I'm sort of trying to consider. I don't see how you can just ignore it as if it must be wrong somehow, and all made up to distract from ... this 312 disguised as 3x2 theory? Where it wasn't even at the end of that fake plume anyway and might be totally irrelevant or entirely fake? Or, what am I missing? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::Didn't you say that you haven't even watched the videos and checked the geolocation/origin yourself, if they really are from Russia etc.? Well, I certainly won't. Because I have no reason to believe that the sources are more truthful with the "evidence" than they have been before, and that track record is well established. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::::Yeah, which is why I'm neither in a good position to say they aren't wrong/fake, nor to go against my usual presumption it will be sound (has been so far, on this subject anyway) And by the supposed stills compare to supposed satellite imagery, it looked like a good match (I did skim the site once I could). I don't like the implication either, and I want it to be wrong. And it may well be, but I'll want to see how. And hey, there's a whole other section or two about this below... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
:::: I watched the video [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bj-VZB0ZdEA with the Ukie BUKs in March] again. There are actually more than the three I mentioned earlier. It starts with 323, which is not a TELAR. Followed by the two TELARs 321 and 312. Then comes what is also not a TELAR but what looks differently than 323: Number 301. Followed by two more TELARs, 331 and 332. So they could all be from the Lugansk division, parts of batteries 0 to 3. But one would suspect that the batteries are internal always numbered the same way. "A" says:<br />
::::: ''BUK is a complex of 4 specialized military vehicles: command post, mobile target detection and assignment station, loading and starting station, self-propelled fire installation.''<br />
::::So if 1 and 2 are TELARs, why are there two of them and why is 301 what could be the detection station with a radar? Is 323 a loading station? --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::::Too rusty, but good questions. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::: Ah, I think we can sort this out [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SA-11 thanks to wikipedia]:<br />
:::::''A standard Buk battalion consists of a command vehicle, target acquisition radar (TAR) vehicle, six transporter erector launcher and radar (TELAR) vehicles and three transporter erector launcher (TEL) vehicles. A Buk missile battery consists of two TELAR and one TEL vehicle.''<br />
:::: So our "A" didn't mean that a battery consists of 4 vehicles, but that the whole BUK consists of 4 different kinds of vehicles, some more than once. From this I deduce that "0" is for command and detection units (here our main radar 301) of the Lugansk division 3, and the batteries 1,2 and 3 each consist of two TELARs (numbered 1 and 2, here 312,321,331 and 332) and one TEL (numbered 3, the first vehicle in the video, 323). Makes sense? --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 13:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::Russia said Ukraine had 27 BUK launchers in the crash area, i.e. one brigade, or what ever comes in the hierarchy above battalion. If all units are numbered the same way, from 101 to 333, then one TELAR in 18 should be numbered 312. Maybe [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:9K37_Buk_of_the_Ukrainian_military,_Independence_Day_parade_in_Kiev.JPG not.] Russian numbers seem to reach higher. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 01:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::::Good find. The existence of 114 and 115 makes it more complicated. The [http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buk_M1 German Wikipedia article] says, contradicting the English one, that one battery consists of one command vehicle, one main radar, four TELARs and four TELs. But if that's true, there's no logical place for Radar 301, and why would one TEL be number 3 and the other three TELs numbers 6 to 8? --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 10:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
How to read BUK numbers<br />
This is how you decipher 312:<br />
<br />
3 stands for the third (Lugansk) division,<br />
1 stands for the battery number, ours was no. 1,<br />
2 stands for one of the 2. service units in each battery, ours was no.2<br />
<br />
according to a Ukrainian who explains it was "his" bUK (but not in his hands at the time)that shot down MH17. One of th many reports [http://www.opednews.com/articles/Shooting-Down-MH-17--BUK-by-Michael-Collins-Buk-312_False-Accusations-Of-Terrorism_False-Flag-Attacks_Mh17-Airline-Crash-141217-104.html about this interview] This claim is now superceded by the Capt Voloshin air-to-air claims. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 15:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
That solder knew nothing about who shot the Boeing. He was talking to Sharii, who previously made a video showing that Buk shown on SBU website is actually Ukrainian Buk 312. Later, the soldier emerged, saying that Buk 312 was his. (Claim of this one shooting Boeing is not his, it is SBU early claim) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 16:48, 26 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
While Voloshin story may be a play on destroyed by SBU evidence. There is supposed to be a log of flights, missiles fired, likely those logs no longer exist. Also before they claimed SU 25 were lost on 16 of July, but SBU denial of Voloshin story had SU 25 shot on 17 of July. And that Dnepropetrovsk airport traffic control lady vanished without a trace. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 16:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Supposed 321 belonging to KIEV<br />
::video shows three BUk sets [http://eurazya.today/2015/04/11/about-the-buk-312-who-allegedly-shot-down-mh17/ from 0.31 mark] but I can't really pick the number, they say it is 321. at Gorlovka in March. One on a white lowloader. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 12:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== Russian claims ====<br />
As part of their July 21 presentation of evidence, the Russian Ministry of Defense published satellite images allegedly showing Ukrainian BUK positions around Donetzk ([http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ RT report]). It's no secret the Ukrainian military maintains a base with anti-aircraft units. The facility shown in the Russian presentation (best seen [http://rt.com/files/news/2a/9a/00/00/4.jpg here]) I located - it's south of Avdeyevka, 3 km north of the airport, about 5 km north of Donetsk like they say. Visual match first, then noticed the label could have found it for me ... [http://wikimapia.org/#lat=48.0999781&lon=37.7578908&z=16&l=0&m=b&show=/16956839/ru/Зенитно-ракетный-дивизион-в-ч-А-1428&search=Donetsk on Wikimapia]. Labels, translated: Anti-aircraft missile battalion (in / h A-1428) One of the three anti-aircraft missile battalions ("Buk-M1"), located in Avdeyevka, Mariupol and Lugansk." BUK-type launcher photos included. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The counter-arguments to this at least sometimes fail. [http://www.interpretermag.com/mh17-and-moscows-magical-mystery-jets/ Interpreter rag] decided "the presence of Ukrainian government air defense systems is something of a red herring, not least given the clear evidence that the separatists had deployed at least one Buk system in the area." The side with a ''motive'' and clear, moving and likely operating units of the things on that day (see below) is irrelevant and shouldn't be considered because there's apparently also proof the presumed bad guys also had the units they needed to be so presumed. The very fact that separatists aren't ruled out means the other side should be free of any danger of being ruled in, and the separatists should ruled in just as automatically as they were ''before'' this social-media verification came in. This is clearly an irresponsible suggestion. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC) and --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Kiev's Buks Shuffled?===<br />
<br />
* From Russia's military press conference: [http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ RT, 10 Questions] - [http://www.ruaviation.com/docs/1/2014/7/22/83/ in more detail]<br />
:''3. Why was a large group of air defense systems deployed to the militia-held area if the self-defense forces have no planes?''<br />
:“As far as we know, the Ukrainian military had three or four air defense battalions equipped with Buk-M1 SAM systems deployed in the vicinity of Donetsk on the day of the crash. This system is capable of hitting targets within the range of 35 km at the altitude of up to 22 km.”'' <br />
:''4. Why did Kiev deploy BUK missile systems on the edge of militia-controlled zones directly before the tragedy?''<br />
:''“We have satellite photos of the places where Ukraine had its air defense units deployed in the southeastern parts of the country. The first three photos were made on July 14. The first photo shows Buk launchers 8 km northwest of Lugansk. You can clearly see a TELAR and two TELs. The second photo shows radars 5 km north of Donetsk. You can see two TARs along with other equipment and technical structures. The third photo shows air defense systems north of Donetsk. You can clearly see a TELAR launcher and about 60 military and auxiliary vehicles, tents for vehicles and other structures.''<br />
<br />
:''“Here’s a photo of the same area made on July 17. Please note that the launcher has disappeared. The fifth photo shows a battery of Buk missiles at the village of Zaroshchenskoye 50 km east of Donetsk and 8 km south of Shakhtyorsk on the morning of the same day. The sixth photo shows the same area on July 18. As you can see, the battery has left.”''<br />
<br />
Note: the <s>latter</s> fourth photo of July 17 has substantial cloud cover, but unless they happened to hide the launchers in those areas (or Russia's satellites waited until the area was covered) it appears the noted vehicles have left to go do something - on/by the 17th, where they say launchers appear and then disappear in a town closer to the crash on the 17th. Zaroshchenskoye [http://maps.yandex.com/?text=Ukraine%2C%20Donets'ka%20region%2C%20Shakhtars'kyi%20district%2C%20Zaroshchens'ke%20ville&sll=38.446008%2C47.98844&ll=38.517419%2C48.048098&spn=0.810242%2C0.300187&z=11&l=map on Yandex maps] - 13 miles SSW of the crash sitel, 9 miles W-SW of Torez..--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
On July 30, Vitalyi Naida, head of Ukrainian Security Service SBU’s counter-intelligence, came up with a series of slides ([http://euromaidanpress.com/2014/07/30/russia-fakes-mh17-crash-site-satellite-images-says-sbu/ short article], [http://www.sbu.gov.ua/sbu/control/en/publish/article?art_id=129610&cat_id=35317 announcement on SBU website] with link to [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ut1JExQKV-0 youtube-video showing the slides (presumably Ukrainian language)]) allegedly showing that the Russian material was "faked". He points to a patch of trees, claiming they had been cut down shortly before the 17th, while Russia's images show the trees intact. On August 1, the Russian Ministry of Defense published [http://eng.mil.ru/en/analytics.htm a rebuttal] advising that<br />
:''Instead of presenting hastily doctored evidence to the international community, the SBU could do with better control over all the mercenary units in the areas around Donetsk and Lugansk organized by Kolomoisky, Lyashko, Yarosh and others, who shell Ukrainian territory without any control from those in charge of the anti-terrorist operation.''<br />
<br />
The trees probably are cut down by now, but we'll have to wait for the true details of just when they were and when the image showing that was taken, or if the image shown is even of any one day and not a composite - "doctored" as Russia says. Other clues suggest launchers moving out of this area at that time: The [[#Paris Match Photo]] - ostensibly from the morning of the 17th - shows the infamous launcher-loaded truck seen in Lugansk, or one just like it, being carried on a truck belonging to a company just south of the missile base in northern Donetsk. That was seen carrying the launcher east out of town at 11:15 AM, purportedly on July 17 (and with the location completely fudged to say Snizhne, when it was only headed there).--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Zaro redeploy.png|left|600px]]The Russian military press conference said "The fifth photo shows a battery of Buk missiles at the village of Zaroshchenskoye 50 km east of Donetsk and 8 km south of Shakhtyorsk on the morning of the same day. The sixth photo shows the same area on July 18. As you can see, the battery has left." (#5 inset) The Ukraine@War blog's analysis decided this image as well was fake. That's mentioned [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com/2014/08/ukrainian-sbu-comes-with-conspiracy.html here] if not elsewhere. The reason: "the shadows of these BUKs have a different direction for all three of them. It means these were pasted into the image." I have to admit, it looks a bit like that. The trees have consistent shadows to the west, in a morning image. The furthest vehicle to the left has a visible shadow about like that. The other two don't seem to, and the one furthest right seems to have a shadow on the wrong side (looks like early PM). I wracked my brain just a little thinking of other explanations aside from just low resolution. Nothing much came up. Anyone else? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br /><br /><br />
<br />
<br />
: '''New video proves UKIE BUKS ACTIVE'''<br />
: video has surfaced, posted to Youtube on July 16, taken a few days before, showing a Ukie BUK radar [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3MomxNHnUA being rotated]. The reporter is taken somewhere in a helicopter and proudly shown the BUK. Segment starts around 4.17 in the chopper, BUK shown briefly at 4.45. Label does not say where exactly, just reads "Officers of Ukrainian Armed Forces patrolling in the ATO zone". <br />
: This ties in with claims that they were doing anti-aircraft exercises, probably in response to claims/fears the Antonovs were brought down not by the rebs but by aircraft from Russia. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 10:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::Thanks! We had this July 16 video [[Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17/BUK_Tracking#Kiev.27s_Holdings| elsewhere]], but here is a good place... The other video, from March, was not seen. There were few more early sightings of Ukrainian Buks, uncertain locations, with those 3** numbers; maybe should get a good place to keep them all --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::: Location of sighting is unclear. But according to some reports ([http://lifenews.ru/news/136731 LifeNews]), on July 16 UAF SU 25 was shot down from a height of 6 km by opolchenie MANPADs. That was near Russian border, --reports say the plane actually crossed into Russia, not far from Marinovka. It could be suspected by Ukraine that a Russian plane was involved, so it will be plausible to have Ukrainian coverage of the accident area by BUKS. On July 14, it was reported that [http://m.rosbalt.ru/ukraina/2014/07/16/1292690.html AN 26 was shot down in Luhansk] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Separatist Holdings===<br />
While much certainty has been shown it was a separatist BUK system responsible, everyone seems to acknowledge that ordinarily, they didn't have any, that were known of. Fresh sighting of them in the field, supposed admissions, and existing presumptions remain the strongest evidence. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;June 29 Seizure?<br />
The Open Newsroom team have latched onto a June 29 message from a Twitter account associated with the Donetsk People’s Republic, @DNRpress claiming separatist forces had conquered a base with anti-air BUK missiles. This is apparently the A-1402 base, as an Itar-Tass report specified. That report noted ... It seems to just cite the tweet which, it was found, used a dated photo online since mid-2013. In essence, there's no good evidence they ever did seize this place. But it was referred to by some as "Deleted DNR tweet confirming Russian rebels indeed have a BUK-M1." The crew at large seems a bit vague on the status of this base:<br />
:'' It appears that the A-1402 military unit was moved into the Donetsk region in 2007 from Odessa, and reports note that the unit was based near Donetsk airport. Local reports from June 29 cited ATO spokesman Alexei Dmitrashkivsky as stating that separatists had attacked the military unit.'' <ref name="Story1" /><br />
As we just found with geo-location, it's 3 km north of Donetsk airport, and it's the same place Russia believes is firmly government-held. It's the place they say at least one BUK-type launcher was removed from on July 17 for some reason, by Kiev's forces who run it. If [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Donetsk_Airport this basic Wikipedia article on the battle for the airport] is correct and/or in line with [[Attack on Donetsk Airport|our page on it]], the airport and anything military-related north of it would probably be government-held continuously to the present time. It's possible some launchers could have been lost during a brief seizure of the base, but this too seems doubtful. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
:Social media published many photos of the "liberated" Buk missiles. I searched for them on Google Image Search; all were old photos from more peaceful times. I have no idea what really happened. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 23:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Thanks. I hadn't looked into it myself, but recycled images made sense given the other clues that they never did take that base, or at least get anything out of it. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 00:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Something in English [https://www.facebook.com/TruthfromUkraine/photos/pb.1452285018328179.-2207520000.1409095455./1515506872005993/ on Facebook,] with links to Russian souces. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 23:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Your geolocation is wrong. The former [http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-SAM-Site-Configs-A.html SA-2 launch site] to the north of the runway is called A-1428, at least according to the [[:File:Donetsk Airport battles 5 Oct 2014.jpg|map by Komsomolskaya Pravda]]. The site was rebuilt sometime between 2002 and 2009 with new garages covering part of the SAM ring. Tactical maps say today it is still held by Ukraine, but may have been in NAF hands earlier. Base A-1402 is located south of the new terminal building along Stratonavtiv Street.<br />
<br />
When looking at the latest airport battles I noticed that Military Maps already shows structural damaged to the new terminal building. I did not expect Google to provide any relevant satelite data. In Libya we had almost daily satellite images of Tripoli, but in Syria we have seen no new photos of the battle-effected areas.<br />
<br />
I opened Google Earth to see what has changed during the war. It seems that the war has had no effect on either base. There is still a lot of military hardware parked on both bases. Most of the trucks and whatever are parked just where they were last year, or on many cases in 2007. I did not see anything that I could identify as a BUK launcher. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 02:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;Held by July 14?<br />
The US embassy in Kiev said in [http://ukraine.usembassy.gov/statements/asmt-07192014.html a press statement of July 19]:<br />
:''Intercepts of separatist communications posted on YouTube by the Ukrainian government indicate the separatists were in possession of a SA-11 system as early as Monday July 14th. In the intercepts, the separatists made repeated references to having and repositioning Buk (SA-11) systems.'' (also quoted [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/20/malaysia-airlines-mh17-videos-missile-launcher-torez-snizhne at the Guardian])<br />
As "Corporal Frisk" [http://corporalfrisk.wordpress.com/2014/07/21/comment-on-the-us-assessment-of-the-downing-of-flight-mh17/ aptly responded:]<br />
:''Having perhaps the world’s best intelligence network, and then using easily faked videos of separatist communications posted on YouTube as evidence sure has a degree of ridicule attached to it, but is also an inidcation that US intelligence believes at least some of these transcripts are real.''<br />
That's totally apt if one suspends the usual definition of "believe" (to include "wants to appear to believe," etc.) In the same piece, the author apparently gives more "credibility to the charges that the Buk-M1 is indeed Russian supplied (and possibly crewed), as opposed to stemming from captured Ukrainian stocks." As covered below, this I can agree with if we suspend the usual definition of "Russian" (to include "allegedly Russian villains," "the Ukrainian version of [http://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2011/07/african-mercenaries.html Libya's African Mercenaries] and [http://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/wiki/The_Shabiha:_Ghost_Stories%3F Syria's Shabiha]," etc.) this would be spot-on. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:54, 10 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
(more allegations to cover?)<br />
<br />
;The One That Matters<br />
Whatever the evidence rebels had Buk systems by the 14th, Kiev also has suggested, and many have accepted, that ''the one that mattered'' at least - the launcher unit that shot down MH17 on the 17th - wasn't theirs at all, but brought in and operated by Russians for the day only. If only for that reason, all the above is likely moot. See next section. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Russian Buk Field Trip? ===<br />
The Kiev regime's narrative also suggests separatists had no BUK systems of their own. Rather, someone else brought one in to their area, took it on some kind of tour through several towns thought accessible only to rebels and allies, and got it seen in each place. Then these people '''shot the airliner down themselves on the separatists' behalf.''' That party is the Russians, they say. This is perhaps best encapsulated by "counter-terrorism" chief Vitaly Nayda's early assessment. AP's July 25 report summarized it, saying "the account was based on information from intercepts, spies and resident tips."<br />
:''Nayda laid the blame fully on Russia: He said the missile launcher came from Russia and was operated by Russians. ... According to Nayda, at 1 a.m. on July 17 the launcher rolled into Ukraine across the Russian border aboard a flatbed truck. He cited communications intercepts that he would not share with the AP. By 9 a.m., he said, the launcher had reached Donetsk, the main rebel stronghold 125 miles (200 kilometers) from the border. In Donetsk it is presumed to have been off-loaded from the flatbed and started to move in a convoy on its own.''<br />
:''Nayda said the Buk turned back east toward Snizhne. Townspeople who spoke to the AP said it rolled into Snizhne around lunchtime.''<br />
:''...As for the Buk, Nayda said, intelligence suggests it went back on the move shortly after the attack. That very night, he said, it crossed the border, back into Russia.''<br />
<br />
This is full of details that don't line up with the emerging record, but the gist including a grand-circuit tour including both separatist stronghold/capitols Donestk and Lugansk plus the disaster zone, seems about right. But the evil they allowed came from and returned to Russia.<br />
<br />
This does however jibe with the Kiev allegation (I learned of through [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/07/25/snizhne-mh17-and-rebel-held-territory/ this excellent and relevant HRI article] that '''Russian jets''' violated Ukrainian airspace to '''bomb an apartment building in Snizneh on July 15th, killing 11 civilians.''' This all makes a bit of sense in context; that false flag attack was blamed by locals on Kiev'a noble Air Force - almost understandably! It "created the conditions" by which people ''might'' accept apparent a team of apparent Russians with a Buk launcher in their town two days later. The best guess for any single firing location is a field just southeast of that town (see [[#Possible Launch Sites|below]]). The locals might smile at, and later even cover for, this poisonous gift. But a trojan horse is a trojan horse, of course. They should have looked it in the mouth better, and been more aggressive with their questions. Because Russia has it in for the separatists, Kiev implies, using its skilled and well-documented team to murder 298 people in a horrific way on the separatists' behalf. This is not an accident, Kiev must know, but proof that Russia and its "inhuman" terrorists they must hate (and who do not seem to have any Buk launchers of their own, BTW) are the new global menace du jour. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Markings and the Mystery Launcher ===<br />
[[File:MH17 Buk 321 Parismatch comp.png|right]]A serial number on the launcher's side is apparently standard in Ukraine's arsenal (see [[#BUK 312 and comrades|above]]). Inset, an image comparing the side of the unit seen in [[#Paris Match Photo]], the one blamed for the shoot-down on the 17th, to TELAR unit 321. The side panels are easy enough to correlate and see the unit in the photo lacks a number, but does have a sliver of white paint (or similar) in one corner. Whoever was moving this painted it it out before this, so there is some attempt at concealment. Is this color of paint only available in Russia? The white sliver here could be part of the number, if it were painted higher up/larger than Ukraine usually does. I can't say yet how they do it. I did a Dogpile Photo search, lots of pictures, context unclear, different vehicles from different sides, mainly Vitaly Kuzmin photos so app. Russian military parades and such: --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
* Number shown, diff. vehicle: [http://military-vehicle-photos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/9881.jpg #1(loader?)] - [http://pix.avaxnews.com/avaxnews/8a/6f/00006f8a_medium.jpeg #2 same?] <br />
* Launchers with no visible numbers: [http://77rus.smugmug.com/Military/May-5th-Parade-rehearsal-2014/i-t7RjrzP/0/M/5may14-33-M.jpg #1] - [http://77rus.smugmug.com/Military/12-April-Parade-2013-rehearsal/i-KHVD3Tv/0/M/12aprilrehearsal_33-M.jpg #2] - [http://livedoor.blogimg.jp/gunzichannel/imgs/b/e/be60ae58.jpg #3] - [http://military-vehicle-photos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/9880.jpg #4] - [http://77rus.smugmug.com/Military/13th-April-rehearsal-Alabino/i-fKQdjW4/0/M/13April-Rehersal-Alabino-26-M.jpg #5] <br />
* Same vehicle, Buk TELAR launcher with numbers: not found. <br />
<br />
At the moment, the lack of a number almost makes it look Russian. The next panel over seems to have smaller numbers, or characters anyway. Nothing yet tells me the Russians add a smaller number on the panel behind that, with or without special stencils available only in Russia. Is that even a number, or does it say return to Putin? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== Bellingcat and 3x2 ====<br />
:''moved from [[#Paris Match Photo]]''<br />
<br />
Adam: somebody's favorite Bellingcat is now saying, I understand, that he is capable to read off the number of this Buk from this blurry low resolution Paris Match photo, using unspecified colored magic and some expertly fitted proprietary boxes. Well actually this is so proprietary that he can ONLY read the first number 3, and the last number 2, but is completely unable to read the middle one. Because, he does not want this to be this Ukrainian [http://uainforg.livejournal.com/1811500.html Buk 312] , nah, noway. He rather want it to be the Russian Buk 3 X 2, where X stand for Russian, and for secret, as somebody is said to unearth this dirty monster in Russia, as he says (I guess). This looks too much baloney as far as I am concerned; you can read any number you set in advance from this blurry photo, and fit there any other crap, boxed-shaped or wiggly, all essentially at will. Just recording this latest saga page in case somebody has more enthusiasm to chase it than myself. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 00:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
:No, you didn't quite understand, but thanks for the tip. An interesting twist I wish I'd caught sooner. First, this helps the West at large get in synch finally with Kiev - it was Russia, not the separatists, who owned and perhaps ran that unit. Second, it seems to me the match is at least as good as they say, but there's at least one aspect of it I think is hilarious and I wouldn't be surprised if they managed to miss it. I'll be back - this one deserves a quick blog post. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: I agree with Resup, this stinks of baloney designed to divert attention from the [[#BUK_312_and_comrades]] story. The worst thing about Brown Noses and cohorts is the amount of coordinated promo they get in pre$$titute media. SPIEGEL today [http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/jan-fleischhauer-ueber-wladimir-putin-und-mh17-abschuss-kolumne-a-1004898.html has a op-ed piece by a particularly douchebaggy example] on those independent genius investigators as well. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::I need to brush up on what that 312 story is... because it looks like this used to say 312. Ultimately I suspect its some kind of baloney, but just where it breaks down I don't know. It is amazing how they get such praise for investigating the right things (never did get back to the Houla Massacre) and finding the right truth... Daily Fail says "The authors said that 'our investigation was made possible by the examination of open source material overlooked by other organisations'." Oh goodness, that technique they must have invested ... maybe if we started doing that we'd get praises too! --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/11/08/origin-of-the-separatists-buk-a-bellingcat-investigation/<br />
The report and whole site was not coming up when I tried (might be a problem on my end), so I don't even know what's behind their pay-wall. In the interim I checked around. [http://thetruthserumblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/an-open-and-transparent-investigation.html Here's a critical blog article I like] that mentions another article praising the report. But what was useful was [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2827853/Russian-military-supplied-missiles-ahead-MH17-shooting-says-new-independent-report-evidence-points-Russian-separatists-responsible.html the Daily Mail's Australian promo article] with the cover and a few images from the report as well as a summary. The 3x2 ... This lets me quickly see what 3x2 refers to. And actually, it looks like a good description and even a good match. The number is not from Paris Match photo but from footage I haven't noticed, they say from inside Russia - presumably a Russian unit then - seen conspicuously moving towards Ukraine in late June. (the source of these images and details might be worth checking into) ... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 3x2 Comp.png|right]]Bottom is Paris Match, skewed to match. Top is the new (to me) Bellingcat June 23 image As I just put together [http://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2014/11/how-russians-covered-up-truth-partly.html here,] they seem to be onto something here. It's something silly. But it's something strongly suggested by real paint in recognizable patterns.<br />
<br />
Implied: Russians wanted to hide this thing's identity, maybe because they were about to do something secret with it. So first they painted out the number in the middle - I think it was a one. Except they left one little corner of white visible. Just got tired. It's identifiable (in both images). <br />
<br />
Then before it appeared in Ukraine, it was rendered totally unidentifiable: they boldly blacked out the 3, and perhaps at the same time even, the 2 - except for a larger identifiable sliver. Just got tired. It's next to the other dot. <br />
<br />
Haha, no way to connect these now! Also a light patch next to the small number (and the number, as far as we can see) matches, as does a light patch along the lip below that. My guess: this is the same suspect vehicle seen gettin' hauled all over on the "stolen" truck with the phone number left on. Was it actually in Russian territory as well as near so many rebel checkpoints around dawn? For how long was it there? Bellingcat cannot confirm that Russian unit 3x2 ever returned to its base in Russia ... nor, I guess, that it ever actually left, or was ever Russian, or didn't have its truncated paint job simulated and expanded on another vehicle... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
::He got some photos of an actual [http://www.kavicom.ru/news-view-12861.html convoy], almost certainly in Russia, fairly hi-res photos, no 3*2 there. Than out-of-a-blue-or-elsewhere, he gives photos from convoy made by 'local residents', now with discolored 3*2 photo(s) there; I could not spot details where this photo is now coming from. He claims it "shows on 8 out of 16 videos", but I do not know where is a single one. He also compares tank track and plate above profiles for these 2 photos; details are blurred (and also those profiles change from use), can't say how much they match each other by eye; don't trust his fitted lines, or his conclusion accepting those, but did not try matching myself (no tools to do it quickly; or enough photo resolution to feel strongly motivated). This is doable but doing it tool-free takes time; and not knowing that second photo is definitely in Russia, I am not convinced spending a lot of time is worthwhile. This is clearly a well-supported operation, so the burden of proving their own version is on them; and they did not bother even linking the videos, no clue where are those. His report downloads without problems at this time. <br />
::Also details such as dirty rear skirt and a bend there likely are common; dirt is because exhaust is through the opening above; skirt likely is bent when there is servicing, or example changing tracks or doing something else, like maybe servicing engine. Buk 321 above on this page has dirt and bend, for example. This bend is something which can be easily produced, same goes with the painting job, both things together can be done in well under 1/2 hour. If they had an example of how something in Russia looks like, not difficult to do it for a blurry photo. Clearly, with phone well-displayed, etc, the purpose of all this is a demo job. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Here is a publication [http://censor.net.ua/video_news/274823/ukraina_zaschischaet_donetsk_ot_napadeniya_rossii_zenitnoraketnye_kompleksy_buk_zanimayut_pozitsii_fotovideo Ukraine defends Donesk from Russiam attack, missile complex Buk takes positions], with photo, video of Ukrainian BUks, numbers 323, 321, 312, 301, 331,332. (Some of them have dirty skirts, e.g. 301 looks dirty and bent...). Ukrainian radio is playing on the video. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 21:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Thanks, and I get the lack of motivation, and the ambiguity. That #312 I'll compare later ... looks like a different number style (thinner) with vehicle color less clear ... I guess this could be innocent dirt instead of black paint, but it's some thick dirt, and by the end almost totally covering the numbers on this particular unit ... or two that can seem the same. (?) So it still seems most likely paint, that is deliberate obfuscation - that was also comically slow and incomplete (with clean edges to the white parts and no visible parts of gray half-covered numbers) . It must be a problem with my system (updating soon) but I still can't connect to the site or get the report. I'm not mad motivated myself, but will want to check the alleged video source and geolocation eventually. Before I was seeing this as a Kiev unit simply snuck across the internal line. So the big wrinkle of course is it being in Russia. Options if the geolocation of June 23 is right: <br />
* it wasn't there (faked match-up - As you say, all matching features ''could'' be faked, not just the paint) <br />
* or Ukraine snuck theirs across (with a whole convoy?) just to get it seen there <br />
* or they snuck over and stole this one while it was near the border <br />
* or Russia willingly sent it over, with or without a subsequent theft by people intent on misusing it on the separatists' behalf. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
There is actually a 3*2 Buk in Russia, he put links to videos on his [https://www.mapbox.com/labs/bellingcat/index.html map], I looked at 06/23 Troitskiy (Odnoklassniki) goroskop odnoklassniki ru/video/14723648043?fromTime=25 . But I doubt it can be concluded that Paris Match is a match (number itself can't be read, this is just bogus). For example, that dot in the Russian version appears to be a bit further to the right (60 % of total panel length) , while Paris Match is closer to 50 (I got 52 %). Also, in Russian version, it is almost level with protruding to the right part of number 2; in Donetsk photo, I'd say it's a bit lower (but blurriness creates problems to measure) . Panel to the left of number panel appear to look very different; in Russian case, clear horizontal line above the main bottom line; not so in Donetsk, a messy lower line. As for the skirt, it it dirty but actually does not look broken in the Russian version, just some frames create such impression. In Donetsk, hard to know (to blurry to tell crack from dirt) but there is serious change in angle there somehow; (could be the windshield playing some tricks). (Also, in Donetsk, it is dirty windshield, not actually certain what makes the dot; but it is roughly where expected, so I can go with this being paint assumption). <br />
:No point for the rebels to display it prominently in Donetsk (not far from UAF BUK base), than go towards Snizhne; this just has no point at all. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 00:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
:I'm the one, ironically, claiming to see things in that griny mess. I'd never do it unless I saw t spot well whiter than the others AND seen in another view ... didn't even notice until then. To note, your descriptions are of the first version of the graphic, now updated. Becuase of overall problems, I cut what seemed just the number panel (including shadowed edge) and put it on top of where it should be. Same proportions, within a pixel or two, "find edges" to mark the white patches, and it remains lining up. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 3x2 comp 2.png|right|420px]]At right: it can't be the embarrassingly misrepresented Ukrainian 312 they're hiding, unless that was painted over before this other one .... FWIW, the middle dot would still line up with the serif on that "1." As the updated blog article notes, if "the Russians" were smart, they would have painted this slender 312, or other recognizable number and style, on there. Instead, this nonsense.... <br />
<br />
I suppose that Ukraine ''might'' have known about this 3x2 video and match in advance (and never mentioned it?) and that's why they found a photo of ''a Buk 312''' (not checking what it actually showed, and just claimed they knew was en route to escape into Russia, after parking for yet another photo?) No, that doesn't make much sense. But I sense a link. Maybe that's because I'm seeing 312 when maybe it's 872, for all we really know. Maybe instead of partly painted out it was just left never fully painted in. Too many unknowns and now I'm unenthusiastic about it. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Whatever one thinks of this graphic comparison and interpretation, the strange and suspect thinking it implies is consistent with what else we know about how this "secret" operation was carried out. If true, it would fit this broader pattern (real or reported clues left by whoever, all open to interpretation, and here couched in the terms of allegations by Kiev and supporters):<br />
<br />
* Recalling that this whole weapon itself would have no normal business in the area and would be denied later, it should have been kept secret. Instead, it was driven around in broad daylight on the same day as the crime, just partly covered with a tarp but revealing all clues needed to identify it, its hidden ID number, and its full rack of missiles.<br />
* The truck it was so displayed on was stolen in Donetsk, and kept with the huge sign on its side with the apparent owner's phone number on it. When the media called that number, little surprise, the owner told them pro-Russian "fighters from Slaviansk" who took over his whole trucking company on July 8 (see [[#The Truck Owner's Story|here]]) Put lightly, this is a stupid way to secure a rig one intends to use for a secret operation like this was supposed to be.<br />
* They loaded the truck in Donetsk, likely at the commandeered site in the north of Donetsk, near the Ukrainian base with Buk launchers, in a coincidence. This truck then got seen leaving Donetsk on the 17th, parked pointing east at the east outskirts, then seen driving in convoy (a couple civilian cars with the operational crew moved with the truck) past Zuhres and then through Torez to the east. They were seen arriving in Snizhne around noon, then the Buk unit seen off the truck and driving in stand-alone, and it was then seen again driving south out of Snizneh, towards the apparent launch location.<br />
* The people running the convoy made sure AP journalists saw them in Snizhne just before the shoot-down from a bit south of there. The convoy stopped, and a man in unusual uniform "approached the journalists. The man wanted to make sure they had not recorded any images of the missile launcher. Satisfied that they hadn’t" filmed that secret missile launcher there, but had noticed it, and their intention to remain sooper seekrit "the convoy moved on." All this was made quite clear to the media and apparently published even before the news that MH17 was shot down. ([http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/what-happened-the-day-flight-17-was-downed/2014/07/25/716c36e4-142b-11e4-ac56-773e54a65906_story.html AP Via Washington Post]) <br />
* After the disastrous attempt to secretly provoke a Russian invasion, with utmost discretion the operators put the smoking gun, its rack of one-less missiles left uncovered, back on the same truck and drove it and the phone number back to Russia - by a strange detour on a long route towards the other easily-recognizable smoking gun rebel capitol, Lugansk ... when government ATO forces had just battled their way to the edge of Lugansk ... and got seen there passing at dawn on the main highway south, apparently having come from the center of town, and then presumably drove to Krasnodon (rebel-held) and to Russia....<br />
<br />
The fail delivery here is almost flawless, with no mistake left unmade and hardly any reasonable gaps to call for deduction. Letting multiple camera views on both sides of the porous border capture and track the gradual move to this stealth mode seems pretty consistent to me.--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Note: the implications of this contested finding, and the visual basis for it as well, is continued below under [[#If Buk 3x2 Was in Russia]] --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== General Observations === <br />
*It is clear that pro-Kiev side produced early and persistent stream of fakes, misrepresentations, or selective half-truths, all aimed to place the blame on Russia and/or "separatists" as a part of well organised and supported information warfare. This information warfare did not establish an objective to prove the blame of Russia or "separatists", as any of those media creations will not survive a rigorous scrutiny, and there is nothing to bring to court in particular. However it successfully altered Western perceptions in early days past the catastrophe, and helped to impose sanctions and other 'increased costs' on Russia, bringing the world on the brink of another cold war. It brought situation in Ukraine closer to perpetual chaos, and kept closely related people to continue killing each other every day. Although those fakes and misrepresentations were later realized to be such, those costs and calamities were not reversed. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*After moving equipment close to border, why would Russia send just a single TELAR to Ukraine in a highly visible manner as it was alleged? For meaningful operation of Buk, one would send at least 1 TELAR, 1 TEL (to be able to load missiles), and 1 command vehicle (as radar on TELAR gives only poor basic operation)? There are also lots of support vehicles seen, in case of something meaningful all that is needed. So moving single TELAR is all but pointless from military standpoint. Single TELAR is mostly for a show of sort. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Reported SIghtings == <br />
(consider along with the visual sightings below) <br />
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/what-happened-the-day-flight-17-was-downed/2014/07/25/716c36e4-142b-11e4-ac56-773e54a65906_story.html AP via Washington Post] <br />
shows the separatists strategy to not be seen as they rolled the murder weapon around:<br />
:''Even before the plane was downed, the AP had reported on the presence of the missile launcher in the town July 17. Here is what that dispatch said:''<br />
:''“An Associated Press reporter on Thursday saw seven rebel-owned tanks parked at a gas station outside the eastern Ukrainian town of Snizhne. In the town, he also observed a Buk missile system, which can fire missiles up to an altitude of 22,000 meters (72,000 feet).''<br />
:''AP journalists saw the Buk moving through town at 1:05 p.m. The vehicle, which carried four 18-foot (5.5-meter) missiles, was in a convoy with two civilian cars.''<br />
:''The convoy stopped. A man in sand-colored camouflage without identifying insignia — different from the green camouflage the rebels normally wear — approached the journalists. The man wanted to make sure they had not recorded any images of the missile launcher. Satisfied that they hadn’t, the convoy moved on.''<br />
<br />
That kind of pro-Russian sooper-seekrisy aimed at the media in front of the media should stop them being seen, right? No, oddly, it didn't. See below. The clumsy bastards could hardly have implicated themselves any more thoroughly than they did that day. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
One interesting post at the Ukraine@War blog mentions two tweets, both from July 17 and before the crash, mentioning this BUK launcher on a trailer at places consistent with the video record. [https://twitter.com/MOR2537/status/489702736766586880 One of them] (translated) sounds perhaps ''too'' informed, and says "Was driven missile system on the tractor cover + two cars after Thorez (Torez) in snowy (Sniznoyeh) in 12-10 (at 12:10? Too early...)." [https://twitter.com/_StradivariuS_/status/489704260045910016 The other one] says "(someone this) morning wrote that (the truck) stood (parked for some time) on b.Shahtostroiteley not intersection with Ilchicha, aside (heading towards) Makeevki. waiting to see (to be seen?) If that's an intersection named, it's a different parking spot identified as being [https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=48.002515,37.854917&spn=0.010222,0.02444&t=h&z=16 here on Google Maps,] one km west of the spot it was parked for the "Paris Match" photo. Otherwise, it refers only to the same place. The contributor noted "Another interesting detail in that tweet is that “it was standing” and “they were waiting”. My understanding of that phrasing is that the #Buk was actually parked there for some time. Meaning there might be witnesses." <ref name="UWD">[http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com/2014/07/reconstruction-of-whereabouts-of-buk.html CONFIRMED the BUK that shot down MH17 has indeed been in Donetsk] P. Martin, Ukraine@War, July 23, 2014</ref> There was a witness with a camera, and a photo sent to the Western media. That almost seems to have been the idea - to get witnessed like that. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== SBU Wiretap Clues ==<br />
I just had a look at the SBU wiretap transcripts, ones released July 19. In it is a segment tying in with the above stop or stops in Donetsk, the exact spot of the [[#Paris Match Photo]], and the general orders to drive east with the launcher. I'm not up on the wiretap stuff - if this is the same material said to be corroborated by the US as the real people talking. But briefly, know that parking spot in just past a roundabout, by a motel and a bus station, well short of a crossing Hornostaivska street halfway to Makiivka. Important clue to why it was here this thing had to get seen and talked about: one source claims this roundabout at the edge of town is "a big separatist checkpoint established on Jun 3 at the road circle." <ref name="UWD" /> This is supposed to all be pretty damning, and I must say it's at least looking like a pretty slick plan may be going on here, with pre-scripted parts that come into play later, etc. From Kiev mouthpiece UaToday, parts of a transcript they ran with the video and other allegations, on the 19th - How credible is this evidence?<br />
:''Khmuryi: Sergei Nikolaevich Petrovskiy, year of birth 1964, officer of Main Intelligence Directorate of Russian Federation, Deputy Chief of Ihor Girkin on Intelligence, at the time of the interception he was in Donetsk.''<br />
:''“Buryat” – militant of terrorist organization “DNR” (to be indentified).''<br />
:''Buryat: – Where should we load this beauty, Nikolaievich?''<br />
:''Khmuryi: Which one? This one?''<br />
:''B: Yes, the one I’ve brought. I’m already in Donetsk.''<br />
:''K: Is it the one I’m thinking about? “B…,”M” one?''<br />
:''B: Yes, yes, yes. “BUK”,”BUK”.''<br />
:''K: Is it on a tractor?''<br />
:''B: Yes, it’s on it. We need to unload it somewhere, '''in order to hide.'''''<br />
:''K: Is it with a crew?''<br />
:''B: Yes, with the crew.''<br />
:''K: '''Don’t hide it anywhere.''' She’ll go there now.''<br />
:...<br />
:''Khmuryi: – Tell me, have you brought me one or two?<br />
:''Buryat: One, one. Because they had a misunderstanding there. They didn’t give us a tug. We loaded it and went at their own pace.''<br />
:''K: Did it go on her own or on a tug?''<br />
:''B: It crossed the line (border).''<br />
:''H: And now have you brought it on a tug? Don’t put in anywhere… I’ll tell now where it should go, it will go together with “Vostok” tanks.''<br />
:...<br />
:''K: Sanych, the point is that my “BUK–M” (modified Russian SAM system) will go with yours, it is on a tug. Where should I drive it to put in a column?''<br />
:''Sanych: There, behind “Motel”, not reaching Hornostaevka.''<br />
:''K: Just after the Motel, right?''<br />
:''Khmuryi: Listen to me carefully, behind the circle near “Motel” there will be you know what. Call to “Bibliotekar” (Librarian).'' <br />
The next part, to me, suggests that as far back as the 19th or earlier, people talking on tape were seeding, or working by, the SBU-proposed Aeroloft plot with the town mix-up. In that light:<br />
:''...Bring inside only those, who just came back, only as much as you need for the convoy. Leave everyone else here. Not far away '''there is Pervomaiskoe, look at the map.'''''<br />
:''DNR militant: I got it.'' (Or did he not quite get it?) <br />
:''Khmuryi: Settle somewhere in that area, bring there those who are left. Your task is reserve, plus protection of this piece (BUK–M), which you will drive now. “Giyrza” will come there too. If anything, I’m on line.'' <ref name="Trans">[http://www.uatoday.info/?p=2579&lang=en SBU releases more conversations implicating Russia in shooting down Malaysia Airlines flight (VIDEO, TRANSCRIPT)] UAToday, July 19, 2014</ref><br />
--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The veracity of that recording needs challenged well now ... the day too early claim [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17#SBU wiretap video|did not pan out,]] so it won't be that easy. Has anyone really done a good analysis tearing it apart some other way? Could it even be half-legit, with some local rebels tricked by some undercover (wire-wearing, not wire-tapping) supposed defector delivering it "with a team" coming "from Russia" (meaning Parubiy et al.)? Who knows? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Imagery Mapping ==<br />
[[File:MH17 Storyful video mapping.png|right|330px]]There have been quite a number now of photos and videos showing BUK launchers ostensibly in separatist strongholds, on July 17. The geo-location of these in such towns by social media networks has been the subject of some recent media commentary. These purported placements are worth collecting and considering here. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
One somewhat comprehensive and updated/evolving page: [http://blog.storyful.com/2014/07/19/how-social-sleuthing-uncovered-evidence-of-anti-aircraft-missile-system-in-eastern-ukraine/#.U9oY_Ua3498 How Social Sleuthing Uncovered Evidence of Surface-to-Air Missile Systems in Eastern Ukraine] Inset is a small preview of the interactive map they made of all placed images (as it stands at the end of July - [https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=200399683004956931329.0004feca5d1fbab0a1d25&msa=0&ie=UTF8&t=h&source=embed&ll=48.206371,38.968506&spn=1.281328,2.334595&z=8 full-size presentation with links, on Google Maps]) <ref name="Story1" /> <s>Note that one of them is way up in Lugansk - which one is a little unclear at the moment - the site may be wrong</s>) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;List of Scenes, placed or not<br />
* Billboard Video: released by Interior Ministry, filmed in Krasnodon before dawn, the Interior Minister says. Russian military analysis places it in Krasnoarmeysk, and the Open Newsroom crew contradicts both and decided "collaborative geo-location was able to place the footage in southwestern Luhansk.'' <ref name="Story1">[http://blog.storyful.com/2014/07/19/how-social-sleuthing-uncovered-evidence-of-anti-aircraft-missile-system-in-eastern-ukraine/#.U9oY_Ua3498 How Social Sleuthing Uncovered Evidence of Surface-to-Air Missile Systems in Eastern Ukraine] Storyful blog, July 19, 2014 and onward (updated)</ref> <br />
* Surveillance Video: located to Snizhne by Eliot Higgins, date unclear. <ref name="Story1" /><br />
* Zuhres video: Pre-geo-located by the uploader [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=48%C2%B0+1'1.38%22N++38%C2%B018'6.04%22E&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=48.034019,38.391724&spn=0.629958,1.564178&gbv=2&hnear=H21,+Zuhres,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&gl=us&t=h&z=10 here in Zuhres.] Higgins confirms, 100% sure, and others concur. Driving east. <ref name="Story1" /><br />
* Torez square photo - located by an associate of Higgins - filmed app. 11:40 AM in central Torez. See below. <br />
* Another photo placed: Snizneh, nearest the shoot-down area (f/c)<br />
* [http://www.parismatch.com/Actu/International/EXCLU-MATCH-Un-camion-vole-pour-transporter-le-systeme-lance-missiles-577289 Paris Match photo] - allegedly Snizhne, reportedly placed '''in northern Donetsk city.''' See below. <br />
<br />
===Billboard Video===<br />
(to be condensed) <br />
A video released by the Ukrainian Interior Ministry is highly dubious and worth some analysis. It shows what seems to be a BUK launcher loaded on a truck driving some direction in some town at what seems to be early twilight (or pre-dawn, depending). The [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4HJmev5xg0 original posting] (with almost 2 million views already) gives no details: "Militants take out missile system "Buk" to the border with Russiam" the title translates. "No description available," it says below, and no comments allowed.<br />
From what I've seen no one knows where this is filmed. Daily Mail says it's a "separatist stronghold," unnamed, and headed south, back towards Russia. "Ukrainian spies reportedly filmed the launcher used in the attack being smuggled to Russia - with two missiles missing." Eliot Higgins was cited by [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/20/malaysia-airlines-mh17-videos-missile-launcher-torez-snizhne the Guardian] with his new team of fundraistigators as geolocating some video and photo but not, apparently, this one. As explained at [https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1278239551/bellingcat/posts/919158 the kickstarter link] they give, Higgins writes:<br />
:''In the above video, posted by the Ukranian Ministry for Interior claiming to show the Buk missile launcher being driven towards Russia it was possible to match the transporter in the video to the transporter in Torez, details of which... (you have to subsidize their operation to see)'' --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== Avakov's Placement: Krasnodon or Lugansk ====<br />
Interior Minister Arsen Avakov said in [https://www.facebook.com/arsen.avakov.1/posts/670837696339673 a Facebook post of July 18] Google-translated: <br />
:''Covert surveillance units of MIA of Ukraine today July 18 at 4.50 am was recorded caterpillar tractor loaded with missile complex, moving in the direction through Krasnodon, toward the border with the Russian Federation. The video can be seen uncovered missiles. Two missiles in place - the average is not visible. ''<br />
:''There is an analysis of this and other information gathered. Presumably this is the missile system "Buk" that made a last shot at a civilian plane from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur .. ''<br />
:''Criminals try to hide the traces of this heinous crime. Not succeed. Security Service and Interior Ministry of Ukraine has collected and collects more irrefutable facts and evidence, the author points out the tragedy of the terrorist organization DNI / LC and its Russian backers Putin.'' <br />
:''The investigation of events MIA issue a comprehensive report on the information. This fragment consider it necessary to publish immediately.''<br />
<br />
By the 22nd, "online sleuths" had placed it in Lugansk (see below). Avakov then confirmed this - he was wrong the first time. One article makes it sound like he wasn't just echoing the sleuths:<br />
:''On July 22, Ukraine's Minister of Internal Affairs, Arsen Avakov, gave the exact coordinates of the video’s location: separatist-held Luhansk, about a 45-minute drive from Krasnodon. Locals quickly verified this claim by photographing the scene, which perfectly matches the landmarks seen in the video.'' ([http://globalvoicesonline.org/2014/07/29/russia-ukraine-mh17-conspiracy-buk/# article by one of the sleuths])<br />
<br />
====Krasnoarmeysk====<br />
One source venturing a guess is [http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ the Russian government and RT witrh their 10 intriguing questions:]<br />
:''“For example, media circulated a video supposedly showing a Buk system being moved from Ukraine to Russia. This is clearly a fabrication. This video was made in the town of Krasnoarmeisk, as evidenced by the billboard you see in the background, advertising a car dealership at 34 Dnepropetrovsk Street. Krasnoarmeysk has been controlled by the Ukrainian military since May 11.”''<br />
[[File:MH17 Billboard Vid Russian Analysis.png|right|250px]]There is a sign, but I cannot make it out just yet, if ever. Can they really? Even if that's so, surrounding towns might be good places for a dealership in Krasnoarmeysk to advertise. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
At right now is a still from a video claiming to show this, I still don't see it. They seem to think the gray span says that, perhaps from seeing a clearer view of this ubiquitous sign elsewhere. Opps. There's no reason to say a dealership in one town can only have billboards in that town. This alone fails. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 14:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Krasnoarmiis'k,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&hl=en&ll=48.323387,37.919312&spn=1.252829,3.128357&sll=48.226502,37.386475&sspn=0.627601,1.564178&oq=Krasnoarm&t=h&doflg=ptk&hnear=Krasnoarmiis'k,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&z=9 on Google Maps as Krasnoarmiis'k] - ''not'' to be confused with the Krasnoarmeisk not far away in Russia. Distance: about 100 km almost due west of the crash site. Panorama, possiblt location, directions/implications forthcoming. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Dnepropetrovsk Street is the main street of Krasnoarmeisk, leading northwest to Dnepropetrovsk. It tried matching this to the street corner where the car dealership is located. Yandex Maps did not provide a street view. It could be there, but too few details to make a positive match. Whatever this is, it is not evidence for anything. The least the SBU could have done is provide the location and some corroborating photographs.<br />
:The same applies to all so called "evidence" provided by Ukraine and the US State Department. As far as I can tell it is only cut-and-paste of unrelated footage to ''illustrate'' the claims made. A perfect example of this illusion is the "satellite photos" of Russian artillery shelling Ukraine released on Sunday morning. A photo of Russian GRADs on some unidentifiable field was placed next to a satellite image with an arrow pointing "Here Be Monsters!" Purely illustrative and no proof. There is a difference between legerdemain Hocus Pocus and outright forgery. The Russian video presentation displayed screen capture recording from the ATC radar, usually stored for two weeks. For this to be a hoax, Russia would need to create a forged tape of the radar data. Highly unlikely, as the the claim of authenticity had support of the full authority and prestige of the Russian Armed Forces. If the US presentation turns out to be hoax, State Department will claim the photos were never meant to be evidence. Some internee was told to prepare a presentation using stock images for some facts they ''knew'' to be true – trust us! -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 14:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: You must have missed [https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BtZSVQrIMAARzKr.jpg:large this], Petri! ;oP --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 18:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
::: That is an awesomely perfect picture for this sorry episode so far. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 14:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
::It would be neat though if we could show where this is and thus which way its's headed. The Kiev authorities, I think, know what happened. They say it was this exact launcher missing two missiles. It could be. Where is it at filming time and where headed? If it's true this same one was in Torez (dubious but possible) we'd have a direction traveled until that point also, and a rough time, 8:30 or so. [http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jul/27/mh17-storyful-social-media-twitter-youtube The Guardian again] citing Storyful's open-source investigation: <br />
::::''“There are now four pieces of content – three pieces of video and one image – which, in the case of three, conclusively show a Buk [surface-to-air] missile within rebel-held territory and in the case of the fourth, almost definitely in their territory,” says Storyful executive editor David Clinch. “Of those four pieces, individual groups or companies probably verified in or around the same time one or another of them.”''<br />
:''Open Newsroom verified three pieces of content and is investigating the fourth, thanks to its 900-strong network of journalists and experts. ''''<br />
:The fourth is this video. Wouldn't it be a coup if we were the first to place it? Force that intern excuse and then laugh at it. That said, it's not the most likely to place but you, Petri, especially, might be able to. I think I might. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 22:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* [https://plus.google.com/118234537318646233652/posts/LZV1XZD854E James Miller Google + July 21] "Was a Buk sighted in Krasnoarmeysk or Krasnodon (continued analysis)? We've taken a new look at this video which has been debated since it was posted days ago. We're fairly confident, though not 100% confident, in this geoanalysis, but we're making significant progress. Any more information would be extremely helpful. " Cited: [http://www.interpretermag.com/russia-this-week-lurid-anti-ukraine-propaganda-broadcast-on-state-tv/#1753 Russia This Week: Defense Ministry Claim on Buk in Billboard Video Doesn’t Add Up]<br />
:''...As we reported on our Ukraine Liveblog, the Buk was spotted before the shoot-down of the Malaysian airplane and ultimately geolocated to the town of Torez, near the location of the crash in Grabovo. Then the video, taken early the next morning on 18 July, showed a scene in Krasnodon,... <br />
--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Google Earth has one photo [http://www.panoramio.com/photo/55329278 from ул. Днепропетровская.] The street has about the same width. The streetlights are not quite the same. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 14:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
::That image doesn't help a match, especially since by now it looks like Lugansk. For the record, there was a go by pro-rebel social media people at identifying a spot in town to explain the video scene, but it didn't do that either. [http://wikimapia.org/#lat=48.276196&lon=37.176087&z=18&l=0&m=b this spot on Wikimapia] is what they pointed to - filmed from the marked building, they say, looking southwest to the mall. No matching anything. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 02:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== Placed in Lugansk! ====<br />
[[File:MH17 Billboard Vid-Lugansk Match.png|right|800px]]Storyful's rundown states of this video:<br />
:''The footage is not the original, however we believe that the first instance of this footage was removed by the uploader and the version below is the earliest we can find. Ukrainian Interior Minister, Arsen Avakov, made early claims that the video was filmed in the Ukrainian town of Krasnodon near the Russian border, however collaborative geo-location was able to place the footage in southwestern Luhansk.'' <ref name="Story1" /> <br />
It links to "Bellingcat," which you have to pay to see much of. [https://plus.google.com/118234537318646233652/posts/bMdeBzY8yty James Miller] passes on that it's "Mystery SOLVED: Video released by Ukraine's Interior Ministry does in fact show a Buk, possibly missing several missiles, in Lugansk headed east from the MH17 crash site and in the direction of Russia." The spot they think matches the video (better panorama coming) is [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=48%C2%B032'44.7%22N+39%C2%B015'52.6%22E&ie=UTF8&ll=48.545926,39.265147&spn=0.002436,0.00611&t=h&cid=0&z=18 here on Google Maps]. Was that a highway? Where's the cross-street? I see elsewhere they have a high view showing the same basic billboard there, but that's going to be true of several spots in this area. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
My impression of the scene - based on the panoramic view below - is far from matching with this. That does not look like a highway, and it just seems like a small town. However, I finally saw some of the supporting images (see [http://news.bigmir.net/ukraine/827864-V-Lygansk-vehala-kolonna-voennoi-tehniki--SMI here] and [https://twitter.com/djp3tros/status/491651820188860416/photo/1 here] - source of the inset image.) It seems a likely match after all. I won't say I confirm it with any certainty, but I don't think I'll be challenging it like I was preparing to do. Note the different billboard in the right spot, and the matching one over there. There are other images, apparently more current, showing that that they moved the one sign over to the right spot They don't point to the pinkish roofed building beyond the red-roofed one, but that adds to the match (compare to below). Whenever this video was made and whatever it really means, it seems quite likely it was at this spot in Lugansk shortly before dawn. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
There is another video from June 2014 showing the same billboard with the same car ad:<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ez8cZ3nqjCs Луганск 02 07 14]<br />
The video shows a column of BMPs with one 9K35 Strela-10 short-range surface to air missile system passing the intersection in Lugansk. I suspect they came from Russia, as [https://www.facebook.com/groups/IOUCO/permalink/584402078339517/ I specifically asked] for Putin to send in the Russian tanks that morning. They passed exactly when I expected them to, at 6 minutes past 4 am. (I estimated it would take 2 hours 6 minutes from the border.) -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 17:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== ACLOS Review ====<br />
As noted above, my review agrees with the placement agreed by the others. For what it's worth, the huge panorama I made (the middle is full-resolution) and starting notes from before I realized no work was needed. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 03:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
[[File:MH17 Billboard Video Pan.png|center|880px]]<br />
It seems to be filmed near the edge of town, or edge of a hill anyway, with a clear view ahead, two vague homes/buildings seen down the slope. Otherwise, very non-descript. The angle of intersection will be one of the better clues - it looks to me not 90 degrees ( |- ), but with the road the truck is on either slanting or curving somewhat towards the camera ( /- ). One important observation: '''there's no logical reason he should have been just happening to film this area''' unless he knew something interesting would drive by at just this odd time. That's clarified by how he zooms in just before it enters frame - he was waiting for that truck. How did he know about it? Informants on the other side of town phoning ahead makes enough sense, I suppose. <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 launcher truck composite.png|left|480px]]Another issue: If this is dusk (sunset 8:20 PM local), isn't this facing roughly northwest? If so, this vehicle is driving roughly north, not south. And we might start looking on the west edge of town. There's a highway out to the northwest, back towards Kiev. This street is too narrow and unmarked to be the highway, obviously, but it might be driving that way, for example. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
:Or, alternately, he's facing towards the sun about to rise, early on the 18th, as alleged by the Interior Ministry) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
::That he happened to be filming just before dawn is even less likely than dusk. He clearly knew this was coming, whatever that means. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 03:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Above is the composite scene without truck. At left is the truck without background. Besides lightening the scene, it seemed worth getting the clearest details from different frames into a composite view of the truck and its load. This helps compare to the launchers seen in other areas and different times. So far, they all seem to look the same and perhaps be the same. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 03:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br /><br />
<br />
==== HRI ====<br />
Pretty good points [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/08/05/mh17-the-lugansk-buk-video/ from Human Rights Investigations]:<br />
:''To sum up, the statement of Avakov, the film and its location suggest the Ukrainian authorities had advance knowledge of this BUK and trailer’s movements or control over it. It is also extremely strange that this BUK, allegedly after shooting down MH17, is supposedly filmed by a Ukrainian surveillance team in ostensibly rebel territory, with its covering missing, as if to show the world a missile is missing.''<br />
--[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Paris Match Photo ===<br />
[[File:MH17 Paris Match.png|770px]]<br /><br />
* [http://www.parismatch.com/Actu/International/EXCLU-MATCH-Un-camion-vole-pour-transporter-le-systeme-lance-missiles-577289 Originally published by Paris Match] on July 25, with the claim the picture was taken by their own reporting team near Snizhne at mid-day on the 17th. Note the prominent, apparent, telephone number prominently centered in the picture - (050) 471-41-80. The truck and launcher, as far as can be seen, are quite similar to or the same as the one seen in the billboard video anyways. How many of its missiles the unit has at this moment is unclear. <br />
<br />
* [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/07/28/why-is-paris-match-on-the-location-of-a-buk/ Human Rights Investigations:] "it turns out to have been taken in Donetsk, 75km away" (citing someone else's geo-location - [https://www.google.com/maps/@48.004592,37.87265,3a,75y,63.38h,82.21t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sRGnHwZ5YZnuGO-n_VvruWg!2e0 site link given.] <br />
:''We know this because the phone number on the truck panel (050 471 4180) leads straight to this hire place (photo):<br />
:''According to Paris-Match, the proprietor of this establishment claimed “rebels” had stolen a number of his vehicles earlier in the month. If we go from here to towards Snizhne we find the location of the Paris-Match photo, near a car dealership on Makiivske Highway on the outskirts of Donetsk:''<br />
:''After informing Paris-Match of the mistake regarding the video location, the author of the article Alfred De Montesquiou has now got back and explained:''<br />
:''Hello, indeed, it appears there was a mixup in caption : the picture was taken leaving Donetsk on road to Snijne, not in actual Snijne'' <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Donestk Buk Map.png|thumb|right|480px|Map: this truck location, the company's apparent headquarters ([https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Molodykh+Shakhtariv+St,+19,+Donetsk,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&ll=48.044923,37.783184&spn=0.079187,0.195522&hnear=Molodykh+Shakhtariv+St,+19,+Donetsk,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&t=h&z=13 GM link]), and the A-1402 missile base relative to each other.]]<br />
<br />
'''Questions:''' Was it a caption mix-up, or did their team really not know where it was taken, and just believed the real source when he said Snizneh? Who is the true photographer who knew to catch this picture near the company's base, apparently at the outset of a rather epic journey? Why did the rebel thieves leave the prominent phone number on the stolen truck used for such an important task? It wound up leading to man who pointed right to the rebel thieves, and prove yet again separatists, not Kiev allies, were the ones driving BUKs around. Was that so hard to foresee? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''To Do:''' Verify the geo-location - set a time, presuming July 17, by sunlight and that location - establish which way it's traveling relative to the government-run anti-aircraft base just a few km north of here and relative to the other places and times this truck and others were spotted rolling around prominently and getting filmed a lot by the right kind of people, in areas presumed to be impenetrable to any such frame-up operation - look into this company, etc. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''Location:''' I can't confirm it with certainty, but it's extremely consistent. Two standard but distinct pole types that close together on the right with a pull-over lane ending at the blue one, and consistent-scale foliage behind. Proceding on the location as likely enough to warrant the work. The stretch of highway identified runs northeast, heading 33 degrees. The truck is most likely not driving at the moment, as it's in the pull-over lane. But it's pointed as if ready to leave Donetsk as soon as they finish doing something in theis spot. All we can see they're doing is getting filmed, and maybe that's just what they're waiting for. Ahead would be the an industrial area, the eastern suburb of Makiivka, then Khartsyzk, etc. and further east Torez and Snizhne (driving times unsure, date also unsure. Russia claims the one launcher left the northern base sometime between in August 14 and 17 images. <ref name="RT10">[http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ 10 more questions Russian military pose to Ukraine, US over MH17 crash] RT. July 21, 2014</ref><br />
<br />
'''Time:''' I'm not sure how exactly to set this up, but the shadows appear to stretch almost right across the highway, with only a slight northern shift. The azimuth thus appears to be fairly close to to 140˚ (reached at 11:09 AM). As for solar altitude, trying to line up the launcher's corner with its shadow gives a reading of app. 56˚ (= 10:50 AM, with azimuth 133˚) or perhaps 59˚ (= 11:18, az 143.5). The graphic shows both readings. Which is better? I used [http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/solcalc/ NOAA solar calculator], with coordinates: lat 48.017102 long:37.9037626 time=GMT+2, DST +1 --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
There is more to consider about this truck, its company, its owner, and his story. But other than this photo's extra-clear view of the phone number and apparent proximity to headquarters, those are better covered in the section below [[#The Truck Owner's Story]].<br />
<br />
==== Time? ====<br />
[[File:MH17 Paris Match elev.png|right|220px]]<br />
Bellingcat was originally claiming that photo was taken at 9 am. [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/09/08/images-show-the-buk-that-downed-flight-mh17-inside-russia-controlled-by-russian-troops/] [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/11/08/origin-of-the-separatists-buk-a-bellingcat-investigation/]<br />
<br />
Then they were claiming 11 am as an obvious time without retracting previous 9am claim. Seems like 9am was more comfortable for them to match to photos from Zuhres and Torez. <br />
<br />
Sorry, using smartphone. Not very easy to comment --[[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 01:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:<small>Looks like you put the same link twice, -it says 11 a.m.--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)</small><br />
::Antidyatel, welcome! Resup, thanks! I'd like to see any 9 am citation. But otherwise they agree on it being around 11? Good. The significance below is if the Zuhres square photo was taken at 11:40 AM as they say, it's basically impossible these images are from the same day as alleged - 69 km, 1 hour 14 mins drive between the spots, when there's only 20-40 minutes between the images. However, fudging it - let's say this is 10:50 and the other is 12:00 as I read it - that's 1:10 between, almost a perfect match. So maybe this isn't a great lead (I was never convinced it was). But 9:00 is way off and suggests they were fudging it to fit at that point. Would be good to document. BTW, on talk pages you can sign with <nowiki>--~~~~</nowiki> or the sign/scribble button. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: [https://web.archive.org/web/20141109132514/https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/11/08/origin-of-the-separatists-buk-a-bellingcat-investigation/ First archive.org snapshot] from the day after publishing (edit: a good three months after you called it :o)) says 11 am already. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 10:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: Okay, the links were fixed once or twice and [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/11/08/origin-of-the-separatists-buk-a-bellingcat-investigation/ the November report] says 11 am, not citing an azimuth or anything, just Paris Match saying it was "about 11 am," which doesn't count much for verification. The [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/09/08/images-show-the-buk-that-downed-flight-mh17-inside-russia-controlled-by-russian-troops/ earlier report from Sptember] might be based on something else when it mentions "a well known image from Paris Match, which shows a Buk in Donetsk at 9am on July the 17th." Neither one sounds like a firm final version. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== Screenshot from dashcam video? ====<br />
It it possible to identify if the photo was made by dashboard camera, smartphone, or other type of camera. Paris Match claimed that they made the photo. There are no date markings on the photo, which is strange. Position of the camera is such that it was either dashboard camera or the driver was making a photo (front and left side of the car). Paris Match was also implying in their report that it was a group of people in the car. "A sytem BUK missile launcher is photopgraphie by the team of Paris-Match in the suburbs of Donetsk, on the road to Snizhne the morning of July 17, hours before the flight Malaysia Airlines MH17 crash."[http://m.parismatch.com/Actu/International/EXCLU-MATCH-Un-camion-vole-pour-transporter-le-systeme-lance-missiles-577289]<br />
<br />
Why would they ask driver to make a photo? Dangerous or uncomfortable - illogical. If it was a dashboard camera, why not to release a video? And most importantly it would have a time stamp. <br />
<br />
Also in this report [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/01/17/new-images-of-the-mh17-buk-missile-launcher-in-ukraine-and-russia/] gives a new, a bit extended photo. Surprisingly the back of the BUK is nicely in focus, same as the truck cabin. While middle of the BUK is defocused. No wonder Paris Match cropped it. Bellingcat, that likes being so strict about photos, totally ignores this part. <br />
-- [[User:Antidyatel|Antidyatel]] ([[User talk:Antidyatel|talk]]) 23:55,, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Yes, I agree. The two photos are crops from screenshots from a dashcam video. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 00:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Torez Square Photo ===<br />
[[File:MH17 Torez Buk Analysis.png|left]]This is another image geo-located by the Brown Moses network (ally Aric Toller) to central Torez, [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Donetsk&hl=en&ll=48.023472,38.614014&spn=0.004923,0.01222&hnear=Donetsk,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&t=h&z=17 here on Google Maps.] Like others, it was initially stated as in another locale - Snizhne - and that had to be corrected. I can agree the location pointed to is either the photo's site or one strangely like it. [http://mashable.com/2014/07/23/citizen-journalists-mh17-spies/ Mashable noted] "Toler and Higgins were able to establish that the photograph was shot around 11:40 a.m. local time." I tried a quick azimuth measure, eyeballed relative only to the blue car, and got 165 degrees (yellow line, read backwards). This equates to a time of almost exactly 12:00 noon (about 30 minutes before solar noon, and 20 minutes later than their estimate). Seeing they're close to right, I'll presume they're closer than me and defer to 11:40. <br />
<br />
If this photo is taken at 11:40 AM, and it's the same truck seen leaving Donetsk around 11-11:20 AM, it's impossible these images are from the same day as alleged (Gmaps says it's 68.8 km, 1 hour 14 mins drive, when there's only 20-40 minutes between the images). That would mean multiple mobile launchers with multiple "Titan" trucks, or just one but with some date fudging. The company says a number of its trucks were stolen, so matching multiples are entirely likely. But so is date fudging, multiples or not. If that's so, I suspect the Donetsk photo was from July 15 or 16, and this one more likely from the day of the crime. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 04:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br /><br /><br /><br />
=== Zuhres Video ===<br />
[[File:Buk Zuhres Vid.png|right|480px]]Again, a truck of that same type loaded with the same apparent weapon is briefly seen driving east (detail at right). This one was never reported wrong and was in fact pre-geo-located by the uploader [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=48%C2%B0+1'1.38%22N++38%C2%B018'6.04%22E&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=48.034019,38.391724&spn=0.629958,1.564178&gbv=2&hnear=H21,+Zuhres,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&gl=us&t=h&z=10 here in Zuhres.] Higgins confirms, 100% sure, and others concur. <ref name="Story1" /> Zuhres location: on highway H21 halfway between Donetsk and the general disaster zone - 36 km east by road from the position of the truck in the Paris Match photo. I agree with the location, refined below as I lined up in the still used here - the blue line runs between the blue thing and the building corner (footprint, not roofline) to the front of the truck as it passes. <br />
<br />
The sky is fairly overcast, so solar angles can't be measured precisely; the differences in facet lighting are clear but not massive. A broad and inclusive azimuth range of 167˚ to 214˚ (rounded) is shown by the yellow arrows below. This yields a range (to the nearest minute) of 12:09 PM and 1:45 PM. The best middle is a bit early - 185 degrees. That would be 12:44 PM. Altitude, at solar noon, helps little. 12:09, 12:44, and all times between round off to 63˚. if that simply looks too high, we're forced to the later end of the time frame. - 57˚ at 1:45. My super broad-estimate: 12:45 +/- 50 minutes. Weather at this time on whatever day - as noted, it partly overcast, and it's windy. The clouds are moving fast, with slight lighting changes visible in just these few seconds. Winds by the swaying trees are from the southeast, perhaps, blowing northwest - at least at the building with a face running that way.<br />
[[File:Buk Zuhres analysis.png|center|680px]]<br />
<br />
==The Truck Owner's Story==<br />
The apparent owner of the white truck so important to the MH17 operation was of course tracked down via the giant phone number for his compant on its side. Interviewed at least twice now, first by Paris Match, then by Lithuanian agency Alfa, this businessman has been anonymized as Vassili (then Vasilijus). Thorough summary of the related, alleged facts, from each (translated) report:<br />
* [http://www.parismatch.com/Actu/International/EXCLU-MATCH-Un-camion-vole-pour-transporter-le-systeme-lance-missiles-577289 Paris Match, July 25:]<br />
:''Photographs of Paris Match showed that the rebels had failed to remove the billboard on the truck they had stolen. Thus we joined the owner of the vehicle. Vassili said the rebels occupied warehouses on the outskirts of Donetsk since July 8. "They are fighters Slaviansk. They landed and told me they loved my premises and we had to escape. They shipped me a dozen large vehicles, including the white truck. I do not know what happened to them, "admitted Vassili, distraught.'' (that was actually just what they published, aside from context material) <br />
<br />
* [http://www.alfa.lt/straipsnis/472203/alfa-lt-isskirtinis-interviu-su-raketas-buk-kuriomis-buvo-numustas-malaizijos-avialiniju-lektuvas-gabenusio-vilkiko-savininku?p=1#.U-GIxeOSyuZ Alfa.lt, July 29:]<br />
:''This person's testimony is crucial. After it becomes indisputably known that anti-missile system, which shot down a passenger plane was precisely the Kremlin-sponsored terrorist hands. ''<br />
Here, separatists are throughout called "terrorists" (Bezler is "the "People's Republic of Donetsk" terrorist gangs ringleader"). Vassili says these took over and occupied his company premises on July 8, taking the white truck - they said because it was needed He says they stayed in control of his facility for 8 days, apparently departing on the 9th day - July 17. Becuase of this, he and his staff - especially his drivers - were unable to do anything that whole time. He's entirely certain it's his truck in the videos (the phone number says so) as it's the only one of its type in that part of Donetsk (Žinoma, ji – vienintelė tokia Donecko srityje, tokios kitos nėra. Tokios „Volvo“ su tokia kabina). He says he still hasn't seen it since.<br />
:''...more and more irrefutable evidence that Russia supported the terrorists shot down over the temporary control of the territory in the east of Ukraine aboard passenger "Malaysia Airlines plane, and later sought to hide evidence.''<br />
But as Paris Match noted, they couldn't be bothered to detach the phone number to the guy with the whole dang story. <br />
:''Alfa.lt knowledge of the personal data, company name, knows his responsibilities and phone numbers (one is (050) 471-41-80), but because of '''the danger to his life''' that can not be published. "Stop saying my name, and I already have enough problems," said new horrific crime witness Vasilijus.'' <br />
This is valid; of course his best defense would have been to simply ''not'' implicate the separatists mostly running Donetsk, but it's too late now. DPR authorities might want him for questioning. And especially now that he's been publicized as a "crucial witness," others will want him to '''appear to have been brutally murdered by them''' (he will have served his main purpose by now, perhaps). I hope someone's able to arrange protective custody quickly enough, or that he can arrange his own vacation, or convince his friends (he'll know the ones) of his continuing usefulness to them alive. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Titan Gate blurry.png|left|380px]]Further bits on the business: Wikimapia has labels. One for the front building is generic. In English writing: [http://wikimapia.org/#lat=48.0399571&lon=37.794637&z=16&l=0&m=b&show=/24479492/Ochakivska-vulytsia-19 Ochakivska vulytsia, 19]. Beneath: Category: safety, '''private security company.''' Around this, a bigger labeled area including the back building and surrounding lot. Label: Территория службы охраны "Титан" Translated, it says "Territory protection service "Titan" (Donetsk)." Beneath it: "Category: '''Do not display name''', fenced area." (не отображать название, огороженная территория) Below, their gate area as it appears in Human Rights Investigation's still, and three versions I've seen randomly changing over the last day or so with different parts that could be the name blurred out (most recently back to not blurred). Is that unusual? I predict further twists in this, with the truck found somewhere bolstering the Kiev story, and with the company's "outing" being manipulated somehow. Feels a little spooky. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
;Assessing "Vassili's" Story<br />
<br />
There are a number of problems with and interesting questions about this witness' story and how it meshes with other allegation (details forthcoming).<br />
<br />
In Vassili's defense, I'll say the world needs to hear more. What happened in these eight days? Were Russian officers coming and going? Poring over air charts in the side room, before closing the door with an annoyed look? A lot could have happened - this could be a gold mine of direct evidence for war crimes trials of these terrorist gang's leaders (as understood). --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
[[File:MH17 Vassili's Truck August 1c.png|right|400px]]<br />
An apparent support: as HRI found, [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/08/07/new-sighting-of-volvo-linked-to-buk/ New sighting of Volvo linked to BUK?] August 7 - One of those provocatively deleted tweets, quite recent with a supposedly same-day (dawn or sunset) photo from somewhere in Donetsk - outskirtsy, like where <s>rebel</s> I mean Kiev junta forces proudly claim to almost be. this photo (saved by HRI) shows "a truck" carrying a tank, driving behind another tank. The posted thought it was for a new roadblack/barricade (concrete slabs were also being hauled). It appears to be the same truck Vassili says he lost, or one just like it. And this does look like the type of thing seaparatists would do if they had seized it, and still didn't realize how famous it had become. This thing likes to drive at dawn, doesn't it? How are checkpoints then, a little sleepy maybe? Hmmm... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::(added later: inset image - from the photo, color-corrected and cropped on just the truck - for full view see the article or below) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: FTR I took up HRI's challenge to identify the truck on that picture and did so with almost 100% certainty. It's a Volvo FH second generation (2001-2013) with low cabin. Like [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Volvo_LKW_Fahrerhaus.JPG this one] which has a higher cabin but other than that is quite a match. Also FTR, I noticed that the twitter account has "Donbass Bandera" as location, which can but must not mean anything. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: Bandera might mean something, in context, but no time to puzzle too much. Good ID work there. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Vassili's Truck August 1 Loc.png|left|380px]]The article passes on a geo-location I can confirm: [https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Makiivka,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine/@48.04073,37.967479,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m5!1e2!3m3!1s78165143!2e1!3e10!4m2!3m1!1s0x40e08e984a0db9a9:0xe4e52efde2e0641c Here on Google Maps,] photo taken, as described, from "opposite the Vostochno-evroppeyskiy restaurant & lounge “Atrium” in Makiivka on the H-21." A site photo of the "Atrium" is included. The graphic I made at left shows the approximate view, including the stairwell (to a subway station?), though the billboard is less clear. The view is roughly towards the rising sun northeast - a rough azimuth measure suggests the sun is shining from about <s>66</s> 71 degrees from north, for a time of around <s>5:24</s> 5:52 AM (elevation: <s>1.8</s> 6 degrees). --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC) and corrections --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
FWIW, I went over to militaryphotos.net and scanned [http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?236005-Situation-in-the-Ukraine-Crimea-*Photos-Videos*-ONLY/page200 the thread about Ukraine starting on page 200] in very early July, up until page 225 when all the known truck/BUK info and disinfo was posted. Watched countless military convoys, including a whole bunch from Donetsk in the time between. Not a sign of the truck in question. If it was in "rebel" hands since July 8 like the alleged owner claims, they used it only for "special ops", alone in the early morning or so, not in their larger relocation operations. Two things remotely interesting: in an operation [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0JdcC324Ek reactivating a WWII tank from a war museum in Donetsk], a similar trailer is used, but the truck is a different one. And in [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2eGNPJlkMo this video from July 5] but without given location, the Ukie army does some operations and two BUK TELARs are seen. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Possible Launch Sites ==<br />
*Launch site discussion here is based on a photo of disputed provenance, said to be made '''near [[Category_talk:Ukraine#Torez|Torez]]''', showing a plume of smoke (see on the right and below). Exact date is disputed, but it was posted shortly after the accident. A late update or second version of the photo emerged in December 2014; this is further discussed in the [[File_talk:MH17_Launch_Plume.png|talk page for the photo]]. A different launch location in '''Artemovsk''', based on Bezler account, is discussed elsewhere [[Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17#Bezler_Account|(link).]] . <br />
<br />
===What do we know? ===<br />
Questions about the photo, --if it is genuine-- include:<br />
<br />
*What is shown on the photo? (Likely a missile launch, but can be MANPAD, or some other launch; raising fire smoke not excluded though less likely) <br />
*When was the photo made? (Claimed to be couple of minutes after the MH 17 shootdown launch; but could be made on earlier days)<br />
*Where was the photographer, and where is than the 'launch site" Photograph claimed to be made in Torez (4 microdistrict?) . Claimed launch sites locations are [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/launch-location-detected-of-missile.html SE] or [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2107 NE] from the photographer. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
A site, or maybe a couple of locations, have now been forwarded, based on compelling evidence, as likely SAM launch sites of July 17 or thereabouts. This is worth careful consideration here. To start:<br />
<br />
* [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10984530/MH17-the-clues-which-may-lead-to-missile-launch-site.html UK Telegraph, July 22] This report with some detail and a photo visits a few areas where signs of possible BUK launcher movement and firing occurred recently. Caterpillar tracks, mostly light, signs of burning, various debris left behind, all or mostly "in the area of the town of Snizhnoye." These details might suggest whoever did this had multiple launchers set up in different areas that left as soon as the operation/accident was done. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
::So far, signs are saying it was just the one. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Below: The site shown on video, stitched panoramic view (with confusing curve). This helps get the fullest set of geo-location clues. I may even check if this is the same spot identified by Ukraine@War, below. It should be, or we might have two firing locations pretty near each other, which would be odd. The firing direction from here would be northwest, almost directly along MH17's flight path. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
[[File:MH17 Telegraph site.png|center|940px]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Launch Plume.png|right|340px]]Ukraine@War: [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/launch-location-detected-of-missile.html Launch location detected of missile that brought down MH17] The photo at right, cited by Kiev as proof of a BUK launch in the right area, July 17. The anlysis here looks good on first blush and lines the filming to northern Torez, plume on a line including a supposed patch of cat tracks just revelaed by fresh Google/GeoEye images of some fields [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Donetsk&hl=en&ll=47.989347,38.773155&spn=0.078813,0.195522&t=h&hnear=Donetsk,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&z=13 here] by Snizhne. As traced, the tracks look realistic to me. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: There is (a disappeared) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUvK5m2vxro BBC video ] suggesting that smoke is from a direction of Saur-Mogila (= constant fighting) and a coal mine. <br />
::Thus smoke may be unrelated to the launch. Also timing of photo is unclear. <br />
:: Buk trail from unrelated launch videos appears considerably [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDXScnEKaP0 more impressive than on the photo] , and traces well visible trajectory, likely attracting attention of many people . But there appears to be no witness reports. <br />
::Buk appears to use [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_navigation proportional navigation method], and if so, its navigation control will try to guide it on a straight path to impact.<br />
::Unless it was doing something else (but can it??? the answer requires expert knowledge), it was most likely on a straight line trajectory which can be deduced from the impact direction.<br />
--[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 00:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Yes, an odd video. I'm not certain they even picked the right view, but it looks about right - I think she and Oliphant (Telegraph) point to the same monument as a landmark - a place of fighting. Seems like they got close, but didn't have a specific spot like U@W picked, and didn't find anything. As for angle, I think it can maneuver around, but would prefer to fly straight (not an expert, don't know what "prefer" means here). And if it was hit head-on like the impact marks suggest, then it probably did fly just about straight into the jet. Obviously if it came over the wing, and was fired from here, it would have to curl around, but I don't think that's the case. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
<br />
The satellite images cited at Ukraine@War are available if you have Google Earth. As explained [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/satellite-images-reveal-how-buk-has.html here,] there's a .kmz package you can download [https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxEeOqcjSE5uQXlkWkxKeVhDaEk/edit here] that loads on Google Earth new, murky images from July 20 (but the display still says August, 2013). The tracks he highlights are visible, faintly. There are a couple sets perhaps connecting - some could be local paths - there's no recent enough images to say there weren't there July 16. One important missing thing is a patch of burnt grass it seems should show up up differently - it's not identified there, and not evident right around these tracks. From this, it's not a great fit, except that line of sight pointing here. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Plastic Debris 1.png|left|280px]]So is the Telegraph site and the Ukraine@War site the same thing? Well, the Telegraph article says they went to the spot identified on a blog, but found, as the image suggests: Two possible launch sites – a rundown collective farm and a nearby wheat field – showed some track marks but no sign of any rocket launch whatsoever." It was a farmer plowing his fields there who pointed them to ''a field nearby'' that burned the other day, and that 's the unclear site they show. "The location of the fire lies on the supposed flight path of the rocket, and track marks – though indistinct – are present. Some unidentifiable bits of green plastic littered the site of the fire." There were also discarded bottles (type unclear) and apparently this oddity, shown in a photo but not mentioned - soft bakelite-type plastic ... thing, with years in the 1980s and 1990s stamped in it. It's all near enough to the rebel town, the Russian border, and concealed rebel positions that they think only rebels could operate there. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
First, let's note that author "P. Martin" connects these possibly relevant tracks with the surveillance video showing the Buk launcher driving south The Telegraph spot, from the burnt grass, must the spot the exhaust pushed off from, and the burn line should probably be to the northwest. There's no sign of that alongside these track marks found on that visual line. That's a problem, as the exhaust never said a luncher was driving around thataway, but rather launching from thataway. <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Telegraph Spot Mapped.png|right|380px]][[File:MH17 Telegraph Spot Cleared.png|right|320px]]Rather, it's the nearby "Telegraph spot" - not quite on his line but close - that [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com/2014/07/exact-location-pinpointed-of-mh17.html Martin thinks is the EXACT location] That, he thinks, is in the next field south. It should be visible in the updated imagery, but it turns out this is just off the edge of the area they provided, so it can't be verified or ruled out based on that. The inset graphic shows this cut-off line, his previous possible firing locations (track-based, seemingly un-burnt, in yellow) The spot yields a best placement with coordinates already noted by Petri in a section [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Map#Buk locations and flight paths|here.]] (I picked out the spot myself, best guess, and got the same but 3 seconds east) It can't be checked like that for the telltale stripe to the northwest, but it looks pretty likely to me. The main view down the tracks (left half of the panorama above) would be looking south, and the near line of trees on the right running west. The pretty obvious tracks he identifies as likely launcher tracks, and they do seem to curve in where it stopped. Otherwise, to me, this has more the look of a pre-travelles semi-road on the line between fields. Either way, it probably drove that way, and fired from here, and not from the un-burnt spots north. All the tracks he notes, none certain in themselves, are supported in their possible relevance by this being what's at the end of the trail. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC) and [[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Added in November, the image below that. I noticed Google Maps had new post-crash imagery up, and re-checked the spot for burn marks, since it was just off the grid before. This replacement - overlayed with translucence - seems too late. The strip most likely to show the signs has apparently been harvested/cleared before this image Some will say that constitutes a coverup. And it might, but probably just out of stupid reflexive nervousness. I just wanted to measure its angle and stuff. There is a nice track right up to the spot, likely pre-existing and just unclear before, and what they used to get there. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Location Challenged ===<br />
<br />
The above stuff, as of now and as I've been running it mainly, seems to bear out the vaunted "social media sleuths" placing the launcher and probably the launch in "separatist-held territory." I agree with all locations provided, and times too. Everyone acknowledges date is less sure. There are compelling clues pointing to concrete firing spot, that seems to be lined up the hit the jet head-on, as it's starting to seem the airliner was hit. In this narrative, the questions people should be asking is who was really running that. But readings differ, and some differing views can be considered here. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* [https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByibNV3SiUoobnpCVDduaHVORHM/edit?usp=sharing MH17 Analysis] – CDN <br />
<br />
Petri posted this to the front page, a 25-page report with many graphics and explained reasoning. One of its conclusions, based on range to impact, mainly, meant that "the missile that downed MH17 was not fired from Snizhne." At the moment, I disagree. Petri, who is CDN, and are they soliciting feedback? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::The anonymous PDF was published via Saker's blog: [http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/08/detailed-expert-analysis-of-mh17-downing.html Detailed expert analysis of the MH17 downing] "CDN" has [http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/08/detailed-expert-analysis-of-mh17-downing.html?showComment=1407347983141#c8862773971299986141 responded] [http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/08/detailed-expert-analysis-of-mh17-downing.html?showComment=1407350196815#c7564049628743605813 twice] in the comments. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 00:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
I think these might be part of what threw the author(s) off:<br />
# the heading seems to be off, too southerly to trace back like that. At the end, maybe close enough<br />
# possibly too-wide debris field starting too early - final breakup likely E-NE of their spot (ie closer to in range)<br />
# Wrong presumed angle of impact <br />
# Lack of knowledge, specified on page 23, of this contrail image or, obviously, the supporting clues pointing to what might be "the Telegraph site" excluded here. "Why are there no images of the rebel missile and its impressive launch contrail?" Oops, there is and it point there. <br />
--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: I just skimmed it before coming here. It was posted [http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.de/2014/08/detailed-expert-analysis-of-mh17-downing.html over here] where you can join the discussion (which I haven't read yet just saw that Petri is there chiming in in comment 2 of currently 93). I think it's first valuable in presenting the known capabilities of the Buk etc. If your stuff above is true and it is one single truck with one single TELAR that was seen in the different locations, then it shows quite conclusively that the Telegraph position can not be the launching point, because even if the Ukie claim of disappearance from Radar 50km from the Russian border is not true, due to the position of the debris it could only be further away, not closer, which adds to the argument. My 2 cents for the moment. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
: Oh, not directly related to the critique, but driving around with a huge phone number that leads to a Titan security of all places is more than a bit suspicious, I'd say. ;o) --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: "the Telegraph position can not be the launching point" if my "stuff above is true and it is one single truck with one single TELAR that was seen in the different locations" - how? "because even if the Ukie claim of disappearance from Radar 50km from the Russian border is not true, due to the position of the debris it could only be further away, not closer, which adds to the argument." Huh? I think the field is placed really vaguely in that report, and that's what sets the impact point - it looks maybe kilometers off, to the west. Placed right, the implied impact point is further east, ie closer to the launcher. It is a valuable report, but that point should be re-checked more carefully before I could be convinced to write off all the other evidence pointing there. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::: Take a careful look at pages 9 and 10 of the PDF. Place the spot to where you think it's "right". Think how that would change the picture. The argument is based on the empirical location of the debris and unless I've missed some serious flaw in the numbers and basic calculations made on the pages leading to that, I think it's by rule of thumb a very sound argument. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 13:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::: I'll do my own soon - I can say it would end further east, relative to the border there, and probably start further east too, but maybe I'm unaware of some outlying debris - but first a though on the debris field I just had, even more relevant than size and placement - what does it actually say re: the plane? He presumes it would follow the trajectory east. Not much, really. With only so much momentum and breaking up, with five miles to fall, the main factor will be wind. Even a breeze has five miles to act on it. That was so with PA 103 - the wind was about perpendicular to the path, and that determined just where stuff scattered on a line across the borders area right to the north sea - only the cockpit and a few things were off much from that line. Here, if it blewa along the flight path, the reasoning would work fine. If it blew back, to the west, the plane was probably shot further east than the field suggests. Ie, closer yet to in range. The Zuhres video above shows wind apparently to the northwest, and pretty strong. Worth a review and re-think in that light. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 14:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::: With an initial speed of 907 km/h I see no reason to take wind into serious account. I see no reason at all for going into more detail in this rule of thumb argument, not on the debris, not on the alleged launching point. But I'm as always looking forward to what you can come up with. ;o) --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::: btw there's no exact calculation of the traveled distance of the falling pieces, it's just found plausible resulting from other data. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::::: There's good reason. [http://martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/PA103_debris.gif past precedent.] I did read it wrong - the blue oval is about right, I thought the scale by it, which is way off. That's the 20 km drift - if the wind was blowing due east at the right speed... to the near edge of the oval and 30 km to the far edge... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 15:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 four last points.png|center]]<br />
<br />
Debris fields as shown in MH17 WSJ data combined.jpg. The two tracks, 118 per Flightradar24 and other sources, and 111 from a Russian graphic (see label C), just in case. They cross at point E just to look cool - superimpose wherever to visualize a track-back on these or any line between. <br />
<br />
The four red "last points", eyeballed onto the map as shown in the various graphics used here (all pretty approximate): <br />
<br />
A: last return, flightradar 24 (erred, I think, way too far along - I suspect some inherent offset...)<br />
<br />
B: Russian ATC last return, '50 km' from the border (vague description, likely close to accurate)<br />
<br />
C: end of 111 track shown in MH17 radar 1.png (maybe arbitrary, lower resolution)<br />
<br />
D: report, deduced point of impact (presuming 20-30 km flight due east after impact, wind app. not considered at all)<br />
<br />
E: My guess for breakup point, where the damaged front came apart (should maybe be further east, right over the south part of the first orange blob). Actual impact point, an unclear distance back. probably not very far - downward flight could start anytime after that, decreasing the lateral distance traveled) . <br />
<br />
The cockpit, aerodynamic, shows the most like forward trajectory of this, relatively minimal wind complication. The heavy forward parts had more drag, wound up NW of there. A bit further NW, the light, high-drag, punctured upper fuselage. That these parts aren't spread further out suggests the jet managed to descend some ways before the front totally fell apart, and/or that the wind was fairly light. From there, most of the plane remained together, kept more momentum and little wind effect, and crashed kilometers east. The last part of this plummet, about one minute seen on video, it was nose-free and essentially nose-diving. A slight north trend, perhaps curtailed eastward progress, largely just down, leaves it all hitting together by Hrabove, scattering woth the fireball trajectory and wind deciding where these bits landed. That it only got so far from the forward parts again suggests this breakup was fairly low in the fall - maybe just before the start of the one video. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I'd say forget point D, it is way too far west, this plane was not going to fly 25km once hit. On debris, I'd put breakup where the "f" is in your word "forward" and impact not very far NW of that, lifting the whole 118 line a little northwards. You can't bring breakup below impact and count on wind pushing wreckage "uphill" because that first group of wreckage included 37 bodies, which would not "sail". The impact would be enough to knock the course slightly south, to drop the cockpit at Rozspyne, where it turned NE to end up at Grabovo. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 03:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Thanks. D is the presumed point used to rule out this launch location, the original point of this sub-section. That dot fails by a good margin. My E and your guess are both north of the flight path, along which all the red dots are (this graphic is confusing, needs updating, if I didn't flatten it). I was thinking a NNW wind did the north and west spreading, but the records say the wind was flat "east" (to the west). I'm left suspecting now the plane banked hard left just before it started breaking up. Actual impact, just before that. The "C" label is pretty arbitrary, but it keeps seeming about right. On the imagined red line 1t 117-118, I dunno, maybe 20-30 pixels back. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::Winds are described as 'from' not 'to. So a wind blowing to the NNW is reported as a SSE wind.<br />
::::A slip - I'm trying to say it that way now. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::Getting on to the wind. The actual breeze direction is usually a function of altitude - veering or backing from ground level observation. It can easily be 90 degrees out from ground level. You need to look at the vertical profile used in aeronautical soundings to see where debris will in the main blow to. --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 11:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::Sounds like a real headache to map. There's also changes over time, where east at 5:00 may change briefly ten minutes later, or 10,000 feet up. All that seems can be counted on is easterly winds in general - no exception to that. And generally, even if they measure it at the airport, it must extend up to the clouds, which can be seen swirling east over the area. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::No it doesn't extend to the clouds except by accident. Major direction change can happen in hundreds of metres altitude especially at night. Examples of wind shift between ground level and 700 millibars (9800 ft) in day time can show a direction change of 90 degrees - e.g. North to West. This is significant with MH17 where the breakups occurred between 33,000 feet and probably a few thousand feet for the final disintegrations. --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 11:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::FYI Here is all about [http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/48/ Veering and Backing] --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 11:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::As for the spread issue, I'm re-thinking it. As for the bodies, it depends on a few things but I take your point - bodies are dense. And I didn't know that detail - worth considering. Also a sad side-note: most bodies would be alive and aware, from what I learned looking at Lockerbie. Lack of O2 would black them all out at first, but gravity makes it so there's enough in that final stretch those not dead already (the lucky few) would probably "wake up" in time to both feel their injuries and their fall, and to see the "separatist-held" fields rushing up to kill them. :( ---[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::: My indications are they were all dead when they hit the ground. That's not to say some didn't suffer from the first blast up there. Using my (very long ago) rescue triage training, I examined all the body photos for type of injury. The main findings were (a) almost no blood (as the separatist intercepted call rightly claimed) (b)a lot of legs at angles suggesting hip/pelvic fracture (a very common injury in air crashes to people wearing seat belts) and (c) all the bodies appear swollen (in first-day photos). We are thinking of what happened as a decompression, a low-pressure event. But that was preceded by the blast detonation of the missile just outside... a high-pressure event. The very high pressure shock wave compresses the blood vessels and severely damages the lungs. Blood pressure and heart rate go sky high trying to compensate. In 1/2 a second the blast wave is gone and they are in decompression.The heart can't adjust fast enough. The lack of blood flow makes the brain and liver swell up, too, so normal blood circulation cannot be re-established even if the heart recovers. The Lockerbie bomb, and various exploding fuel tank cases, were lower pressure explosions; sadly many would have survived those until ground/water impact.[[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 20:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::So there is evidence of blast wave, not _just_ decompression alone? But no shrapnel wounds? --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 21:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::(cut my comment - I had misread - taken to [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Debunked topics#Bloodless bodies – fake Facebook profiles?|bloodless bodies spot]] FWIW - but I disagree with both the lack of blood and the validity of many "separatist" communications, but if we're not arguing a planeload of corpses being shot down, I won't argue it much.) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
More to the point, leaving the above graphic aside, would be this newer one I should finally add. Basic straight path, 118 and placed as agreed by most sources. Alleged launch location, measures app. My best guess is a 2 km range from 22.75 to 24.75, weighted to the center. Or most likely about 23.75 km out (irrespective of actual projectile flight path, that's where it made contact, but this helps visualize how the alleged launch site might line up with [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Forensics#Direction of projectiles?|the directional forensics]]). --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
[[File:MH17 missile intercept distances.png]]<br />
::Straight line from launch is okay. But impact has to be further north, ie before the most westerly debris. You've used the map which assumes that debris to be blown back by wind. That can't be right, as it included bodies (too dense to blow back) and witnesses saw them and plane sections falling straight down. This only makes about 1 mile difference to the missile range, so does nothing to exclude that launch location. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 01:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::The map of spread is only app., some orange area I made. The pink dot and lines are from a map, Russian analysis, as you say apparently presuming a SSE wind. Debris including people ''would'' be blown back to some degree, all of it, varyingly; trajectory can only do so much when you have five miles of falling, with the breezes acting the whole time, and the lightest parts will be back a bit, whatever direction and as mentioned above, a SSE winds at some time or altitude still isn't ruled out at all). Do we know just where in that area those passengers landed, and what types of things are its far end? ? <br />
(<br />
:::I mean, you could be right and it's a bit further back, maybe with a continuation due east from there and no real wind effect except slightly back. It was only 9-12 mph, and maybe it fell halfway before starting to fall apart, which means less spread. I'm thinking about a possible left turn to explain the north aspect, or it could be wind, or being further back (more north, as well as west), or a combination. The turn has to be a certain size, the wind direction is not certain aside from east prevailin, ... whatever point best explains whatever happened ... we're down to a shrinking agreed range, and as you say, it's all within range of the one spot, so it's not ruled out after all. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 04:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
At this stay of play, I feel it will be helpful to have displayed prominently an overall map reflecting best guess on impact location as well as already flagged suspected launch sites, that is the two launch sites we have been discussing (near Snezhny ; near Chernukhino) , PLUS launch locations flagged and TIMED by released satellite data (currently only Russian data is available). I would be generous with the range here, we can find range suggested by public sources but presumably actual range depends on a number of things (height, radar range, trajectory, wind), and may exceed the "official" range. Another useful graphics piece info would be indicating the front lines, if there is a way to have those known. '''I would be extremely cautious with displaying graphics reflecting just one way of thinking (whether "worst", "best", or "middle of the way"), for the reason that any graphics is easy for human brain to absorb, more than words spread out on all our numerous pages, and ''no graphics at all'' is better than displayed ''skewed'' graphics.''' One-sided graphics may be '''inviting''' even more noise releases "supporting" some already skewed scenarios, and I feel that was already happening way too often. I feel that most helpful stance at this point would be as neutral as it gets. (Regarding trajectories, a default guess is a straight line, anything else requires an explanation. Straight line is implied so no strong need to actually display it, especially if it ends up curling in suggestive funny ways on graphics). --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 09:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::I've been doing a lot of graphics, so not all fired up for more. But if you are, I wouldn't mind making another if it helps. Maybe this is best taken to [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Map#Interception Location]] (a lot of this is redundant, and I might move it, but at least I can say let's stop piling intercept stuff here as well as there). Up to picking a certain spot around Chernukino? Some outskirts area, on a major road, it'll be a guess. A couple guesses could be mapped. Also, if it seems worth it, I can do updates and upload the new version as needed. Any timed satellite launches, let me know. Front lines, not known and IMO misleading in this case. Those who would know would try - and maybe manage - to sneak this thing behind them... the caution about leading labels, I can leave to you - you could just tell me what to put. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
:::::Would take me forever, may try later on, but not immediately; some cleanup/re-arrangement seems the easiest option. (If there are tools for collaborative mapping, may be good to start using those; but not aware of any) --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 11:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The preliminary [[Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Dutch preliminary report|Dutch report]] says the flight recorders were suddenly lost at 13:20:04 UTC at a point that almost exactly matches the 22.6 km mark. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 22:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Plume Location Re-challenged ===<br />
There is another video, essentially giving a bellingcat in voice-altered Russian. We discussed all that essentially; but he seems at least to end up with a claim for geolocation for the plume photo. Seems to be a new one (or I forgot the old one already by now). The claim is based on [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2055 unrelated panoramic photo] somebody took nearby, and [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2025 claimed to be geolocated by presenter]. Here it is on <br />
[http://maps.yandex.ru/-/CVG0nLo~ yandex map] ; it is taken from a terricon located at Lutuginskii bugor(=hill). There is a cableway from there to TsOF (remember, Khuevyi Torez tells about cableway from Lutugino to TsOF, so here they are); [http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=48.012722&lon=38.665695&z=14&m=b&show=/10590043/ru/ЦОФ-им-Киселёва TsOF is central enrichment plant]; photos from TSOF do show a similar [http://photos.wikimapia.org/p/00/00/62/81/85_big.jpg cableway] . So based on that and an audio of locals of unknown provenance and authenticity, discussing a missile-looking trail in the direction of [http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=48.041767&lon=38.741055&z=14&m=b&show=/18687650/ru/Химмаш Khimmash], our presenter [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2107 ends up] with this [http://maps.yandex.ru/-/CVG0rMnO claimed plume location] , somewhere near this Mochalino village. And apart from this, his contribution to the topic is the claim of a white spot on the other side of 3'2 Buk which he claims to match on the way out. I do not believe all those Buk sightings were taken on the same day, and so do not believe in the overall glue-up of the story, but geolocating the plume, no matter what the plume is, remains legitimate. This author gives his answer to that question. Is this geolocation correct? I do not know, it is not tight, there are lots of cableways out there I presume, and some posts nearby are not too unusual. I do not see a tight fit between Lutuginski bugor photo and the plume photo--some elements do match, but those are obviously not identical places. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 02:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Excellent. Let's keep the title. But I guess you just forgot the previous location. This is the same view. The plume could be added, but I doubt it, and it's to that view at a consistent time on a consistent day. I'm not convinced ''all'' Buk sightings are same day, but most of them being so is a good fit with this plume that way, and a plane down with damage that seems consistent to me. (I hate this case) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::Are you sure it's the same? This new one is NNE from Torez, I thought it was placed SE from Torez by [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/launch-location-detected-of-missile.html U@W ]--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::Going back to check, this is a different filming location proposed. Line of sight isn't included, but it seems to be the same line over the same area to the same place. Even before he could see the distinctive mound, Petros (U@W) had [http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-cfSqhRb2dKo/U80x2OxK1XI/AAAAAAAATNk/r42WpH-Bf-Q/s1600/missile+trail+9.jpg this lineup], which includes this spot. Right where Petros pic says "trees" is what this guy decided were the foreground trees where it was filmed. I wondered when checking but decided on the further version. And seems to be the same result either way. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::I don't think this is accurate, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2107 video at this timestamp] gives 'место пуска ракеты' (launch location) near [http://maps.yandex.ru/-/CVGgVPJN Molchalino]. I have not seen this elsewhere, I only seen the one claimed to be SE of Torez. He does not discuss filming location, but shows it on video and assumes it is in Torez near the terricon, which is close to what other sources assume. He does show the line of site on the video; it is nearly perpendicular to U@W. Lots of terricons, coalmines (so likely cableways), and power lines leading there in this area, so location now seems uncertain. As I understand, no solid evidence for either of these two being the correct geolocation (those cableways seems to be quite common) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::::I am/was confused then. I thought it showed a SW view, just from closer to the mound. Now I see at 33:45 a view from right by it, looking NE? Can't explain the other one you see in the distance in the fuller view (right ?) That's kind of towards Molchalino, but that won't explain anything I suspect. (and what a bad fake or odd coincidence to have a plume up there and a the Buk tracking imagery lead to south of Snizhne, oops!) We'll see south and west faces of buildings if looking NE, so sun will be shining from well east of south, but also quite high, like mid-day in the early AM - or maybe just earlier mid-day, like 11 am. That would be another sloppy mistake. I doubt the details will line up. BUT a couple minor things didn't quite seem to the other way, so maybe worth a try (later). --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I will send this comment also to<br />
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/01/27/is-this-the-launch-site-of-the-missile-that-shot-down-flight-mh17<br />
The US map launch location can best best and almost exactly located from the last magnified picture:<br />
https://wp4553-flywheel.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/32.jpg<br />
That location is here:<br />
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.9571993,38.7466343,488m/data=!3m1!1e3<br />
The triangulation result in the last 3 pictures of the article introduces unnecessary error and clearly does not match the magnified picture.<br />
There is a structure that looks similar to an airfield and it is just south of Chervony Zhovten (=Oktyabr), matching with a witness observation in that place ("it was flying as if from Saurivka", though not matching 2 other witnesses in the zello audio, indicating it came from government held positions further south, [2:00] "Well, it appears everybody saw where the missile has flown from." [2:04] "Well, where you are, everybody saw it, but the Ukrainian media, as usual, will say, will say that that were us.")<br />
It would be outside the range of the plume picture geolocation bounds, which may be either an error given the long distance, or, the plume picture was taken the day before from the reported grad missile launch (as well as the burned field). (The photographer gave his camera to the SBU after twittering the first picture, so later pictures and dates can not be taken for sure).<br />
http://7mei.nl/not-buk-m1-new-video-proof/--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 19:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:(1) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkCcCmYlMZc That audio], as it turns out, was posted by Torezinfo on 24 July, and updated on 1 February. Torezinfo is a favorite posting place of Khuevyi Torez(=KT), who posted a very [https://twitter.com/WowihaY/status/489914266439671808 similar location map on 17 July already]. KT mentions zello recordings on 25 July in the follow-up, so shortly after it gets on torezinfo. With all that stuff linked to this KT poster, I would not put much trust that any of that is genuine. (Or that this KT poster is not acting as a medium for SBU). (2)[http://fr1.sidcdn.net/maps/nsdc/2014/07/large/map-nsdc-2014-07-17-uk-w3000.jpg Ukrainian map] does give us some Ukrainian held area somewhere to the South, but from that map it is hard to tell where exactly opolchenie ends and UAF begins--(I would not know) (3) Actually, going from there, not likely to hit on the left side--so having it from Artemovsk (as Bezler told, indeed) seems most probable --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 21:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:: Here is another map http://liveuamap.com/e/2014/16-of-july-saurivka-is-bombarded-over-and-over-by-rus-grad?ll=47.907137219641115;38.75392913818363&zoom=8<br />
::And here is an article which says that both Marinovka and Tarany were held by National guard. http://www.interpretermag.com/ukraine-liveblog-day-149-russian-tanks-and-artillery-reach-donetsk/#3353<br />
::I just opened bellingcat https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/01/27/is-this-the-launch-site-of-the-missile-that-shot-down-flight-mh17 and see that large parts of the article disappeared, I think they are working on it. That location given by the US photo does not really match well with the plume direction anymore, lets see what they come up with--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 21:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::I believe Marinovka was [http://lifenews.ru/news/136715 taken by opolchenie on 16 July] (lifenews report). Tarany--do not know, perhaps still Ukraine, but not totally sure. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 21:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::: other sources say attack was repelled and forced them to retreat to Stepanivka http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_in_Shakhtarsk_Raion http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/213817.html--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 22:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::: That US photo launch location differs by an angle of about 11 (?) degrees from the brown line in the bellingcat plot (measured from the photographer's location). https://wp4553-flywheel.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/101.jpg (launch location is just visible below the letter 'p' of 'the word 'suspected'). I think this a lot and puts the 'plume' into question. But then there is only the US photo, which itself could be a production based on social media (or worse).--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 22:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Well some believed this is for real, then they got a case to answer [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/22/mh17-us-intelligence-russia-separatists-report Guardian: Photograph: US intelligence community] [https://twitter.com/barbarastarrcnn/status/491559153559932928/photo/1 @barbarastarrcnn] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
In the following, I assume that most of the social media pieces and leaked audio tapes are correct and connect the dots in a different way:<br />
<br />
1. On July 14, an Ukrainian Antonow 26 airplane was shot down by a missile near the Russian border town of Donetsk.<br />
http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/what-weapon-was-used-to-shot-down-ukraine-air-force-antonov-26-at-july-14/<br />
The video in above link showed the missile flying for 39 seconds until it hit. Only a BUK can fly that long, a manpad or Pantsir, also claimed to have been used, not (see first comment in link).<br />
<br />
2. According to a recorded audio tape published by the Ukrainian Secret Service SBU, rebels possessed a BUK ('BUK3x2') in the Donetsk area at least since July 14 ('we already have BUK'). At that date it may have been either on Russian or already rebel held territory.<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVAOTWPmMM4<br />
<br />
3. A social media search discovered only one other system in the area, capable of shooting down AN26 - a Pantsir. However, a Pantsir can't fly for 39 seconds. Based on a max.speed of 780m/s and max range of 20km, it can only fly for about 25s.<br />
http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.co.nz/2014/11/unnoticed-video-of-26-downing-confirms.html<br />
Therefore and because of the crew's intent to engage in the civil war, it is likely that AN26 was shot down by BUK3x2. Afterwards BUK3x2 had only 3 missiles left.<br />
<br />
4. On July 16, Ukrainian and rebel statements both confirmed the shoot down of a SU-25 plane near the "Marinivka border crossing", which is only a few kilometers south-south east of Pervomaiske, the destination of BUK3x2. Ukraine's defence ministry said: "It is likely that [the hit] was carried out by air-to-air rockets from the Russian air force which were patrolling the border in a pair." <br />
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-28345039<br />
This may have been another reason to install a BUK system in this area on the next day, leaving room for an accidental Ukrainian shoot down, apart from an accidental rebel shoot down and a willful Ukrainian false flag shoot down.<br />
<br />
5. On July 16, rebels fired grad missiles from a location near Pervomaiske. The plume may have been photographed as well by an SBU informant in Torez and twittered on the next day, claiming to show the launch of the missile hitting MH17.<br />
http://7mei.nl/not-buk-m1-new-video-proof/<br />
<br />
6. On July 17, BUK3x2 was seen in rebel territory on its way to Pervomaiske, south of Torez. Ukrainian SBU knew about the arrival latest since July 14 and about its destination latest July 17 morning, allowing a false flag operation from positions held nearby.<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVAOTWPmMM4<br />
<br />
7. There was an ongoing battle in the region with "fluent" contact lines. Marinivka and Tarany, about 8 kilometers south-east and south of Pervomaiske, were controlled by Ukrainian National Guard as well as all of the border region. Marinivka would match well with the direction of the Torez plume photo.<br />
http://liveuamap.com/e/2014/16-of-july-saurivka-is-bombarded-over-and-over-by-rus-grad?ll=47.907137219641115;38.75392913818363&zoom=8<br />
http://www.interpretermag.com/ukraine-liveblog-day-149-russian-tanks-and-artillery-reach-donetsk/#3353<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_in_Shakhtarsk_Raion<br />
<br />
8. The Russian Defense ministry claimed in a news conference, that on July 17, Ukraine installed several BUK system near rebel held areas.<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bNPInuSqfs#t=1567<br />
<br />
9. In a popular 'zello' audio recording, witnesses in the area were talking about the launch of the missile hitting MH17. A witness from "Oktyabr" (Chervony Zhovten) claimed "it was flying as if from Saurivka". <br />
Two other witnesses said:<br />
[2:00] "Well, it appears everybody saw where the missile has flown from."<br />
[2:04] "Well, where you are, everybody saw it, but the Ukrainian media, as usual, will say, will say that that were us."<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkCcCmYlMZc<br />
<br />
10. A Reuter's witness also claimed that the missile was fired from Kiev held territory. Reuters, however, said, "off camera, he said that it was launched from a nearby rebel site. Asked why originally he said the opposite he said it was because he was afraid of the rebels."<br />
In a new interview this witness claims that "off camera comments were just made up by the [Reuters] journalist".<br />
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=497_1427729491<br />
<br />
11. BUK3x2 was again photographed in Lugansk with its 3 missiles, no missile fired since July 14.<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4HJmev5xg0<br />
<br />
12. The US presented a very low resolution satellite photo with the track of a missile added. The launch location does not match well with the direction geolocated with the Torez plume photo, it deviates by about 11 degrees in angle, hence either or both appear to be incorrect.<br />
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/01/27/is-this-the-launch-site-of-the-missile-that-shot-down-flight-mh17/#comment-12493<br />
<br />
13. Award winning investigative journalist Robert Parry reported about leaked US intelligence "that U.S. intelligence agencies do have detailed satellite images of the likely missile battery that launched the fateful missile, but the battery appears to have been under the control of Ukrainian government troops dressed in what look like Ukrainian uniforms."<br />
https://consortiumnews.com/2014/07/20/what-did-us-spy-satellites-see-in-ukraine/<br />
And later Parry wrote: "But I’m now told that U.S. intelligence analysts ... are concentrating on the scenario of a willful Ukrainian shoot-down of the plane, albeit possibly not knowing its actual identity."<br />
https://consortiumnews.com/2014/08/03/flight-17-shoot-down-scenario-shifts/<br />
<br />
14. During the coming months BUK shrapnel may have been collected from the AN26 wreckage and planted in the MH17 wreckage.--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 00:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Photographer Statement===<br />
[http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com.au/2014/12/interview-with-eyewitness-who-made.html Reported to say] : "That day did not foretell anything special would happen. In the morning I woke up and went to my work. At four ó clock in the afternoon I arrived home. And at 16:20 we heard an explosion. The first explosion was not very heavy. 15 seconds later, something like that, there was a second explosion, which was louder and it made the windows shake."<br />
: Did not foretell --an ass, --is this lawyer-written? 'We heard". --Took till December to polish up ? --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 16:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:: Agreed. 'I did not know in advance this would happen.' Uh, who said you might? And 15 seconds must be rocket travel. Did he hear the firing from there? Could be, not that far. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Time delay consideration ===<br />
Photographer reported two sound booms td=15 seconds apart; an interpretation may be launch and impact sounds arriving to him in Torez. If P=(0,0,0) is photographer cordinates, I=(d,0, h) is impact, with d ground distance between Torez and Rozypnoe, h is the height of flight at 10 km , and L =(x,y,0) is launch location, dist(A,B) is Euclidean distance between A and B, c is peed of sound, and n (about 2.5) is missile speed in Machs, then<br />
<br />
(1). dist (P,L) = dist(L,I)/n + dist (I,P) - td*c <br />
<br />
(2). dist (P,L) >= h/n + dist (I,P) - td*c <br />
<br />
(1) is a biquadratic equation for y given x (square enough times for square root to disappear); plotting that gives a closed 'ellipse-like' curve on (x,y) plane; once on that curve, time delay is exactly td seconds (doing this involves solving quadratic equations and removing spurious solutions not satisfying (1) ) . That curve is at distance about 13 km in NW direction from photographer in Torez, and about 22 km in SE direction from him on the Southern ( Saur Mogila side). <br />
<br />
(2) gives a simple estimate that distance between photographer and launcher is greater than the known right hand side; that distance is more than something like 13 km<br />
<br />
(3) Requiring launch withing the range, --launch is not more than 20 km horizontally from the impact-- selects a NW arc of the curve described in (1) ; that arc is to the NW from Torez, and goes slightly NW from the impact point (meaning its ground projection). <br />
<br />
Conclusion, based on the above, is that launch is too far from the photographer, to match the photo. <br />
<br />
(Knowing exact time delay can tighten the argument. With what's actually known, and objection can be raised that whatever actual time delay was, it appeared to be 15 seconds to the photographer. Graphics of the curve may be supplied if needed). --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Ooh. That kind of math could really come in handy with recorded audio cues, for example. But based on '15 seconds, something like that,' from memory months later, I wouldn't put any weight on it. If that turns out correct and pretty exact, there's a good point. Otherwise, the photo and other stuff is more solid, and says it's just about where it should be, as far as I've seen anyway. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Contrail ==<br />
This is what an "impressive launch contrail" of a big missile might look like.<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3lLwP1y0w8 АТО. Запуск двух ТРК Точка-У. Артемовск.] (ATO. The launch of two TRK Tochka-U. Artemivs'k.) – August 28, 2014<br />
-- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 22:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Something happens in the sky. This is the people's reaction:<br />
* ''20/09/2014 Over many parts of the DPR and LPR were seen circles in the sky.'' [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7310 1,] [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7311 2,] [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7312 3,] [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7313 4,] [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7314 5]<br />
-- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 03:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
Tochka U missile is single stage solid fuel, which is a mixture of ammonium perchlorate with rubber and aluminum powder (Russian [http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/tochka/9ch151.shtml "ДАП–15В" fuel] ).<br />
I could not find information on Buk with a comparable level of detail. Buk missile is single stage, solid fuel of some type, "dual-mode solid propellant (total work time - about 15 seconds)" [http://www.webcitation.org/67kZeZxeh] , [http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-9K37-Buk.html]<br />
Earlier "Куб" ("Cube") missile used [http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/kub/kub.shtml 'ballist' fuel,] [https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%85#.D0.91.D0.B0.D0.BB.D0.BB.D0.B8.D1.81.D1.82.D0.B8.D1.82.D0.BD.D1.8B.D0.B5 gunpowder] + plasticiser type (Russian "ВИК-2") at the start, followed by some sort of ramjet ("direct flow rocket engine") at final stage. It is not clear, but possible, that fuels and contrails of Tochka U and Buk are different. Here are some videos with Buk launch: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDXScnEKaP0] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EAtNpsXrgWs], and [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSXMhaFntrU a longer with stupid music version]. Those videos appear to be shot from a closer distance than Tochka U video; and a contrail on them does look quite impressive. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 10:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:The amount of smoke is highly dependant om Alumin(i)um loading. In general more aluminum is more 'oomph' and also more smoke.<br />
:On the other hand, it's common to alter the loading for other reasons. I refer to the Syrian Volcano (122mm variety) that started out as high Al-load and quite smokey but recent versions have low Al load but perhaps similar characteristics? --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 10:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Here is something that might be a BUK: Ukrainian AN-26 shot down from Russian border area on July 14th. Ukraine@war claims it as a BUK. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 10:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
* [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.fi/2014/11/unnoticed-video-of-26-downing-confirms.html Unnoticed video of AN-26 downing confirms shot down from Russian territory] – Ukraine@war, November 27, 2014<br />
** Video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoS4kgHxPnE Ukrainian Military Aircraft Su-25 Downed After Russian Attack Near Izvarino, July 16]<br />
:::Does not look like Buk, short contrail, --not all the way to the ground like on Buk video launches. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::It was a BUK. It flew 39 seconds in the video, a Pantsyr can't do this, see also first comment in this link http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/what-weapon-was-used-to-shot-down-ukraine-air-force-antonov-26-at-july-14/. Easy maths - at Mach 3 (1020m/s) it can fly for about 42 seconds (range 42 km, bit more because initially it is slower). According to the audio tape, BUK 3x2 was in the area on that day! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVAOTWPmMM4 Ukraine@war needed 5 months to find something else in the area, but the Pantsyr can't fly that long. This is how BUK 3x2 likely lost a missile.--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 21:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::::Well, yes, it does takes 42 seconds to fly 42 km at 1000 m/s , but that does not mean what we see '''must be''' a Buk. They start discussing that plane caught fire at 0:03 on the video already. We do not see what on hell is going on until some 30 s later. This plane likely was brought down by Igla or similar modern MANPAD. Possibly two hits, at 0:03 and another at around 0:30. Or it got on fire at the start of the video and than eventually went down (It is unlikely to have SU 25 pilot bailing out after Buk strike; or particularly likely catching fire as it's not aiming at the engine; contrail is weak for a Buk, too). Pantsir claims are much later from what I have seen,--- and no need for Pantsir to shoot SU 25. ---If something is there on SBU audio and some murky photo, does not mean it's all for real, and that what we do actually see all have to be linked to all that murky SBU stuff. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 22:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::::There may be some confusion here, just a recapture<br />
::::::First video https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xTT6BDRA8_k<br />
::::::0:03-0:11 buring object <br />
::::::0:17-0:33 contrail making a half looping<br />
::::::Second video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoS4kgHxPnE<br />
::::::0:29-0:39 contrail making a half looping + detonation.<br />
::::::ukraine@war http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/11/unnoticed-video-of-26-downing-confirms.html<br />
::::::says both videos show AN26 shoot down on July 14 (second video with wrong label SU-25)<br />
::::::says 2nd video impact at 0:39, claims missile has been burning for at least 39 seconds--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 06:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::::::After reconsideration, I would say ukraine@war is right, both videos show AN26 shoot down, but wrong, people were initially watching AN26 with engine burning and a second missile was fired. That missile was seen burning about 16 seconds in first video, and time has to be added to reach that altitude/location, so likely over 20 seconds. That would exclude man-pad, Pantsir (?), likely BUK, R73 air-to-air, ...--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 06:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Actually, it is interesting to know how contrail of Buk on a long haul launch looks like. It is said that it fires engine for some 15 seconds only (and unknown will it do less, if it can do away with less). That 15 seconds need to put it at a spot where it can reach the target with little, if any, engine work and doing turns only. It is not very clear how much targeting happens in the first 15 seconds, likely it does some; and it is self-guided and doing proportional navigation later on. Knowing details here allows to find exact trajectory, short of that thinking it goes straight to the collision point is a sensible idea. In any case, heavy contrail '''raising from the ground''', perhaps higher than the target is. Contrail is white, and stays put for a while. Seriously heavier than the stuff we see on social media. There are youtube videos of Buk launches giving an idea --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:These 15 seconds are wrong. Here is a video (start at 2:00) showing a SA-11 burn fuel for 35 seconds until its too far to distinguish. It is detonating at 42 seconds. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBlU2hHYJMg (I just copied the comment from here http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/what-weapon-was-used-to-shot-down-ukraine-air-force-antonov-26-at-july-14/ )--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 23:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::That video probably shows a modern version ('over horizon' capability was mentioned somewhere regarding modern developments; this one seems to be showing us something like that). 15 sec is coming from Russian sources [http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/buk/buk.shtml Зенитная ракета 9М38 выполнена с применением двухрежимного твердотопливного двигателя (общее время работы - около 15 секунд)]. Older versions also had shorter listed range. 22-25-35-42 km range, going through modifications. (Would be happier without 15 sec engine limit actually-easier to know trajectory) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::Actually what goes off is [https://digitalempire.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/9m38m1.jpg 9M38M1], the one supposed to have [http://pvo.guns.ru/buk/buk_02.htm 15 sec engine run], but the video lasts for 40 sec. This appears to be edited video, around 2:30 we got two tracks, than one slides right unreasonably for a natural recording. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 02:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::Since this is a point we haven't already covered around that I know of, I'll pop in for it. 42 seconds I gather is the time for the fuel to burn out and the thing to fall, like a grad rocket or the like can only do. But this is a missile with guidance, set to intercept a moving airliner. Therefore, app. 40-45 seconds is the longest, not the shortest, it can fly (or am I just confused?) But 15 seconds is plausible, depending. Still might be untrue, not trusting people saying stuff. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::::After the engine is off it is high up and and at high speed, still can fly until gravity acceleration brings it down, and is on guided flight -unlike Grad-because fins can move causing it to turn. Issues here are visuals (contrail all the way or only about 15 km in flight), and trajectory. With engine on for 40 +secs it will go straight to collision point doing proportional navigation all the way (exploding earlier if it needs to be). If it is only 15 sec, trajectory is less clear, it may for example use engine to climb high up, than do guided fall and proportional navigation to the target from a spot where engine delivered it (for low and close-by target, that may potentially end up with a hit from another side--some drawings from unclear sources were showing opposite side hits at under 1 km and direct hits at 10-15 km). Or it may use engine to end up on a ballistic trajectory hitting target (no side changing than). This is solid fuel engine so there is not much control on how quickly it burns off, that time is a set design feature. What we see on launch video is 40+ seconds of engine work-- will go direct to collision point in that case. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 12:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::::That's another clue that plume of smoke photo is not a Buk launch, that would give at least some 10-15 km worth of contrail, not a plume; with 40+seconds engine, contrail all the way to impact...(or else, launched from far away, over 40 km distance) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 12:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==About accents==<br />
<br />
[http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29109398 This report,] released one day before the preliminary official report, recycles visual imagery already discussed on this page, and attempts a new claim that a BUK crew spoke with Russian-'Muscovite' accent. The claim is made by (British-accent) actors representing 'eyewitness(es)', with a visual imagery of a car at unknown night-lighted location in the embedded video, and some text, provided in English. Regarding 'Muscovite' accent, first it is not easy to tell, for example [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBCfmlMkYMg this video] is Mr. Poroshenko speaking in Russian to a resident of Crimea, replying in Russian, and commented by a presenter, who is speaking 'Muscovite'. Although Mr. Poroshenko has a slight southern accent, there is little difference between the three speakers in practice. Moreover, actors and presenters can easily switch from Southern to Muscovite as required. <br />
<br />
Secondly, if somebody speaks 'Muscovite', this does not mean this person works for Russia or the rebels,--- he can work for any side (PS. No change of condition to the blue dumpster on Zuhres video was reported in this latest update). --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Thanks for bringing this. What a stupid report. "Three eyewitnesses, all civilians, separately told Panorama that they saw a missile-launcher in rebel-held territory a few hours before the Boeing jet was hit." Yeah, video shows the same. It was there. It probably shot down the plane. Accents, as you note, aren't the best indicator of anything, and even the reason sounds vague: the G thing, which even I know about (back to Olga/Olha). The "Russians" might even be Russian dissident mercenaries right from Moscow, for all we know. Who paid them? Their going up to the media and saying "you didn't see us" was not a good plan to stay secret. The witnesses: chosen at random? Directed to them? <br />
::''If correct, the Kremlin has to explain to the relatives of the 298 passengers and crew who died - including ten Britons - why Russian military personnel were allegedly seen in the area escorting a BUK shortly before MH17 was shot down.''<br />
:I think Russia could come up with a reason or two such allegations are made. Those ten Britons' tax dollars fund it. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: Hmm, this foreigner is confused by dat BBC talk: "If correct" ... doesn't that mean it ''wouldn't be'' merely "allegedly" but, well, correct? ;oP --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 23:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::It means "If {made up vague allegation) is correct....then "SHOCK HORROR CONCLUSION IS TRUE". this lets them be as wild or wide off the mark as they like and the magic "if correct" turns it true. Without any effort to check if it IS true in our understanding of that word.[[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 03:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::Another BBC weapon in its arsenal of innuendo and dissimulation is the quotation mark. Whenever they are dealing with something of dodgy provenance, or something of good provenance they want to weaken they put it in quotation marks. e.g. - ISIS beheaded 20 Syrians. becomes ISIS 'beheaded 20 Syrians' or 'ISIS' beheaded 20 Syrians or ISIS 'beheaded' 20 'Syrians' or ISIS beheaded '20' Syrians. No need for corrections later. Any version can be retrospectively justified or otherwise. --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 03:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== If Buk 3x2 Was in Russia ==<br />
Previously, it seemed quite likely the Buk launcher associated with the shoot-down was one of those owned and operated by the Kiev regime, simply snuck into separatist territory, maybe with some cover to make them even invite it in like a Trojan Horse. Then, I saw the November Bellingcat research on "Buk 3x2." As covered [[#Bellingcat and 3x2|above,]] this claims to match that unit with a distinct one seen three weeks earlier, driving in a military convoy well inside Russian territory. This is widely taken as clear proof the Russian military supplied the weapons, and it is strongly indicative of that. However, the general possibilities are worth laying out at this point.--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
All options below share these presumptions: <br />
* MH17 was brought down by the missing SA-11 missile AND/OR (in some cases) at least the launcher's appearance was coordinated to give that impression and is a clue to the plot <br />
* The videos and photos in question are genuine and not manipulated (my usual presumption, same here)<br />
* The Russia geolocations (many of them, making sense in context) are correct - Buk 3x2 as seen was seen in Russia, between Kurk, Stary Oskol, and a bit south of there (not verified but most likely correct) <br />
<br />
Presuming all that:<br />
* Buk 3x2 (seen in Russia) and the mystery one are not the same - this require paint job match and matching damage to the lip above the track to make a Kiev-owned unit look like that one. It's possible, but not the most compelling.<br />
* The two units are the same - it was in the convoy in Russia and also towed around Donetsk oblast July 17. <br />
<br />
If the unit is the same, there are a few possibilities for the nature of that connection, some of them silly or just there for logical fullness:<br />
* It was Kiev's unit and they snuck it over and into this convoy, and...<br />
** ... got it back later<br />
** ... the Russians kept it and used it for their own operation<br />
* It was Kiev's but some other way lost to the Russians <br />
* It was Russia's but Kiev managed to sneak over and steal it out of the convoy and then use it for the false-flag event<br />
* Same, but Donbass rebels then stole it from Kiev <br />
* It was Russian, and someone on the Russian side drove it over and then it was stolen by Kiev forces <br />
* Someone on the Russian side drove it over and it stayed in their control or handed over to their chosen parties, or transferred at the border - that is, no Kiev interference.<br />
<br />
So far, I'm inclined to call Bellingcat's reading (the last option, the widely accepted one) the single most reasonable one, though maybe outweighed by the ''combined'' alternatives. It's not fun to feel almost swayed to a view so close to Kiev's problematic narrative, but this is what I see, pretty basic. Some combined maybes go against the straightforward reading. As for other thoughts I might be missing, well, that's partly why it's here. Let me know, I'm all ears. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Starting from that reasonable if unproven last option, not one but three final types of possibility remain. If it was freely moving in convoy inside Russia, it probably belongs to Russia at the time. Presumed. However, it could be that...<br />
* '''A rogue officer''' at Kursk - maybe a closet Nazi who sympathizes with Kiev, hates Putin, or just took a bribe - provided this unit to Kiev. He would set up this convoy to anchor the thing in Russia, then send the shady unit on, with his own guys or to hand off to Kiev's, who took it from there as I've speculated. The strangely obvious manner it was displayed - on both sides of the border, with its number slowly fading away - is consistent with this motive + intelligence. <br />
* '''It happened as reported''' (one way or another) Putin's military signed off on the loan, apparently with a sent crew or maybe given to local handlers, who for their own purposes did fire that shot. The strangely obvious manner it was displayed is consistent with this + stupidity/sloppiness, providing proof that probably wasn't even needed, just helpful, to start the punishment. At that point, it would be a real problem about as trumpeted, and still I would suggest we consider what the real crime is under the circumstances, if the solutions pursued are fair, or if this is all just geo-politics and warfare by other means cloaked in a cynical disguise of concern for justice. ^ <br />
* '''Koo-koo (?):''' "as reported plus" - a mega conspiracy theory: it goes all the way to the top, and Putin is that rogue general selling the nation out, to demonize himself and Russia and be sure to get caught, in an elaborate staged play - Putin (or whoever's running things presumed to be run by HIM) is somehow controlled, his opposition scripted and ultimately geared towards provoking and achieving an expansion of "The West" into "The North." (I've always considered this possible, and one that's occurred to me more lately, and seems worth listing ... but I don't buy it. I'm going with "rogue officer" with a second bet on one of the other divergence points listed before that - unspecified. Third choice is "as reported.")--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::^ Not to apologize for egregious behavior if it really is that, but let's please compare this to the shoot-down of Iran Air 655 by the USS Vincennes in 1988. A US Naval ship illegally in Iranian waters shot down an Iranian passenger plane with 290 people aboard, despite all the safeguards and sensors working correctly (the consistent clues the ship's computers gave them saying "do not shoot" can only be overridden so totally by choice). But it was deemed by the US to be no crime, just accident and Iran's fault for being provocative, and useful in the effort to compel them to quit the war with Iraq they were just starting to win. In Ukraine, repeated Air Force attacks on rebel-held cities, often hiding their jets behind civilian airliners, might both justify arming the rebels with such defensive weaponry, and invite an honest mistake from a team running this machine in stand-alone mode. The SBU version however overrides this all: it was an accident, but the Russians' intent was never defensive, always planning to kill an airliner, just meaning it to be a different one. That would clearly be criminal in all regards, and it's a sub-set of "as reported" - not a very good one. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Sorry, I can't help you here as I don't share your presumptions. I consider it a waste of time and energy to connect dots that are laid out by "sources" like the SBU and Brown Noses - proven liars and at least in case of the former producers of fraud "evidence" - and therefore I didn't even read your logical chains based on them. Just saying to not make it appear that I agree. ;o) --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 10:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:Poking at specific presumptions could be helpful, but it all could go on and on and remain inconclusive anyway. And I take back what I say about leaning this way or that - I keep leaning different ways and on balance I'm feeling sort of weightless here. I think that comes through in the text... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I don't see the numbers matching, getting close is not good enough, and I quit it there. Yes, it is weird that they are close, and that this murky business is covered by Spiegel, but can't really help with any of that. There is lots of murky weird stuff going on all the time, can't change the whole world to stop it. (Also: the Russian Government would be fully capable of doing a painting job properly if deciding to starting painting at all, their food trucks are all nicely painted, etc; just too sloppy for them to be behind) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:The paint being what it is, between that and the bend and light patch below all lining up, I think we're down to the same unit, or faked to match, and the possibilities branching off those two. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::As discussed earlier, the dot is shifted off the middle, more on Russian video than in PM photo; in Russian video, number 2 has well-curved semi-circle; in PM, it is almost straight segment. Bad photos for comparison but it's off, as far as it's possible to tell. As for the skirt bend, too blurry and distorted on PM to tell; Russian video, I think it is actually dirt, not a bend. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Also, looks like two squares , a bit darker than background, over first digit in PM photo. Unclear is it paint or digital camera effect. Any sane person hiding something will paint over everything, not paint just specifically over the first digit. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::I think I got everything linesd up - it has to be de-skewed the same, and all ines up. You might be scraping bottom on this one. The curve is there, at its elongated part, at an angle. The dent/dirt looks the same, same place, relative to the light patch and all else. It's too much for coincidence by a couple of degrees. BUT I just shifted back to option ... should have numbered them. ... the middle starting option - image authenticity. I hardly ever call digital image fakery, and not calling it here, but... I still haven't checked the new (to us) June videos, so I'll stay presuming it might be okay - video's harder to fake than a photo. But on the other end, it all comes down to the one photo. That I noticed, no other views are close enough to say if these matching clues are present. (the bend, maybe). The squares you noticed, maybe a paint clue or just artifacting. It may too pixelly. I cannot really analyze the technicals properly to say. It looks okay, but possibly fishy too. Maybe the dirty windshield helps hid the painted in pixels to make this thing - just once - or maybe again in other images - look like that Russian 3x2 unit, exaggerated and going into rebel hands... Some kind of coincidences setting that up to work, but it's possible, and an expert should look closer at this picture. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC) <br />
::::I, --at the very start of discussion,-- zoomed picture on screen (by a lot), and measured length ratios (to the dot/ total panel length), parallel to the 2 sides of the panel, using ruler (millimeters one) over screen. I ended up with ratios in horizontal side of panel directions were off, by more than blurring; in vertical, could not tell-within blurring. This is not sensitive to skewing or zooming. So I don't think it's the same. May double-check measurement when have time; or somebody else can. Did not have time to try doing digital version of the same/similar method. Did not look carefully at comparison the 2 after de-skewing , but have an impression this is different; not that much skewing there; it looks essentially straight line on PM, skewing will not make circle into a line. May look at 2's some other time. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::::Finally took a closer look and PM was still off a bit on rotation and vertical-to-horizontal - in line with your observations. Still working out the adjusted graphic. The white is shifted a bit left of lining up perfectly... I think it's still close enough it's the same or is supposed to be, and not far enough off I'd call a bad fake - probably just pixel shift. Will see tonight. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 00:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Okay, I don't have a comprehensible graphic handy yet, but Maybe Resup is seeing what I am now. I was having a hard time aligning it all, so focused just one the one rectangle panel with the number. Still, on the PM photo I trace apparent edges, best line of dark pixels ... it lines up, proportion-wise, with the white spots on or a hair to apparent left. But when the whole image is placed by lining up that center, the rest of it doesn't line up - both sides seem shifted right, or the middle shifted left. (also the track areas appear far to the left, but they stick out a bit, and from the back angle flattened like this, that's why. Each difference in relief from "true flat" plane of the side will cause this... maybe I'm just not correlating it right, and maybe it's a clue the photo is messed with. possible offsets in both white patches as well, but maybe too in the natural fuzz zone. ?? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
If the launcher was driven over the Russian border, fired once then driven back again after it had carried out its mission, the part of the story that doesn't make sense is the sighting on a stolen flatbed truck outside Donetsk. If the Russians were prepared to supply a launcher but not a truck, the stolen truck would have had to be driven to the border to be loaded and there'd be no reason to risk a journey back to Donetsk. The west to east journey is more consistent with CL's original suggestion of a launcher from the Ukrainian base north of Donetsk. If this was a false flag, there would have had to be a paint job to give it Russian markings (maybe to match one in a recent video). Otherwise the videos would point to separatists with a captured Ukrainian BUK, leaving the Ukrainian government liable for failing to close its airspace when it knew that a BUK had gone missing. [[User:Pmr9|Pmr9]] ([[User talk:Pmr9|talk]]) 16:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:Now this sounds engaged, thanks P. Yes, why drive it to Donetsk? (Other than to be seen in the smoking-gun rebel capitol, before getting seen in Lugansk too) And I never thought of that why it had to be Russian. Indeed, for liability reasons, it had to be a snuck-in surprise, not captured (unless they could come up with a reason why they didn't learn about it, and I suppose they could). The suggestion has problems and was slow to gain adherents, but maybe this kind of thought has swayed people to realize Kiev "must be right" about that... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Sunday Times story: original is behind paywall but reprint [http://malaysiandigest.com/news/531506-ukraine-ignored-warning-to-close-malaysia-airlines-flight-mh17-airspace-before-tragedy.html here]. Eurocontrol's experts "spoke privately to their Ukrainian counterparts" about their concerns but Ukraine refused to close its airspace. "Ukraine intelligence sources said they had been made aware that several anti-aircraft systems had crossed from Russia into Ukraine at least a week before the MH17 incident. But they claimed the intelligence was not “100 per cent reliable” and could not have been used as grounds for 'drastic moves' such as shutting airspace". [[User:Pmr9|Pmr9]] ([[User talk:Pmr9|talk]])<br />
:::Okay, well there's a train headed this way then. Several units? The whole June convoy? We do have this alleged maybe-Buk launch just before on July 14, an associated loader seen later, etc. And Ukie intel somehow did point to this number "312" you can't see on the unit they tracked so quickly. Did they already have that obscure Russian video everyone missed until now? And more yet showing the "1" still there? That early on? (that's all very speculative, but interesting). It has to be snuck in, maybe, but then it helps that you can vouch for it - so they fudge and average this aspect. Main point then seems to be, whatever failures they mumble out on their own end, it has to implicate both Russia (provided weapon) and the rebels (held the space needing demonized).--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references /></div>Antidyatelhttps://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17/BUK_Tracking&diff=22553Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/BUK Tracking2015-06-05T23:55:16Z<p>Antidyatel: /* Paris Match Photo */ dashboard camera or photo made by driver. Story from Paris Match doesn't match</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:MH17]]<br />
==Who Has the BUK Launchers in Ukraine?==<br />
=== Kiev's Holdings ===<br />
<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3MomxNHnUA#t=288 Ukrainian Buk in ATO area], 16 July 2014. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 23:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CBQbFC9loc#t=350 Captured map] of 1 battalion of UAF 95 air-mobile brigade, dated beginning of July 2014, show location of 2 positions of Ukrainian Buks. Basurin points them on the map; but video resolution is insufficient to see those. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 05:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Maps can be faked, but still I'm curious what it shows. I imagine there might be a flat image of the map somewhere. Resup, could you maybe have a look? It's too slow for me to try an image search with translated words. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
::I have not seen the map in news reports mentioning the finding; and now I see it says explicitly that they are not going to make it public, [http://real-info.info/novorossiya/13429-vlasti-dnr-ne-budut-obnarodovat-karty-vsu-do-okonchaniya-rassledovaniya-krusheniya-mh17 until MH 17 investigation is completed]--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 23:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::Here is a press conference report--with video but not the map --[https://vk.com/strelkov_info?w=wall-57424472_57351 (Basurin press conference)]--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 23:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== BUK 312 and comrades ====<br />
[[File:Buk 312 sbu.jpg|thumb|left|BUK 312 on a trailer. Photo shown on SBU website and later removed. – ''[[:File:Buk 312 sbu.jpg|more...]]'']]<br />
Part of the material the Ukrainian SBU released to suggest that "rebels" shot down MH17 with a BUK, was photo material showing a BUK TELAR numbered 312 on a trailer, alleging it has been photographed on its way back to Russia. This was quickly shown to be extremely questionable as evidence surfaced showing number 312 in Ukrainian hands. The SBU then removed the photos from their website while other material like a suggestive photo showing a "plume" remained there. <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Buk 321.png|thumb|TELAR 321 as posted by @MOR2537 to illustrate what he alleges to have witnessed]]<br />
This was outlined (and a screenshot saved) in more detail [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/07/21/the-mh17-investigation-and-buk-312/ over at Human Rights Investigations]. A [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bj-VZB0ZdEA video embedded there] shows BUK 312 in Ukrainian hands back in March. The other two TELAR's seen in the video are numbers 323 and 321. BUK 321 [http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Ukrainian+government+forces+maneuver+antiaircraft+missile+launchers+they+transported+north+west+from+Slavyansk+eastern+Ukraine+Friday+July+2014+Photo+Dmitry+Lovetsky/10004193/story.html has been seen] in Ukrainian hands just two weeks before MH17 crashed, transported close to "liberated" Slavyansk. <br />
<br />
Interestingly enough, one of the tweets [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com/2014/07/reconstruction-of-whereabouts-of-buk.html spoon-fed by Ukrainian loyalists to imaginative Dutch blogger Ukraine@War] to suggest that there have been eyewitnesses for a "rebel" BUK, is then [https://twitter.com/MOR2537/status/489709431467171841 followed-up by the alleged eyewitness] with a picture of BUK 321 to illustrate what he has seen. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::yep, he is a conduit for Kiev but seems to have outside info, too. Like originals of photos he can get geolocations off (he says). But also has good collection of very early photos etc which have since become hard to find.Not sure I trust him though. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 15:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::I hadn't seen that before, thanks. I'll be considering... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 22:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: More photos: [http://www.armyrecognition.com/images/stories/east_europe/russia/missile_vehicle/sa-11_gadfly/pictures/sa-11_gadfly_anti-aircraft_missile_to_armoured_tracked_vehicle_Russian_army_russia_011.jpg 321] - [http://rt.com/files/news/2a/b1/40/00/640x480.jpg 312] - [http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1870560.1405614701!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_970/correction-ukraine.jpg 321] --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:Buk 312 in Lugansk.png|thumb|left|According to alleged former operator "A", this is BUK 312 after relocation sometime in Spring 2014 in Metallist settlement of Lugansk, with Yubileynaya mines in the background]]<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmI2KCOt_sA Anatolii Sharii] version of events, shows that Buk blamed on Russia has number 312 and was earlier photographed as part of Ukrainian convoy. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 20:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Sharii interviewed a Ukrainian soldier who served on Buk 312; this can be found on [http://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/1947657.html Cassad]. The guy does not know about MH17; but recalls SBU claiming it was this Buk 312 responsible. From this interview, meaning of 312: 3 is division number, 1 battery number, 2 unit number in a battery (there are loading and command vehicles, not just launchers). This UAF Buk is initially from Luhansk; than relocated to Kramatorsk; than places in a field. A serviceman took it on a ride with hand break on, leading to a small fire affecting electrics and requiring repairs. So it was traveling on a trailer at some point. It was than moved to Dnepropetrovsk, village of Novogrigorievka (apparently for repairs, and after trailer photo was taken, but exact date was not given). Buks from Luhansk which were not broken were moved by UAF elsewhere (and according to the soldier, were photographed in variaous places including Gorlovka; while 3 broken Buks remained in Luhansk) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: Interesting. I see that the "[http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Ukrainian+government+forces+maneuver+antiaircraft+missile+launchers+they+transported+north+west+from+Slavyansk+eastern+Ukraine+Friday+July+2014+Photo+Dmitry+Lovetsky/10004193/story.html has been seen]" link to the Montreal Gazette is dead by now. If anything I'm surprised that it lasted that long. Minitrue at work. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 04:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: [http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2014/12/17/shooting-down-mh-17-buk-312-story-false- Here] (and mirrored [http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2014/12/17/buk-312-crew-member-says-rebel-shoot-down-of-flight-mh17-story-is-false-transcript/ here]) is an English translation of the interview. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: And [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2rRCSNp33I here] is the video itself with English subtitles. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 20:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:What you said about the accident and the photo showing the damaged BUK on a trailer is about the very photo the SBU showed on their website as "evidence" and later removed. Also adding that he says friends in Lugansk saw "rebels" trying to repair the units they had left behind, but he knows that "whole equipment units" were lacking so the remaining stuff was "unusable". And that he says that he asked his ex-comrades still operating the BUK if they dunnit, and they said they didn't. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Good to see this section expand. Interesting additions from the alleged operator, and reasonable-sounding (the photo might show smoke stains to the back left side). But in the end, this issue might be not so relevant. I doubt it was Kiev's unit 312 that was used, and seeing how Kiev always was eyeing a supposedly Russian unit 3x2, maybe 312 ... In fact, if the middle number connotes unit number, and it's done the same, the launcher is always 1 and it would be 312 (or is that mixed-up?) So maybe all this really shows is how Kiev knew but didn't want to say all along, implausibly picking their own 312 to illustrate that knowledge with an embarrassing but harmless "error", while awaiting ... as it turns out, the independent Bellingcat investigation that finds 3x2 somehow in Russia... That tracked this ludicrous Buk field trip, as presented and followed on this page, which almost seems tailor-made for them, but Kiev wants us to know they they were secretly on the ball too from the start. (all thoughts in progress, a bit distracted too) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::::If SBU wanted to point out they knew the TELAR had number 312, why would they publish the photo in [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmI2KCOt_sA such a low resolution] that the number could not be read? -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 21:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: As Resup summarized, 1 is the battery number. The leading 3 means it's from the Lugansk division. If this is true, the fact that 312, 321 and 323 have been seen together on video in March perfectly fits with what the alleged operator said: That they were removing units in usable state from (all batteries of the division) Lugansk early on, leaving the crap behind. And the view that the SBU just published everything they could find to fit their tale that the "rebels" used a BUK to down the plane, including this photo, cut-together and taken out of context audio tapes and that ridiculous "plume" pic, and the 3x2 bellingcat nonsense from lately is meant to distract from these facts, is much simpler and straight forward than what you tried to come up with here on the fly. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::Ah, I see it now, not when I was typing, sorrys. Middle number could be anything, bust mostly we always see low numbers, so odds are good it was a "1". 3 means from Lugansk if that's true (presuming so) and it's Ukrainian. Diff. number paintjob though, as noted below. But I'm sure the Ukies just faked this exact 312 to a different style of 312 and then painted it out partly, and just let it slip with the one photo of how it looked before...? We'll have a hard time agreeing here, as the stuff you just dismiss as "nonsense" looks kind of like possible evidence with details I'm sort of trying to consider. I don't see how you can just ignore it as if it must be wrong somehow, and all made up to distract from ... this 312 disguised as 3x2 theory? Where it wasn't even at the end of that fake plume anyway and might be totally irrelevant or entirely fake? Or, what am I missing? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::Didn't you say that you haven't even watched the videos and checked the geolocation/origin yourself, if they really are from Russia etc.? Well, I certainly won't. Because I have no reason to believe that the sources are more truthful with the "evidence" than they have been before, and that track record is well established. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::::Yeah, which is why I'm neither in a good position to say they aren't wrong/fake, nor to go against my usual presumption it will be sound (has been so far, on this subject anyway) And by the supposed stills compare to supposed satellite imagery, it looked like a good match (I did skim the site once I could). I don't like the implication either, and I want it to be wrong. And it may well be, but I'll want to see how. And hey, there's a whole other section or two about this below... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
:::: I watched the video [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bj-VZB0ZdEA with the Ukie BUKs in March] again. There are actually more than the three I mentioned earlier. It starts with 323, which is not a TELAR. Followed by the two TELARs 321 and 312. Then comes what is also not a TELAR but what looks differently than 323: Number 301. Followed by two more TELARs, 331 and 332. So they could all be from the Lugansk division, parts of batteries 0 to 3. But one would suspect that the batteries are internal always numbered the same way. "A" says:<br />
::::: ''BUK is a complex of 4 specialized military vehicles: command post, mobile target detection and assignment station, loading and starting station, self-propelled fire installation.''<br />
::::So if 1 and 2 are TELARs, why are there two of them and why is 301 what could be the detection station with a radar? Is 323 a loading station? --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::::Too rusty, but good questions. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::: Ah, I think we can sort this out [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SA-11 thanks to wikipedia]:<br />
:::::''A standard Buk battalion consists of a command vehicle, target acquisition radar (TAR) vehicle, six transporter erector launcher and radar (TELAR) vehicles and three transporter erector launcher (TEL) vehicles. A Buk missile battery consists of two TELAR and one TEL vehicle.''<br />
:::: So our "A" didn't mean that a battery consists of 4 vehicles, but that the whole BUK consists of 4 different kinds of vehicles, some more than once. From this I deduce that "0" is for command and detection units (here our main radar 301) of the Lugansk division 3, and the batteries 1,2 and 3 each consist of two TELARs (numbered 1 and 2, here 312,321,331 and 332) and one TEL (numbered 3, the first vehicle in the video, 323). Makes sense? --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 13:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::Russia said Ukraine had 27 BUK launchers in the crash area, i.e. one brigade, or what ever comes in the hierarchy above battalion. If all units are numbered the same way, from 101 to 333, then one TELAR in 18 should be numbered 312. Maybe [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:9K37_Buk_of_the_Ukrainian_military,_Independence_Day_parade_in_Kiev.JPG not.] Russian numbers seem to reach higher. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 01:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::::Good find. The existence of 114 and 115 makes it more complicated. The [http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buk_M1 German Wikipedia article] says, contradicting the English one, that one battery consists of one command vehicle, one main radar, four TELARs and four TELs. But if that's true, there's no logical place for Radar 301, and why would one TEL be number 3 and the other three TELs numbers 6 to 8? --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 10:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
How to read BUK numbers<br />
This is how you decipher 312:<br />
<br />
3 stands for the third (Lugansk) division,<br />
1 stands for the battery number, ours was no. 1,<br />
2 stands for one of the 2. service units in each battery, ours was no.2<br />
<br />
according to a Ukrainian who explains it was "his" bUK (but not in his hands at the time)that shot down MH17. One of th many reports [http://www.opednews.com/articles/Shooting-Down-MH-17--BUK-by-Michael-Collins-Buk-312_False-Accusations-Of-Terrorism_False-Flag-Attacks_Mh17-Airline-Crash-141217-104.html about this interview] This claim is now superceded by the Capt Voloshin air-to-air claims. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 15:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
That solder knew nothing about who shot the Boeing. He was talking to Sharii, who previously made a video showing that Buk shown on SBU website is actually Ukrainian Buk 312. Later, the soldier emerged, saying that Buk 312 was his. (Claim of this one shooting Boeing is not his, it is SBU early claim) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 16:48, 26 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
While Voloshin story may be a play on destroyed by SBU evidence. There is supposed to be a log of flights, missiles fired, likely those logs no longer exist. Also before they claimed SU 25 were lost on 16 of July, but SBU denial of Voloshin story had SU 25 shot on 17 of July. And that Dnepropetrovsk airport traffic control lady vanished without a trace. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 16:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Supposed 321 belonging to KIEV<br />
::video shows three BUk sets [http://eurazya.today/2015/04/11/about-the-buk-312-who-allegedly-shot-down-mh17/ from 0.31 mark] but I can't really pick the number, they say it is 321. at Gorlovka in March. One on a white lowloader. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 12:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== Russian claims ====<br />
As part of their July 21 presentation of evidence, the Russian Ministry of Defense published satellite images allegedly showing Ukrainian BUK positions around Donetzk ([http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ RT report]). It's no secret the Ukrainian military maintains a base with anti-aircraft units. The facility shown in the Russian presentation (best seen [http://rt.com/files/news/2a/9a/00/00/4.jpg here]) I located - it's south of Avdeyevka, 3 km north of the airport, about 5 km north of Donetsk like they say. Visual match first, then noticed the label could have found it for me ... [http://wikimapia.org/#lat=48.0999781&lon=37.7578908&z=16&l=0&m=b&show=/16956839/ru/Зенитно-ракетный-дивизион-в-ч-А-1428&search=Donetsk on Wikimapia]. Labels, translated: Anti-aircraft missile battalion (in / h A-1428) One of the three anti-aircraft missile battalions ("Buk-M1"), located in Avdeyevka, Mariupol and Lugansk." BUK-type launcher photos included. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The counter-arguments to this at least sometimes fail. [http://www.interpretermag.com/mh17-and-moscows-magical-mystery-jets/ Interpreter rag] decided "the presence of Ukrainian government air defense systems is something of a red herring, not least given the clear evidence that the separatists had deployed at least one Buk system in the area." The side with a ''motive'' and clear, moving and likely operating units of the things on that day (see below) is irrelevant and shouldn't be considered because there's apparently also proof the presumed bad guys also had the units they needed to be so presumed. The very fact that separatists aren't ruled out means the other side should be free of any danger of being ruled in, and the separatists should ruled in just as automatically as they were ''before'' this social-media verification came in. This is clearly an irresponsible suggestion. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC) and --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Kiev's Buks Shuffled?===<br />
<br />
* From Russia's military press conference: [http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ RT, 10 Questions] - [http://www.ruaviation.com/docs/1/2014/7/22/83/ in more detail]<br />
:''3. Why was a large group of air defense systems deployed to the militia-held area if the self-defense forces have no planes?''<br />
:“As far as we know, the Ukrainian military had three or four air defense battalions equipped with Buk-M1 SAM systems deployed in the vicinity of Donetsk on the day of the crash. This system is capable of hitting targets within the range of 35 km at the altitude of up to 22 km.”'' <br />
:''4. Why did Kiev deploy BUK missile systems on the edge of militia-controlled zones directly before the tragedy?''<br />
:''“We have satellite photos of the places where Ukraine had its air defense units deployed in the southeastern parts of the country. The first three photos were made on July 14. The first photo shows Buk launchers 8 km northwest of Lugansk. You can clearly see a TELAR and two TELs. The second photo shows radars 5 km north of Donetsk. You can see two TARs along with other equipment and technical structures. The third photo shows air defense systems north of Donetsk. You can clearly see a TELAR launcher and about 60 military and auxiliary vehicles, tents for vehicles and other structures.''<br />
<br />
:''“Here’s a photo of the same area made on July 17. Please note that the launcher has disappeared. The fifth photo shows a battery of Buk missiles at the village of Zaroshchenskoye 50 km east of Donetsk and 8 km south of Shakhtyorsk on the morning of the same day. The sixth photo shows the same area on July 18. As you can see, the battery has left.”''<br />
<br />
Note: the <s>latter</s> fourth photo of July 17 has substantial cloud cover, but unless they happened to hide the launchers in those areas (or Russia's satellites waited until the area was covered) it appears the noted vehicles have left to go do something - on/by the 17th, where they say launchers appear and then disappear in a town closer to the crash on the 17th. Zaroshchenskoye [http://maps.yandex.com/?text=Ukraine%2C%20Donets'ka%20region%2C%20Shakhtars'kyi%20district%2C%20Zaroshchens'ke%20ville&sll=38.446008%2C47.98844&ll=38.517419%2C48.048098&spn=0.810242%2C0.300187&z=11&l=map on Yandex maps] - 13 miles SSW of the crash sitel, 9 miles W-SW of Torez..--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
On July 30, Vitalyi Naida, head of Ukrainian Security Service SBU’s counter-intelligence, came up with a series of slides ([http://euromaidanpress.com/2014/07/30/russia-fakes-mh17-crash-site-satellite-images-says-sbu/ short article], [http://www.sbu.gov.ua/sbu/control/en/publish/article?art_id=129610&cat_id=35317 announcement on SBU website] with link to [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ut1JExQKV-0 youtube-video showing the slides (presumably Ukrainian language)]) allegedly showing that the Russian material was "faked". He points to a patch of trees, claiming they had been cut down shortly before the 17th, while Russia's images show the trees intact. On August 1, the Russian Ministry of Defense published [http://eng.mil.ru/en/analytics.htm a rebuttal] advising that<br />
:''Instead of presenting hastily doctored evidence to the international community, the SBU could do with better control over all the mercenary units in the areas around Donetsk and Lugansk organized by Kolomoisky, Lyashko, Yarosh and others, who shell Ukrainian territory without any control from those in charge of the anti-terrorist operation.''<br />
<br />
The trees probably are cut down by now, but we'll have to wait for the true details of just when they were and when the image showing that was taken, or if the image shown is even of any one day and not a composite - "doctored" as Russia says. Other clues suggest launchers moving out of this area at that time: The [[#Paris Match Photo]] - ostensibly from the morning of the 17th - shows the infamous launcher-loaded truck seen in Lugansk, or one just like it, being carried on a truck belonging to a company just south of the missile base in northern Donetsk. That was seen carrying the launcher east out of town at 11:15 AM, purportedly on July 17 (and with the location completely fudged to say Snizhne, when it was only headed there).--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Zaro redeploy.png|left|600px]]The Russian military press conference said "The fifth photo shows a battery of Buk missiles at the village of Zaroshchenskoye 50 km east of Donetsk and 8 km south of Shakhtyorsk on the morning of the same day. The sixth photo shows the same area on July 18. As you can see, the battery has left." (#5 inset) The Ukraine@War blog's analysis decided this image as well was fake. That's mentioned [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com/2014/08/ukrainian-sbu-comes-with-conspiracy.html here] if not elsewhere. The reason: "the shadows of these BUKs have a different direction for all three of them. It means these were pasted into the image." I have to admit, it looks a bit like that. The trees have consistent shadows to the west, in a morning image. The furthest vehicle to the left has a visible shadow about like that. The other two don't seem to, and the one furthest right seems to have a shadow on the wrong side (looks like early PM). I wracked my brain just a little thinking of other explanations aside from just low resolution. Nothing much came up. Anyone else? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br /><br /><br />
<br />
<br />
: '''New video proves UKIE BUKS ACTIVE'''<br />
: video has surfaced, posted to Youtube on July 16, taken a few days before, showing a Ukie BUK radar [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3MomxNHnUA being rotated]. The reporter is taken somewhere in a helicopter and proudly shown the BUK. Segment starts around 4.17 in the chopper, BUK shown briefly at 4.45. Label does not say where exactly, just reads "Officers of Ukrainian Armed Forces patrolling in the ATO zone". <br />
: This ties in with claims that they were doing anti-aircraft exercises, probably in response to claims/fears the Antonovs were brought down not by the rebs but by aircraft from Russia. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 10:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::Thanks! We had this July 16 video [[Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17/BUK_Tracking#Kiev.27s_Holdings| elsewhere]], but here is a good place... The other video, from March, was not seen. There were few more early sightings of Ukrainian Buks, uncertain locations, with those 3** numbers; maybe should get a good place to keep them all --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::: Location of sighting is unclear. But according to some reports ([http://lifenews.ru/news/136731 LifeNews]), on July 16 UAF SU 25 was shot down from a height of 6 km by opolchenie MANPADs. That was near Russian border, --reports say the plane actually crossed into Russia, not far from Marinovka. It could be suspected by Ukraine that a Russian plane was involved, so it will be plausible to have Ukrainian coverage of the accident area by BUKS. On July 14, it was reported that [http://m.rosbalt.ru/ukraina/2014/07/16/1292690.html AN 26 was shot down in Luhansk] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Separatist Holdings===<br />
While much certainty has been shown it was a separatist BUK system responsible, everyone seems to acknowledge that ordinarily, they didn't have any, that were known of. Fresh sighting of them in the field, supposed admissions, and existing presumptions remain the strongest evidence. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;June 29 Seizure?<br />
The Open Newsroom team have latched onto a June 29 message from a Twitter account associated with the Donetsk People’s Republic, @DNRpress claiming separatist forces had conquered a base with anti-air BUK missiles. This is apparently the A-1402 base, as an Itar-Tass report specified. That report noted ... It seems to just cite the tweet which, it was found, used a dated photo online since mid-2013. In essence, there's no good evidence they ever did seize this place. But it was referred to by some as "Deleted DNR tweet confirming Russian rebels indeed have a BUK-M1." The crew at large seems a bit vague on the status of this base:<br />
:'' It appears that the A-1402 military unit was moved into the Donetsk region in 2007 from Odessa, and reports note that the unit was based near Donetsk airport. Local reports from June 29 cited ATO spokesman Alexei Dmitrashkivsky as stating that separatists had attacked the military unit.'' <ref name="Story1" /><br />
As we just found with geo-location, it's 3 km north of Donetsk airport, and it's the same place Russia believes is firmly government-held. It's the place they say at least one BUK-type launcher was removed from on July 17 for some reason, by Kiev's forces who run it. If [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Donetsk_Airport this basic Wikipedia article on the battle for the airport] is correct and/or in line with [[Attack on Donetsk Airport|our page on it]], the airport and anything military-related north of it would probably be government-held continuously to the present time. It's possible some launchers could have been lost during a brief seizure of the base, but this too seems doubtful. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
:Social media published many photos of the "liberated" Buk missiles. I searched for them on Google Image Search; all were old photos from more peaceful times. I have no idea what really happened. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 23:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Thanks. I hadn't looked into it myself, but recycled images made sense given the other clues that they never did take that base, or at least get anything out of it. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 00:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Something in English [https://www.facebook.com/TruthfromUkraine/photos/pb.1452285018328179.-2207520000.1409095455./1515506872005993/ on Facebook,] with links to Russian souces. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 23:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Your geolocation is wrong. The former [http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-SAM-Site-Configs-A.html SA-2 launch site] to the north of the runway is called A-1428, at least according to the [[:File:Donetsk Airport battles 5 Oct 2014.jpg|map by Komsomolskaya Pravda]]. The site was rebuilt sometime between 2002 and 2009 with new garages covering part of the SAM ring. Tactical maps say today it is still held by Ukraine, but may have been in NAF hands earlier. Base A-1402 is located south of the new terminal building along Stratonavtiv Street.<br />
<br />
When looking at the latest airport battles I noticed that Military Maps already shows structural damaged to the new terminal building. I did not expect Google to provide any relevant satelite data. In Libya we had almost daily satellite images of Tripoli, but in Syria we have seen no new photos of the battle-effected areas.<br />
<br />
I opened Google Earth to see what has changed during the war. It seems that the war has had no effect on either base. There is still a lot of military hardware parked on both bases. Most of the trucks and whatever are parked just where they were last year, or on many cases in 2007. I did not see anything that I could identify as a BUK launcher. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 02:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;Held by July 14?<br />
The US embassy in Kiev said in [http://ukraine.usembassy.gov/statements/asmt-07192014.html a press statement of July 19]:<br />
:''Intercepts of separatist communications posted on YouTube by the Ukrainian government indicate the separatists were in possession of a SA-11 system as early as Monday July 14th. In the intercepts, the separatists made repeated references to having and repositioning Buk (SA-11) systems.'' (also quoted [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/20/malaysia-airlines-mh17-videos-missile-launcher-torez-snizhne at the Guardian])<br />
As "Corporal Frisk" [http://corporalfrisk.wordpress.com/2014/07/21/comment-on-the-us-assessment-of-the-downing-of-flight-mh17/ aptly responded:]<br />
:''Having perhaps the world’s best intelligence network, and then using easily faked videos of separatist communications posted on YouTube as evidence sure has a degree of ridicule attached to it, but is also an inidcation that US intelligence believes at least some of these transcripts are real.''<br />
That's totally apt if one suspends the usual definition of "believe" (to include "wants to appear to believe," etc.) In the same piece, the author apparently gives more "credibility to the charges that the Buk-M1 is indeed Russian supplied (and possibly crewed), as opposed to stemming from captured Ukrainian stocks." As covered below, this I can agree with if we suspend the usual definition of "Russian" (to include "allegedly Russian villains," "the Ukrainian version of [http://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2011/07/african-mercenaries.html Libya's African Mercenaries] and [http://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/wiki/The_Shabiha:_Ghost_Stories%3F Syria's Shabiha]," etc.) this would be spot-on. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:54, 10 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
(more allegations to cover?)<br />
<br />
;The One That Matters<br />
Whatever the evidence rebels had Buk systems by the 14th, Kiev also has suggested, and many have accepted, that ''the one that mattered'' at least - the launcher unit that shot down MH17 on the 17th - wasn't theirs at all, but brought in and operated by Russians for the day only. If only for that reason, all the above is likely moot. See next section. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Russian Buk Field Trip? ===<br />
The Kiev regime's narrative also suggests separatists had no BUK systems of their own. Rather, someone else brought one in to their area, took it on some kind of tour through several towns thought accessible only to rebels and allies, and got it seen in each place. Then these people '''shot the airliner down themselves on the separatists' behalf.''' That party is the Russians, they say. This is perhaps best encapsulated by "counter-terrorism" chief Vitaly Nayda's early assessment. AP's July 25 report summarized it, saying "the account was based on information from intercepts, spies and resident tips."<br />
:''Nayda laid the blame fully on Russia: He said the missile launcher came from Russia and was operated by Russians. ... According to Nayda, at 1 a.m. on July 17 the launcher rolled into Ukraine across the Russian border aboard a flatbed truck. He cited communications intercepts that he would not share with the AP. By 9 a.m., he said, the launcher had reached Donetsk, the main rebel stronghold 125 miles (200 kilometers) from the border. In Donetsk it is presumed to have been off-loaded from the flatbed and started to move in a convoy on its own.''<br />
:''Nayda said the Buk turned back east toward Snizhne. Townspeople who spoke to the AP said it rolled into Snizhne around lunchtime.''<br />
:''...As for the Buk, Nayda said, intelligence suggests it went back on the move shortly after the attack. That very night, he said, it crossed the border, back into Russia.''<br />
<br />
This is full of details that don't line up with the emerging record, but the gist including a grand-circuit tour including both separatist stronghold/capitols Donestk and Lugansk plus the disaster zone, seems about right. But the evil they allowed came from and returned to Russia.<br />
<br />
This does however jibe with the Kiev allegation (I learned of through [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/07/25/snizhne-mh17-and-rebel-held-territory/ this excellent and relevant HRI article] that '''Russian jets''' violated Ukrainian airspace to '''bomb an apartment building in Snizneh on July 15th, killing 11 civilians.''' This all makes a bit of sense in context; that false flag attack was blamed by locals on Kiev'a noble Air Force - almost understandably! It "created the conditions" by which people ''might'' accept apparent a team of apparent Russians with a Buk launcher in their town two days later. The best guess for any single firing location is a field just southeast of that town (see [[#Possible Launch Sites|below]]). The locals might smile at, and later even cover for, this poisonous gift. But a trojan horse is a trojan horse, of course. They should have looked it in the mouth better, and been more aggressive with their questions. Because Russia has it in for the separatists, Kiev implies, using its skilled and well-documented team to murder 298 people in a horrific way on the separatists' behalf. This is not an accident, Kiev must know, but proof that Russia and its "inhuman" terrorists they must hate (and who do not seem to have any Buk launchers of their own, BTW) are the new global menace du jour. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Markings and the Mystery Launcher ===<br />
[[File:MH17 Buk 321 Parismatch comp.png|right]]A serial number on the launcher's side is apparently standard in Ukraine's arsenal (see [[#BUK 312 and comrades|above]]). Inset, an image comparing the side of the unit seen in [[#Paris Match Photo]], the one blamed for the shoot-down on the 17th, to TELAR unit 321. The side panels are easy enough to correlate and see the unit in the photo lacks a number, but does have a sliver of white paint (or similar) in one corner. Whoever was moving this painted it it out before this, so there is some attempt at concealment. Is this color of paint only available in Russia? The white sliver here could be part of the number, if it were painted higher up/larger than Ukraine usually does. I can't say yet how they do it. I did a Dogpile Photo search, lots of pictures, context unclear, different vehicles from different sides, mainly Vitaly Kuzmin photos so app. Russian military parades and such: --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
* Number shown, diff. vehicle: [http://military-vehicle-photos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/9881.jpg #1(loader?)] - [http://pix.avaxnews.com/avaxnews/8a/6f/00006f8a_medium.jpeg #2 same?] <br />
* Launchers with no visible numbers: [http://77rus.smugmug.com/Military/May-5th-Parade-rehearsal-2014/i-t7RjrzP/0/M/5may14-33-M.jpg #1] - [http://77rus.smugmug.com/Military/12-April-Parade-2013-rehearsal/i-KHVD3Tv/0/M/12aprilrehearsal_33-M.jpg #2] - [http://livedoor.blogimg.jp/gunzichannel/imgs/b/e/be60ae58.jpg #3] - [http://military-vehicle-photos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/9880.jpg #4] - [http://77rus.smugmug.com/Military/13th-April-rehearsal-Alabino/i-fKQdjW4/0/M/13April-Rehersal-Alabino-26-M.jpg #5] <br />
* Same vehicle, Buk TELAR launcher with numbers: not found. <br />
<br />
At the moment, the lack of a number almost makes it look Russian. The next panel over seems to have smaller numbers, or characters anyway. Nothing yet tells me the Russians add a smaller number on the panel behind that, with or without special stencils available only in Russia. Is that even a number, or does it say return to Putin? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== Bellingcat and 3x2 ====<br />
:''moved from [[#Paris Match Photo]]''<br />
<br />
Adam: somebody's favorite Bellingcat is now saying, I understand, that he is capable to read off the number of this Buk from this blurry low resolution Paris Match photo, using unspecified colored magic and some expertly fitted proprietary boxes. Well actually this is so proprietary that he can ONLY read the first number 3, and the last number 2, but is completely unable to read the middle one. Because, he does not want this to be this Ukrainian [http://uainforg.livejournal.com/1811500.html Buk 312] , nah, noway. He rather want it to be the Russian Buk 3 X 2, where X stand for Russian, and for secret, as somebody is said to unearth this dirty monster in Russia, as he says (I guess). This looks too much baloney as far as I am concerned; you can read any number you set in advance from this blurry photo, and fit there any other crap, boxed-shaped or wiggly, all essentially at will. Just recording this latest saga page in case somebody has more enthusiasm to chase it than myself. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 00:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
:No, you didn't quite understand, but thanks for the tip. An interesting twist I wish I'd caught sooner. First, this helps the West at large get in synch finally with Kiev - it was Russia, not the separatists, who owned and perhaps ran that unit. Second, it seems to me the match is at least as good as they say, but there's at least one aspect of it I think is hilarious and I wouldn't be surprised if they managed to miss it. I'll be back - this one deserves a quick blog post. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: I agree with Resup, this stinks of baloney designed to divert attention from the [[#BUK_312_and_comrades]] story. The worst thing about Brown Noses and cohorts is the amount of coordinated promo they get in pre$$titute media. SPIEGEL today [http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/jan-fleischhauer-ueber-wladimir-putin-und-mh17-abschuss-kolumne-a-1004898.html has a op-ed piece by a particularly douchebaggy example] on those independent genius investigators as well. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::I need to brush up on what that 312 story is... because it looks like this used to say 312. Ultimately I suspect its some kind of baloney, but just where it breaks down I don't know. It is amazing how they get such praise for investigating the right things (never did get back to the Houla Massacre) and finding the right truth... Daily Fail says "The authors said that 'our investigation was made possible by the examination of open source material overlooked by other organisations'." Oh goodness, that technique they must have invested ... maybe if we started doing that we'd get praises too! --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/11/08/origin-of-the-separatists-buk-a-bellingcat-investigation/<br />
The report and whole site was not coming up when I tried (might be a problem on my end), so I don't even know what's behind their pay-wall. In the interim I checked around. [http://thetruthserumblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/an-open-and-transparent-investigation.html Here's a critical blog article I like] that mentions another article praising the report. But what was useful was [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2827853/Russian-military-supplied-missiles-ahead-MH17-shooting-says-new-independent-report-evidence-points-Russian-separatists-responsible.html the Daily Mail's Australian promo article] with the cover and a few images from the report as well as a summary. The 3x2 ... This lets me quickly see what 3x2 refers to. And actually, it looks like a good description and even a good match. The number is not from Paris Match photo but from footage I haven't noticed, they say from inside Russia - presumably a Russian unit then - seen conspicuously moving towards Ukraine in late June. (the source of these images and details might be worth checking into) ... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 3x2 Comp.png|right]]Bottom is Paris Match, skewed to match. Top is the new (to me) Bellingcat June 23 image As I just put together [http://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2014/11/how-russians-covered-up-truth-partly.html here,] they seem to be onto something here. It's something silly. But it's something strongly suggested by real paint in recognizable patterns.<br />
<br />
Implied: Russians wanted to hide this thing's identity, maybe because they were about to do something secret with it. So first they painted out the number in the middle - I think it was a one. Except they left one little corner of white visible. Just got tired. It's identifiable (in both images). <br />
<br />
Then before it appeared in Ukraine, it was rendered totally unidentifiable: they boldly blacked out the 3, and perhaps at the same time even, the 2 - except for a larger identifiable sliver. Just got tired. It's next to the other dot. <br />
<br />
Haha, no way to connect these now! Also a light patch next to the small number (and the number, as far as we can see) matches, as does a light patch along the lip below that. My guess: this is the same suspect vehicle seen gettin' hauled all over on the "stolen" truck with the phone number left on. Was it actually in Russian territory as well as near so many rebel checkpoints around dawn? For how long was it there? Bellingcat cannot confirm that Russian unit 3x2 ever returned to its base in Russia ... nor, I guess, that it ever actually left, or was ever Russian, or didn't have its truncated paint job simulated and expanded on another vehicle... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
::He got some photos of an actual [http://www.kavicom.ru/news-view-12861.html convoy], almost certainly in Russia, fairly hi-res photos, no 3*2 there. Than out-of-a-blue-or-elsewhere, he gives photos from convoy made by 'local residents', now with discolored 3*2 photo(s) there; I could not spot details where this photo is now coming from. He claims it "shows on 8 out of 16 videos", but I do not know where is a single one. He also compares tank track and plate above profiles for these 2 photos; details are blurred (and also those profiles change from use), can't say how much they match each other by eye; don't trust his fitted lines, or his conclusion accepting those, but did not try matching myself (no tools to do it quickly; or enough photo resolution to feel strongly motivated). This is doable but doing it tool-free takes time; and not knowing that second photo is definitely in Russia, I am not convinced spending a lot of time is worthwhile. This is clearly a well-supported operation, so the burden of proving their own version is on them; and they did not bother even linking the videos, no clue where are those. His report downloads without problems at this time. <br />
::Also details such as dirty rear skirt and a bend there likely are common; dirt is because exhaust is through the opening above; skirt likely is bent when there is servicing, or example changing tracks or doing something else, like maybe servicing engine. Buk 321 above on this page has dirt and bend, for example. This bend is something which can be easily produced, same goes with the painting job, both things together can be done in well under 1/2 hour. If they had an example of how something in Russia looks like, not difficult to do it for a blurry photo. Clearly, with phone well-displayed, etc, the purpose of all this is a demo job. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Here is a publication [http://censor.net.ua/video_news/274823/ukraina_zaschischaet_donetsk_ot_napadeniya_rossii_zenitnoraketnye_kompleksy_buk_zanimayut_pozitsii_fotovideo Ukraine defends Donesk from Russiam attack, missile complex Buk takes positions], with photo, video of Ukrainian BUks, numbers 323, 321, 312, 301, 331,332. (Some of them have dirty skirts, e.g. 301 looks dirty and bent...). Ukrainian radio is playing on the video. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 21:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Thanks, and I get the lack of motivation, and the ambiguity. That #312 I'll compare later ... looks like a different number style (thinner) with vehicle color less clear ... I guess this could be innocent dirt instead of black paint, but it's some thick dirt, and by the end almost totally covering the numbers on this particular unit ... or two that can seem the same. (?) So it still seems most likely paint, that is deliberate obfuscation - that was also comically slow and incomplete (with clean edges to the white parts and no visible parts of gray half-covered numbers) . It must be a problem with my system (updating soon) but I still can't connect to the site or get the report. I'm not mad motivated myself, but will want to check the alleged video source and geolocation eventually. Before I was seeing this as a Kiev unit simply snuck across the internal line. So the big wrinkle of course is it being in Russia. Options if the geolocation of June 23 is right: <br />
* it wasn't there (faked match-up - As you say, all matching features ''could'' be faked, not just the paint) <br />
* or Ukraine snuck theirs across (with a whole convoy?) just to get it seen there <br />
* or they snuck over and stole this one while it was near the border <br />
* or Russia willingly sent it over, with or without a subsequent theft by people intent on misusing it on the separatists' behalf. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
There is actually a 3*2 Buk in Russia, he put links to videos on his [https://www.mapbox.com/labs/bellingcat/index.html map], I looked at 06/23 Troitskiy (Odnoklassniki) goroskop odnoklassniki ru/video/14723648043?fromTime=25 . But I doubt it can be concluded that Paris Match is a match (number itself can't be read, this is just bogus). For example, that dot in the Russian version appears to be a bit further to the right (60 % of total panel length) , while Paris Match is closer to 50 (I got 52 %). Also, in Russian version, it is almost level with protruding to the right part of number 2; in Donetsk photo, I'd say it's a bit lower (but blurriness creates problems to measure) . Panel to the left of number panel appear to look very different; in Russian case, clear horizontal line above the main bottom line; not so in Donetsk, a messy lower line. As for the skirt, it it dirty but actually does not look broken in the Russian version, just some frames create such impression. In Donetsk, hard to know (to blurry to tell crack from dirt) but there is serious change in angle there somehow; (could be the windshield playing some tricks). (Also, in Donetsk, it is dirty windshield, not actually certain what makes the dot; but it is roughly where expected, so I can go with this being paint assumption). <br />
:No point for the rebels to display it prominently in Donetsk (not far from UAF BUK base), than go towards Snizhne; this just has no point at all. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 00:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
:I'm the one, ironically, claiming to see things in that griny mess. I'd never do it unless I saw t spot well whiter than the others AND seen in another view ... didn't even notice until then. To note, your descriptions are of the first version of the graphic, now updated. Becuase of overall problems, I cut what seemed just the number panel (including shadowed edge) and put it on top of where it should be. Same proportions, within a pixel or two, "find edges" to mark the white patches, and it remains lining up. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 3x2 comp 2.png|right|420px]]At right: it can't be the embarrassingly misrepresented Ukrainian 312 they're hiding, unless that was painted over before this other one .... FWIW, the middle dot would still line up with the serif on that "1." As the updated blog article notes, if "the Russians" were smart, they would have painted this slender 312, or other recognizable number and style, on there. Instead, this nonsense.... <br />
<br />
I suppose that Ukraine ''might'' have known about this 3x2 video and match in advance (and never mentioned it?) and that's why they found a photo of ''a Buk 312''' (not checking what it actually showed, and just claimed they knew was en route to escape into Russia, after parking for yet another photo?) No, that doesn't make much sense. But I sense a link. Maybe that's because I'm seeing 312 when maybe it's 872, for all we really know. Maybe instead of partly painted out it was just left never fully painted in. Too many unknowns and now I'm unenthusiastic about it. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Whatever one thinks of this graphic comparison and interpretation, the strange and suspect thinking it implies is consistent with what else we know about how this "secret" operation was carried out. If true, it would fit this broader pattern (real or reported clues left by whoever, all open to interpretation, and here couched in the terms of allegations by Kiev and supporters):<br />
<br />
* Recalling that this whole weapon itself would have no normal business in the area and would be denied later, it should have been kept secret. Instead, it was driven around in broad daylight on the same day as the crime, just partly covered with a tarp but revealing all clues needed to identify it, its hidden ID number, and its full rack of missiles.<br />
* The truck it was so displayed on was stolen in Donetsk, and kept with the huge sign on its side with the apparent owner's phone number on it. When the media called that number, little surprise, the owner told them pro-Russian "fighters from Slaviansk" who took over his whole trucking company on July 8 (see [[#The Truck Owner's Story|here]]) Put lightly, this is a stupid way to secure a rig one intends to use for a secret operation like this was supposed to be.<br />
* They loaded the truck in Donetsk, likely at the commandeered site in the north of Donetsk, near the Ukrainian base with Buk launchers, in a coincidence. This truck then got seen leaving Donetsk on the 17th, parked pointing east at the east outskirts, then seen driving in convoy (a couple civilian cars with the operational crew moved with the truck) past Zuhres and then through Torez to the east. They were seen arriving in Snizhne around noon, then the Buk unit seen off the truck and driving in stand-alone, and it was then seen again driving south out of Snizneh, towards the apparent launch location.<br />
* The people running the convoy made sure AP journalists saw them in Snizhne just before the shoot-down from a bit south of there. The convoy stopped, and a man in unusual uniform "approached the journalists. The man wanted to make sure they had not recorded any images of the missile launcher. Satisfied that they hadn’t" filmed that secret missile launcher there, but had noticed it, and their intention to remain sooper seekrit "the convoy moved on." All this was made quite clear to the media and apparently published even before the news that MH17 was shot down. ([http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/what-happened-the-day-flight-17-was-downed/2014/07/25/716c36e4-142b-11e4-ac56-773e54a65906_story.html AP Via Washington Post]) <br />
* After the disastrous attempt to secretly provoke a Russian invasion, with utmost discretion the operators put the smoking gun, its rack of one-less missiles left uncovered, back on the same truck and drove it and the phone number back to Russia - by a strange detour on a long route towards the other easily-recognizable smoking gun rebel capitol, Lugansk ... when government ATO forces had just battled their way to the edge of Lugansk ... and got seen there passing at dawn on the main highway south, apparently having come from the center of town, and then presumably drove to Krasnodon (rebel-held) and to Russia....<br />
<br />
The fail delivery here is almost flawless, with no mistake left unmade and hardly any reasonable gaps to call for deduction. Letting multiple camera views on both sides of the porous border capture and track the gradual move to this stealth mode seems pretty consistent to me.--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Note: the implications of this contested finding, and the visual basis for it as well, is continued below under [[#If Buk 3x2 Was in Russia]] --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== General Observations === <br />
*It is clear that pro-Kiev side produced early and persistent stream of fakes, misrepresentations, or selective half-truths, all aimed to place the blame on Russia and/or "separatists" as a part of well organised and supported information warfare. This information warfare did not establish an objective to prove the blame of Russia or "separatists", as any of those media creations will not survive a rigorous scrutiny, and there is nothing to bring to court in particular. However it successfully altered Western perceptions in early days past the catastrophe, and helped to impose sanctions and other 'increased costs' on Russia, bringing the world on the brink of another cold war. It brought situation in Ukraine closer to perpetual chaos, and kept closely related people to continue killing each other every day. Although those fakes and misrepresentations were later realized to be such, those costs and calamities were not reversed. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*After moving equipment close to border, why would Russia send just a single TELAR to Ukraine in a highly visible manner as it was alleged? For meaningful operation of Buk, one would send at least 1 TELAR, 1 TEL (to be able to load missiles), and 1 command vehicle (as radar on TELAR gives only poor basic operation)? There are also lots of support vehicles seen, in case of something meaningful all that is needed. So moving single TELAR is all but pointless from military standpoint. Single TELAR is mostly for a show of sort. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Reported SIghtings == <br />
(consider along with the visual sightings below) <br />
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/what-happened-the-day-flight-17-was-downed/2014/07/25/716c36e4-142b-11e4-ac56-773e54a65906_story.html AP via Washington Post] <br />
shows the separatists strategy to not be seen as they rolled the murder weapon around:<br />
:''Even before the plane was downed, the AP had reported on the presence of the missile launcher in the town July 17. Here is what that dispatch said:''<br />
:''“An Associated Press reporter on Thursday saw seven rebel-owned tanks parked at a gas station outside the eastern Ukrainian town of Snizhne. In the town, he also observed a Buk missile system, which can fire missiles up to an altitude of 22,000 meters (72,000 feet).''<br />
:''AP journalists saw the Buk moving through town at 1:05 p.m. The vehicle, which carried four 18-foot (5.5-meter) missiles, was in a convoy with two civilian cars.''<br />
:''The convoy stopped. A man in sand-colored camouflage without identifying insignia — different from the green camouflage the rebels normally wear — approached the journalists. The man wanted to make sure they had not recorded any images of the missile launcher. Satisfied that they hadn’t, the convoy moved on.''<br />
<br />
That kind of pro-Russian sooper-seekrisy aimed at the media in front of the media should stop them being seen, right? No, oddly, it didn't. See below. The clumsy bastards could hardly have implicated themselves any more thoroughly than they did that day. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
One interesting post at the Ukraine@War blog mentions two tweets, both from July 17 and before the crash, mentioning this BUK launcher on a trailer at places consistent with the video record. [https://twitter.com/MOR2537/status/489702736766586880 One of them] (translated) sounds perhaps ''too'' informed, and says "Was driven missile system on the tractor cover + two cars after Thorez (Torez) in snowy (Sniznoyeh) in 12-10 (at 12:10? Too early...)." [https://twitter.com/_StradivariuS_/status/489704260045910016 The other one] says "(someone this) morning wrote that (the truck) stood (parked for some time) on b.Shahtostroiteley not intersection with Ilchicha, aside (heading towards) Makeevki. waiting to see (to be seen?) If that's an intersection named, it's a different parking spot identified as being [https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=48.002515,37.854917&spn=0.010222,0.02444&t=h&z=16 here on Google Maps,] one km west of the spot it was parked for the "Paris Match" photo. Otherwise, it refers only to the same place. The contributor noted "Another interesting detail in that tweet is that “it was standing” and “they were waiting”. My understanding of that phrasing is that the #Buk was actually parked there for some time. Meaning there might be witnesses." <ref name="UWD">[http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com/2014/07/reconstruction-of-whereabouts-of-buk.html CONFIRMED the BUK that shot down MH17 has indeed been in Donetsk] P. Martin, Ukraine@War, July 23, 2014</ref> There was a witness with a camera, and a photo sent to the Western media. That almost seems to have been the idea - to get witnessed like that. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== SBU Wiretap Clues ==<br />
I just had a look at the SBU wiretap transcripts, ones released July 19. In it is a segment tying in with the above stop or stops in Donetsk, the exact spot of the [[#Paris Match Photo]], and the general orders to drive east with the launcher. I'm not up on the wiretap stuff - if this is the same material said to be corroborated by the US as the real people talking. But briefly, know that parking spot in just past a roundabout, by a motel and a bus station, well short of a crossing Hornostaivska street halfway to Makiivka. Important clue to why it was here this thing had to get seen and talked about: one source claims this roundabout at the edge of town is "a big separatist checkpoint established on Jun 3 at the road circle." <ref name="UWD" /> This is supposed to all be pretty damning, and I must say it's at least looking like a pretty slick plan may be going on here, with pre-scripted parts that come into play later, etc. From Kiev mouthpiece UaToday, parts of a transcript they ran with the video and other allegations, on the 19th - How credible is this evidence?<br />
:''Khmuryi: Sergei Nikolaevich Petrovskiy, year of birth 1964, officer of Main Intelligence Directorate of Russian Federation, Deputy Chief of Ihor Girkin on Intelligence, at the time of the interception he was in Donetsk.''<br />
:''“Buryat” – militant of terrorist organization “DNR” (to be indentified).''<br />
:''Buryat: – Where should we load this beauty, Nikolaievich?''<br />
:''Khmuryi: Which one? This one?''<br />
:''B: Yes, the one I’ve brought. I’m already in Donetsk.''<br />
:''K: Is it the one I’m thinking about? “B…,”M” one?''<br />
:''B: Yes, yes, yes. “BUK”,”BUK”.''<br />
:''K: Is it on a tractor?''<br />
:''B: Yes, it’s on it. We need to unload it somewhere, '''in order to hide.'''''<br />
:''K: Is it with a crew?''<br />
:''B: Yes, with the crew.''<br />
:''K: '''Don’t hide it anywhere.''' She’ll go there now.''<br />
:...<br />
:''Khmuryi: – Tell me, have you brought me one or two?<br />
:''Buryat: One, one. Because they had a misunderstanding there. They didn’t give us a tug. We loaded it and went at their own pace.''<br />
:''K: Did it go on her own or on a tug?''<br />
:''B: It crossed the line (border).''<br />
:''H: And now have you brought it on a tug? Don’t put in anywhere… I’ll tell now where it should go, it will go together with “Vostok” tanks.''<br />
:...<br />
:''K: Sanych, the point is that my “BUK–M” (modified Russian SAM system) will go with yours, it is on a tug. Where should I drive it to put in a column?''<br />
:''Sanych: There, behind “Motel”, not reaching Hornostaevka.''<br />
:''K: Just after the Motel, right?''<br />
:''Khmuryi: Listen to me carefully, behind the circle near “Motel” there will be you know what. Call to “Bibliotekar” (Librarian).'' <br />
The next part, to me, suggests that as far back as the 19th or earlier, people talking on tape were seeding, or working by, the SBU-proposed Aeroloft plot with the town mix-up. In that light:<br />
:''...Bring inside only those, who just came back, only as much as you need for the convoy. Leave everyone else here. Not far away '''there is Pervomaiskoe, look at the map.'''''<br />
:''DNR militant: I got it.'' (Or did he not quite get it?) <br />
:''Khmuryi: Settle somewhere in that area, bring there those who are left. Your task is reserve, plus protection of this piece (BUK–M), which you will drive now. “Giyrza” will come there too. If anything, I’m on line.'' <ref name="Trans">[http://www.uatoday.info/?p=2579&lang=en SBU releases more conversations implicating Russia in shooting down Malaysia Airlines flight (VIDEO, TRANSCRIPT)] UAToday, July 19, 2014</ref><br />
--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The veracity of that recording needs challenged well now ... the day too early claim [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17#SBU wiretap video|did not pan out,]] so it won't be that easy. Has anyone really done a good analysis tearing it apart some other way? Could it even be half-legit, with some local rebels tricked by some undercover (wire-wearing, not wire-tapping) supposed defector delivering it "with a team" coming "from Russia" (meaning Parubiy et al.)? Who knows? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Imagery Mapping ==<br />
[[File:MH17 Storyful video mapping.png|right|330px]]There have been quite a number now of photos and videos showing BUK launchers ostensibly in separatist strongholds, on July 17. The geo-location of these in such towns by social media networks has been the subject of some recent media commentary. These purported placements are worth collecting and considering here. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
One somewhat comprehensive and updated/evolving page: [http://blog.storyful.com/2014/07/19/how-social-sleuthing-uncovered-evidence-of-anti-aircraft-missile-system-in-eastern-ukraine/#.U9oY_Ua3498 How Social Sleuthing Uncovered Evidence of Surface-to-Air Missile Systems in Eastern Ukraine] Inset is a small preview of the interactive map they made of all placed images (as it stands at the end of July - [https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=200399683004956931329.0004feca5d1fbab0a1d25&msa=0&ie=UTF8&t=h&source=embed&ll=48.206371,38.968506&spn=1.281328,2.334595&z=8 full-size presentation with links, on Google Maps]) <ref name="Story1" /> <s>Note that one of them is way up in Lugansk - which one is a little unclear at the moment - the site may be wrong</s>) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;List of Scenes, placed or not<br />
* Billboard Video: released by Interior Ministry, filmed in Krasnodon before dawn, the Interior Minister says. Russian military analysis places it in Krasnoarmeysk, and the Open Newsroom crew contradicts both and decided "collaborative geo-location was able to place the footage in southwestern Luhansk.'' <ref name="Story1">[http://blog.storyful.com/2014/07/19/how-social-sleuthing-uncovered-evidence-of-anti-aircraft-missile-system-in-eastern-ukraine/#.U9oY_Ua3498 How Social Sleuthing Uncovered Evidence of Surface-to-Air Missile Systems in Eastern Ukraine] Storyful blog, July 19, 2014 and onward (updated)</ref> <br />
* Surveillance Video: located to Snizhne by Eliot Higgins, date unclear. <ref name="Story1" /><br />
* Zuhres video: Pre-geo-located by the uploader [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=48%C2%B0+1'1.38%22N++38%C2%B018'6.04%22E&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=48.034019,38.391724&spn=0.629958,1.564178&gbv=2&hnear=H21,+Zuhres,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&gl=us&t=h&z=10 here in Zuhres.] Higgins confirms, 100% sure, and others concur. Driving east. <ref name="Story1" /><br />
* Torez square photo - located by an associate of Higgins - filmed app. 11:40 AM in central Torez. See below. <br />
* Another photo placed: Snizneh, nearest the shoot-down area (f/c)<br />
* [http://www.parismatch.com/Actu/International/EXCLU-MATCH-Un-camion-vole-pour-transporter-le-systeme-lance-missiles-577289 Paris Match photo] - allegedly Snizhne, reportedly placed '''in northern Donetsk city.''' See below. <br />
<br />
===Billboard Video===<br />
(to be condensed) <br />
A video released by the Ukrainian Interior Ministry is highly dubious and worth some analysis. It shows what seems to be a BUK launcher loaded on a truck driving some direction in some town at what seems to be early twilight (or pre-dawn, depending). The [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4HJmev5xg0 original posting] (with almost 2 million views already) gives no details: "Militants take out missile system "Buk" to the border with Russiam" the title translates. "No description available," it says below, and no comments allowed.<br />
From what I've seen no one knows where this is filmed. Daily Mail says it's a "separatist stronghold," unnamed, and headed south, back towards Russia. "Ukrainian spies reportedly filmed the launcher used in the attack being smuggled to Russia - with two missiles missing." Eliot Higgins was cited by [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/20/malaysia-airlines-mh17-videos-missile-launcher-torez-snizhne the Guardian] with his new team of fundraistigators as geolocating some video and photo but not, apparently, this one. As explained at [https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1278239551/bellingcat/posts/919158 the kickstarter link] they give, Higgins writes:<br />
:''In the above video, posted by the Ukranian Ministry for Interior claiming to show the Buk missile launcher being driven towards Russia it was possible to match the transporter in the video to the transporter in Torez, details of which... (you have to subsidize their operation to see)'' --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== Avakov's Placement: Krasnodon or Lugansk ====<br />
Interior Minister Arsen Avakov said in [https://www.facebook.com/arsen.avakov.1/posts/670837696339673 a Facebook post of July 18] Google-translated: <br />
:''Covert surveillance units of MIA of Ukraine today July 18 at 4.50 am was recorded caterpillar tractor loaded with missile complex, moving in the direction through Krasnodon, toward the border with the Russian Federation. The video can be seen uncovered missiles. Two missiles in place - the average is not visible. ''<br />
:''There is an analysis of this and other information gathered. Presumably this is the missile system "Buk" that made a last shot at a civilian plane from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur .. ''<br />
:''Criminals try to hide the traces of this heinous crime. Not succeed. Security Service and Interior Ministry of Ukraine has collected and collects more irrefutable facts and evidence, the author points out the tragedy of the terrorist organization DNI / LC and its Russian backers Putin.'' <br />
:''The investigation of events MIA issue a comprehensive report on the information. This fragment consider it necessary to publish immediately.''<br />
<br />
By the 22nd, "online sleuths" had placed it in Lugansk (see below). Avakov then confirmed this - he was wrong the first time. One article makes it sound like he wasn't just echoing the sleuths:<br />
:''On July 22, Ukraine's Minister of Internal Affairs, Arsen Avakov, gave the exact coordinates of the video’s location: separatist-held Luhansk, about a 45-minute drive from Krasnodon. Locals quickly verified this claim by photographing the scene, which perfectly matches the landmarks seen in the video.'' ([http://globalvoicesonline.org/2014/07/29/russia-ukraine-mh17-conspiracy-buk/# article by one of the sleuths])<br />
<br />
====Krasnoarmeysk====<br />
One source venturing a guess is [http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ the Russian government and RT witrh their 10 intriguing questions:]<br />
:''“For example, media circulated a video supposedly showing a Buk system being moved from Ukraine to Russia. This is clearly a fabrication. This video was made in the town of Krasnoarmeisk, as evidenced by the billboard you see in the background, advertising a car dealership at 34 Dnepropetrovsk Street. Krasnoarmeysk has been controlled by the Ukrainian military since May 11.”''<br />
[[File:MH17 Billboard Vid Russian Analysis.png|right|250px]]There is a sign, but I cannot make it out just yet, if ever. Can they really? Even if that's so, surrounding towns might be good places for a dealership in Krasnoarmeysk to advertise. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
At right now is a still from a video claiming to show this, I still don't see it. They seem to think the gray span says that, perhaps from seeing a clearer view of this ubiquitous sign elsewhere. Opps. There's no reason to say a dealership in one town can only have billboards in that town. This alone fails. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 14:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Krasnoarmiis'k,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&hl=en&ll=48.323387,37.919312&spn=1.252829,3.128357&sll=48.226502,37.386475&sspn=0.627601,1.564178&oq=Krasnoarm&t=h&doflg=ptk&hnear=Krasnoarmiis'k,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&z=9 on Google Maps as Krasnoarmiis'k] - ''not'' to be confused with the Krasnoarmeisk not far away in Russia. Distance: about 100 km almost due west of the crash site. Panorama, possiblt location, directions/implications forthcoming. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Dnepropetrovsk Street is the main street of Krasnoarmeisk, leading northwest to Dnepropetrovsk. It tried matching this to the street corner where the car dealership is located. Yandex Maps did not provide a street view. It could be there, but too few details to make a positive match. Whatever this is, it is not evidence for anything. The least the SBU could have done is provide the location and some corroborating photographs.<br />
:The same applies to all so called "evidence" provided by Ukraine and the US State Department. As far as I can tell it is only cut-and-paste of unrelated footage to ''illustrate'' the claims made. A perfect example of this illusion is the "satellite photos" of Russian artillery shelling Ukraine released on Sunday morning. A photo of Russian GRADs on some unidentifiable field was placed next to a satellite image with an arrow pointing "Here Be Monsters!" Purely illustrative and no proof. There is a difference between legerdemain Hocus Pocus and outright forgery. The Russian video presentation displayed screen capture recording from the ATC radar, usually stored for two weeks. For this to be a hoax, Russia would need to create a forged tape of the radar data. Highly unlikely, as the the claim of authenticity had support of the full authority and prestige of the Russian Armed Forces. If the US presentation turns out to be hoax, State Department will claim the photos were never meant to be evidence. Some internee was told to prepare a presentation using stock images for some facts they ''knew'' to be true – trust us! -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 14:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: You must have missed [https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BtZSVQrIMAARzKr.jpg:large this], Petri! ;oP --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 18:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
::: That is an awesomely perfect picture for this sorry episode so far. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 14:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
::It would be neat though if we could show where this is and thus which way its's headed. The Kiev authorities, I think, know what happened. They say it was this exact launcher missing two missiles. It could be. Where is it at filming time and where headed? If it's true this same one was in Torez (dubious but possible) we'd have a direction traveled until that point also, and a rough time, 8:30 or so. [http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jul/27/mh17-storyful-social-media-twitter-youtube The Guardian again] citing Storyful's open-source investigation: <br />
::::''“There are now four pieces of content – three pieces of video and one image – which, in the case of three, conclusively show a Buk [surface-to-air] missile within rebel-held territory and in the case of the fourth, almost definitely in their territory,” says Storyful executive editor David Clinch. “Of those four pieces, individual groups or companies probably verified in or around the same time one or another of them.”''<br />
:''Open Newsroom verified three pieces of content and is investigating the fourth, thanks to its 900-strong network of journalists and experts. ''''<br />
:The fourth is this video. Wouldn't it be a coup if we were the first to place it? Force that intern excuse and then laugh at it. That said, it's not the most likely to place but you, Petri, especially, might be able to. I think I might. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 22:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* [https://plus.google.com/118234537318646233652/posts/LZV1XZD854E James Miller Google + July 21] "Was a Buk sighted in Krasnoarmeysk or Krasnodon (continued analysis)? We've taken a new look at this video which has been debated since it was posted days ago. We're fairly confident, though not 100% confident, in this geoanalysis, but we're making significant progress. Any more information would be extremely helpful. " Cited: [http://www.interpretermag.com/russia-this-week-lurid-anti-ukraine-propaganda-broadcast-on-state-tv/#1753 Russia This Week: Defense Ministry Claim on Buk in Billboard Video Doesn’t Add Up]<br />
:''...As we reported on our Ukraine Liveblog, the Buk was spotted before the shoot-down of the Malaysian airplane and ultimately geolocated to the town of Torez, near the location of the crash in Grabovo. Then the video, taken early the next morning on 18 July, showed a scene in Krasnodon,... <br />
--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Google Earth has one photo [http://www.panoramio.com/photo/55329278 from ул. Днепропетровская.] The street has about the same width. The streetlights are not quite the same. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 14:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
::That image doesn't help a match, especially since by now it looks like Lugansk. For the record, there was a go by pro-rebel social media people at identifying a spot in town to explain the video scene, but it didn't do that either. [http://wikimapia.org/#lat=48.276196&lon=37.176087&z=18&l=0&m=b this spot on Wikimapia] is what they pointed to - filmed from the marked building, they say, looking southwest to the mall. No matching anything. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 02:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== Placed in Lugansk! ====<br />
[[File:MH17 Billboard Vid-Lugansk Match.png|right|800px]]Storyful's rundown states of this video:<br />
:''The footage is not the original, however we believe that the first instance of this footage was removed by the uploader and the version below is the earliest we can find. Ukrainian Interior Minister, Arsen Avakov, made early claims that the video was filmed in the Ukrainian town of Krasnodon near the Russian border, however collaborative geo-location was able to place the footage in southwestern Luhansk.'' <ref name="Story1" /> <br />
It links to "Bellingcat," which you have to pay to see much of. [https://plus.google.com/118234537318646233652/posts/bMdeBzY8yty James Miller] passes on that it's "Mystery SOLVED: Video released by Ukraine's Interior Ministry does in fact show a Buk, possibly missing several missiles, in Lugansk headed east from the MH17 crash site and in the direction of Russia." The spot they think matches the video (better panorama coming) is [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=48%C2%B032'44.7%22N+39%C2%B015'52.6%22E&ie=UTF8&ll=48.545926,39.265147&spn=0.002436,0.00611&t=h&cid=0&z=18 here on Google Maps]. Was that a highway? Where's the cross-street? I see elsewhere they have a high view showing the same basic billboard there, but that's going to be true of several spots in this area. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
My impression of the scene - based on the panoramic view below - is far from matching with this. That does not look like a highway, and it just seems like a small town. However, I finally saw some of the supporting images (see [http://news.bigmir.net/ukraine/827864-V-Lygansk-vehala-kolonna-voennoi-tehniki--SMI here] and [https://twitter.com/djp3tros/status/491651820188860416/photo/1 here] - source of the inset image.) It seems a likely match after all. I won't say I confirm it with any certainty, but I don't think I'll be challenging it like I was preparing to do. Note the different billboard in the right spot, and the matching one over there. There are other images, apparently more current, showing that that they moved the one sign over to the right spot They don't point to the pinkish roofed building beyond the red-roofed one, but that adds to the match (compare to below). Whenever this video was made and whatever it really means, it seems quite likely it was at this spot in Lugansk shortly before dawn. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
There is another video from June 2014 showing the same billboard with the same car ad:<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ez8cZ3nqjCs Луганск 02 07 14]<br />
The video shows a column of BMPs with one 9K35 Strela-10 short-range surface to air missile system passing the intersection in Lugansk. I suspect they came from Russia, as [https://www.facebook.com/groups/IOUCO/permalink/584402078339517/ I specifically asked] for Putin to send in the Russian tanks that morning. They passed exactly when I expected them to, at 6 minutes past 4 am. (I estimated it would take 2 hours 6 minutes from the border.) -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 17:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== ACLOS Review ====<br />
As noted above, my review agrees with the placement agreed by the others. For what it's worth, the huge panorama I made (the middle is full-resolution) and starting notes from before I realized no work was needed. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 03:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
[[File:MH17 Billboard Video Pan.png|center|880px]]<br />
It seems to be filmed near the edge of town, or edge of a hill anyway, with a clear view ahead, two vague homes/buildings seen down the slope. Otherwise, very non-descript. The angle of intersection will be one of the better clues - it looks to me not 90 degrees ( |- ), but with the road the truck is on either slanting or curving somewhat towards the camera ( /- ). One important observation: '''there's no logical reason he should have been just happening to film this area''' unless he knew something interesting would drive by at just this odd time. That's clarified by how he zooms in just before it enters frame - he was waiting for that truck. How did he know about it? Informants on the other side of town phoning ahead makes enough sense, I suppose. <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 launcher truck composite.png|left|480px]]Another issue: If this is dusk (sunset 8:20 PM local), isn't this facing roughly northwest? If so, this vehicle is driving roughly north, not south. And we might start looking on the west edge of town. There's a highway out to the northwest, back towards Kiev. This street is too narrow and unmarked to be the highway, obviously, but it might be driving that way, for example. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
:Or, alternately, he's facing towards the sun about to rise, early on the 18th, as alleged by the Interior Ministry) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
::That he happened to be filming just before dawn is even less likely than dusk. He clearly knew this was coming, whatever that means. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 03:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Above is the composite scene without truck. At left is the truck without background. Besides lightening the scene, it seemed worth getting the clearest details from different frames into a composite view of the truck and its load. This helps compare to the launchers seen in other areas and different times. So far, they all seem to look the same and perhaps be the same. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 03:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br /><br />
<br />
==== HRI ====<br />
Pretty good points [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/08/05/mh17-the-lugansk-buk-video/ from Human Rights Investigations]:<br />
:''To sum up, the statement of Avakov, the film and its location suggest the Ukrainian authorities had advance knowledge of this BUK and trailer’s movements or control over it. It is also extremely strange that this BUK, allegedly after shooting down MH17, is supposedly filmed by a Ukrainian surveillance team in ostensibly rebel territory, with its covering missing, as if to show the world a missile is missing.''<br />
--[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Paris Match Photo ===<br />
[[File:MH17 Paris Match.png|770px]]<br /><br />
* [http://www.parismatch.com/Actu/International/EXCLU-MATCH-Un-camion-vole-pour-transporter-le-systeme-lance-missiles-577289 Originally published by Paris Match] on July 25, with the claim the picture was taken by their own reporting team near Snizhne at mid-day on the 17th. Note the prominent, apparent, telephone number prominently centered in the picture - (050) 471-41-80. The truck and launcher, as far as can be seen, are quite similar to or the same as the one seen in the billboard video anyways. How many of its missiles the unit has at this moment is unclear. <br />
<br />
* [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/07/28/why-is-paris-match-on-the-location-of-a-buk/ Human Rights Investigations:] "it turns out to have been taken in Donetsk, 75km away" (citing someone else's geo-location - [https://www.google.com/maps/@48.004592,37.87265,3a,75y,63.38h,82.21t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sRGnHwZ5YZnuGO-n_VvruWg!2e0 site link given.] <br />
:''We know this because the phone number on the truck panel (050 471 4180) leads straight to this hire place (photo):<br />
:''According to Paris-Match, the proprietor of this establishment claimed “rebels” had stolen a number of his vehicles earlier in the month. If we go from here to towards Snizhne we find the location of the Paris-Match photo, near a car dealership on Makiivske Highway on the outskirts of Donetsk:''<br />
:''After informing Paris-Match of the mistake regarding the video location, the author of the article Alfred De Montesquiou has now got back and explained:''<br />
:''Hello, indeed, it appears there was a mixup in caption : the picture was taken leaving Donetsk on road to Snijne, not in actual Snijne'' <br />
<br />
'''Questions:''' Was it a caption mix-up, or did their team really not know where it was taken, and just believed the real source when he said Snizneh? Who is the true photographer who knew to catch this picture near the company's base, apparently at the outset of a rather epic journey? Why did the rebel thieves leave the prominent phone number on the stolen truck used for such an important task? It wound up leading to man who pointed right to the rebel thieves, and prove yet again separatists, not Kiev allies, were the ones driving BUKs around. Was that so hard to foresee? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''To Do:''' Verify the geo-location - set a time, presuming July 17, by sunlight and that location - establish which was it's traveling relative to the government-run anti-aircraft base just a few km north of here and relative to the other places and times this truck and others were spotted rolling around prominently and getting filmed a lot by the right kind of people, in areas presumed to be impenetrable to any such frame-up operation - look into this company, etc. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''Location:''' I can't confirm it with certainty, but it's extremely consistent. Two standard but distinct pole types that close together on the right with a pull-over lane ending at the blue one, and consistent-scale foliage behind. Proceding on the location as likely enough to warrant the work. The stretch of highway identified runs northeast, heading 33 degrees. The truck is most likely not driving at the moment, as it's in the pull-over lane. But it's pointed as if ready to leave Donetsk as soon as they finish doing something in theis spot. All we can see they're doing is getting filmed, and maybe that's just what they're waiting for. Ahead would be the an industrial area, the eastern suburb of Makiivka, then Khartsyzk, etc. and further east Torez and Snizhne (driving times unsure, date also unsure. Russia claims the one launcher left the northern base sometime between in August 14 and 17 images. <ref name="RT10">[http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ 10 more questions Russian military pose to Ukraine, US over MH17 crash] RT. July 21, 2014</ref><br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Donestk Buk Map.png|left|480px]]Left: this truck location, the company's apparent headquarters ([https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Molodykh+Shakhtariv+St,+19,+Donetsk,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&ll=48.044923,37.783184&spn=0.079187,0.195522&hnear=Molodykh+Shakhtariv+St,+19,+Donetsk,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&t=h&z=13 GM link]), and the A-1402 missile base relative to each other. <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Paris Match elev.png|right|220px]]'''Time:''' I'm not sure how exactly to set this up, but the shadows appear to stretch almost right across the highway, with only a slight northern shift. The azimuth thus appears to be fairly close to to 140˚ (reached at 11:09 AM). As for solar altitude, trying to line up the launcher's corner with its shadow gives a reading of app. 56˚ (= 10:50 AM, with azimuth 133˚) or perhaps 59˚ (= 11:18, az 143.5). The graphic shows both readings. Which is better? I used [http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/solcalc/ NOAA solar calculator], with coordinates: lat 48.017102 long:37.9037626 time=GMT+2, DST +1 --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
Bellingcat was originally claiming that photo was taken at 9 am. <br />
[https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/09/08/images-show-the-buk-that-downed-flight-mh17-inside-russia-controlled-by-russian-troops/]<br />
[https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/11/08/origin-of-the-separatists-buk-a-bellingcat-investigation/]<br />
<br />
<br />
Than they were claiming 11 am as an obvious time without retracting previous 9am claim.<br />
<br />
Seems like 9am was more comfortable for them to match to photos from Zuhres and Torez. <br />
<br />
Sorry, using smartphone. Not very easy to comment <br />
[added by Antidyatel]<br />
:Looks like you put the same link twice, -it says 11 a.m.--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
::Antidyatel, welcome! Resup, thanks! I'd like to see any 9 am citation. But otherwise they agree on it being around 11? Good. The significance below is if the Zuhres square photo was taken at 11:40 AM as they say, it's basically impossible these images are from the same day as alleged - 69 km, 1 hour 14 mins drive between the spots, when there's only 20-40 minutes between the images. However, fudging it - let's say this is 10:50 and the other is 12:00 as I read it - that's 1:10 between, almost a perfect match. So maybe this isn't a great lead (I was never convinced it was). But 9:00 is way off and suggests they were fudging it to fit at that point. Would be good to document. BTW, on talk pages you can sign with <nowiki>--~~~~</nowiki> or the sign/scribble button. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: [https://web.archive.org/web/20141109132514/https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/11/08/origin-of-the-separatists-buk-a-bellingcat-investigation/ First archive.org snapshot] from the day after publishing (edit: a good three months after you called it :o)) says 11 am already. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 10:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: Okay, the links were fixed once or twice and [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/11/08/origin-of-the-separatists-buk-a-bellingcat-investigation/ the November report] says 11 am, not citing an azimuth or anything, just Paris Match saying it was "about 11 am," which doesn't count much for verification. The [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/09/08/images-show-the-buk-that-downed-flight-mh17-inside-russia-controlled-by-russian-troops/ earlier report from Sptember] might be based on something else when it mentions "a well known image from Paris Match, which shows a Buk in Donetsk at 9am on July the 17th." Neither one sounds like a firm final version. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
There is more to consider about this truck, its company, its owner, and his story. But other than this photo's extra-clear view of the phone number and apparent proximity to headquarters, those are better covered in the section below <br />
<br />
It it possible to identify if the photo was made by dashboard camera, smartphone, or other type of camera. Paris Match claimed that they made the photo. There are no date markings on the photo, which is strange. Position of the camera is such that it was either dashboard camera or the driver was making a photo (front and left side of the car). Paris Match was also implying in their report that it was a group of people in the car. "A sytem BUK missile launcher is photopgraphie by the team of Paris-Match in the suburbs of Donetsk, on the road to Snizhne the morning of July 17, hours before the flight Malaysia Airlines MH17 crash."[http://m.parismatch.com/Actu/International/EXCLU-MATCH-Un-camion-vole-pour-transporter-le-systeme-lance-missiles-577289]<br />
<br />
Why would they ask driver to make a photo? Dangerous or uncomfortable - illogical. If it was a dashboard camera, why not to release a video? And most importantly it would have a time stamp. <br />
<br />
Also in this report [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/01/17/new-images-of-the-mh17-buk-missile-launcher-in-ukraine-and-russia/] gives a new, a bit extended photo. Surprisingly the back of the BUK is nicely in focus, same as the truck cabin. While middle of the BUK is defocused. No wonder Paris Match cropped it. Bellingcat, that likes being so strict about photos, totally ignores this part. <br />
-- Antidyatel <br />
<br />
<br />
[[#The Truck Owner's Story]].<br />
<br />
=== Torez Square Photo ===<br />
[[File:MH17 Torez Buk Analysis.png|left]]This is another image geo-located by the Brown Moses network (ally Aric Toller) to central Torez, [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Donetsk&hl=en&ll=48.023472,38.614014&spn=0.004923,0.01222&hnear=Donetsk,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&t=h&z=17 here on Google Maps.] Like others, it was initially stated as in another locale - Snizhne - and that had to be corrected. I can agree the location pointed to is either the photo's site or one strangely like it. [http://mashable.com/2014/07/23/citizen-journalists-mh17-spies/ Mashable noted] "Toler and Higgins were able to establish that the photograph was shot around 11:40 a.m. local time." I tried a quick azimuth measure, eyeballed relative only to the blue car, and got 165 degrees (yellow line, read backwards). This equates to a time of almost exactly 12:00 noon (about 30 minutes before solar noon, and 20 minutes later than their estimate). Seeing they're close to right, I'll presume they're closer than me and defer to 11:40. <br />
<br />
If this photo is taken at 11:40 AM, and it's the same truck seen leaving Donetsk around 11-11:20 AM, it's impossible these images are from the same day as alleged (Gmaps says it's 68.8 km, 1 hour 14 mins drive, when there's only 20-40 minutes between the images). That would mean multiple mobile launchers with multiple "Titan" trucks, or just one but with some date fudging. The company says a number of its trucks were stolen, so matching multiples are entirely likely. But so is date fudging, multiples or not. If that's so, I suspect the Donetsk photo was from July 15 or 16, and this one more likely from the day of the crime. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 04:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br /><br /><br /><br />
=== Zuhres Video ===<br />
[[File:Buk Zuhres Vid.png|right|480px]]Again, a truck of that same type loaded with the same apparent weapon is briefly seen driving east (detail at right). This one was never reported wrong and was in fact pre-geo-located by the uploader [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=48%C2%B0+1'1.38%22N++38%C2%B018'6.04%22E&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=48.034019,38.391724&spn=0.629958,1.564178&gbv=2&hnear=H21,+Zuhres,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&gl=us&t=h&z=10 here in Zuhres.] Higgins confirms, 100% sure, and others concur. <ref name="Story1" /> Zuhres location: on highway H21 halfway between Donetsk and the general disaster zone - 36 km east by road from the position of the truck in the Paris Match photo. I agree with the location, refined below as I lined up in the still used here - the blue line runs between the blue thing and the building corner (footprint, not roofline) to the front of the truck as it passes. <br />
<br />
The sky is fairly overcast, so solar angles can't be measured precisely; the differences in facet lighting are clear but not massive. A broad and inclusive azimuth range of 167˚ to 214˚ (rounded) is shown by the yellow arrows below. This yields a range (to the nearest minute) of 12:09 PM and 1:45 PM. The best middle is a bit early - 185 degrees. That would be 12:44 PM. Altitude, at solar noon, helps little. 12:09, 12:44, and all times between round off to 63˚. if that simply looks too high, we're forced to the later end of the time frame. - 57˚ at 1:45. My super broad-estimate: 12:45 +/- 50 minutes. Weather at this time on whatever day - as noted, it partly overcast, and it's windy. The clouds are moving fast, with slight lighting changes visible in just these few seconds. Winds by the swaying trees are from the southeast, perhaps, blowing northwest - at least at the building with a face running that way.<br />
[[File:Buk Zuhres analysis.png|center|680px]]<br />
<br />
==The Truck Owner's Story==<br />
The apparent owner of the white truck so important to the MH17 operation was of course tracked down via the giant phone number for his compant on its side. Interviewed at least twice now, first by Paris Match, then by Lithuanian agency Alfa, this businessman has been anonymized as Vassili (then Vasilijus). Thorough summary of the related, alleged facts, from each (translated) report:<br />
* [http://www.parismatch.com/Actu/International/EXCLU-MATCH-Un-camion-vole-pour-transporter-le-systeme-lance-missiles-577289 Paris Match, July 25:]<br />
:''Photographs of Paris Match showed that the rebels had failed to remove the billboard on the truck they had stolen. Thus we joined the owner of the vehicle. Vassili said the rebels occupied warehouses on the outskirts of Donetsk since July 8. "They are fighters Slaviansk. They landed and told me they loved my premises and we had to escape. They shipped me a dozen large vehicles, including the white truck. I do not know what happened to them, "admitted Vassili, distraught.'' (that was actually just what they published, aside from context material) <br />
<br />
* [http://www.alfa.lt/straipsnis/472203/alfa-lt-isskirtinis-interviu-su-raketas-buk-kuriomis-buvo-numustas-malaizijos-avialiniju-lektuvas-gabenusio-vilkiko-savininku?p=1#.U-GIxeOSyuZ Alfa.lt, July 29:]<br />
:''This person's testimony is crucial. After it becomes indisputably known that anti-missile system, which shot down a passenger plane was precisely the Kremlin-sponsored terrorist hands. ''<br />
Here, separatists are throughout called "terrorists" (Bezler is "the "People's Republic of Donetsk" terrorist gangs ringleader"). Vassili says these took over and occupied his company premises on July 8, taking the white truck - they said because it was needed He says they stayed in control of his facility for 8 days, apparently departing on the 9th day - July 17. Becuase of this, he and his staff - especially his drivers - were unable to do anything that whole time. He's entirely certain it's his truck in the videos (the phone number says so) as it's the only one of its type in that part of Donetsk (Žinoma, ji – vienintelė tokia Donecko srityje, tokios kitos nėra. Tokios „Volvo“ su tokia kabina). He says he still hasn't seen it since.<br />
:''...more and more irrefutable evidence that Russia supported the terrorists shot down over the temporary control of the territory in the east of Ukraine aboard passenger "Malaysia Airlines plane, and later sought to hide evidence.''<br />
But as Paris Match noted, they couldn't be bothered to detach the phone number to the guy with the whole dang story. <br />
:''Alfa.lt knowledge of the personal data, company name, knows his responsibilities and phone numbers (one is (050) 471-41-80), but because of '''the danger to his life''' that can not be published. "Stop saying my name, and I already have enough problems," said new horrific crime witness Vasilijus.'' <br />
This is valid; of course his best defense would have been to simply ''not'' implicate the separatists mostly running Donetsk, but it's too late now. DPR authorities might want him for questioning. And especially now that he's been publicized as a "crucial witness," others will want him to '''appear to have been brutally murdered by them''' (he will have served his main purpose by now, perhaps). I hope someone's able to arrange protective custody quickly enough, or that he can arrange his own vacation, or convince his friends (he'll know the ones) of his continuing usefulness to them alive. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Titan Gate blurry.png|left|380px]]Further bits on the business: Wikimapia has labels. One for the front building is generic. In English writing: [http://wikimapia.org/#lat=48.0399571&lon=37.794637&z=16&l=0&m=b&show=/24479492/Ochakivska-vulytsia-19 Ochakivska vulytsia, 19]. Beneath: Category: safety, '''private security company.''' Around this, a bigger labeled area including the back building and surrounding lot. Label: Территория службы охраны "Титан" Translated, it says "Territory protection service "Titan" (Donetsk)." Beneath it: "Category: '''Do not display name''', fenced area." (не отображать название, огороженная территория) Below, their gate area as it appears in Human Rights Investigation's still, and three versions I've seen randomly changing over the last day or so with different parts that could be the name blurred out (most recently back to not blurred). Is that unusual? I predict further twists in this, with the truck found somewhere bolstering the Kiev story, and with the company's "outing" being manipulated somehow. Feels a little spooky. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
;Assessing "Vassili's" Story<br />
<br />
There are a number of problems with and interesting questions about this witness' story and how it meshes with other allegation (details forthcoming).<br />
<br />
In Vassili's defense, I'll say the world needs to hear more. What happened in these eight days? Were Russian officers coming and going? Poring over air charts in the side room, before closing the door with an annoyed look? A lot could have happened - this could be a gold mine of direct evidence for war crimes trials of these terrorist gang's leaders (as understood). --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
[[File:MH17 Vassili's Truck August 1c.png|right|400px]]<br />
An apparent support: as HRI found, [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/08/07/new-sighting-of-volvo-linked-to-buk/ New sighting of Volvo linked to BUK?] August 7 - One of those provocatively deleted tweets, quite recent with a supposedly same-day (dawn or sunset) photo from somewhere in Donetsk - outskirtsy, like where <s>rebel</s> I mean Kiev junta forces proudly claim to almost be. this photo (saved by HRI) shows "a truck" carrying a tank, driving behind another tank. The posted thought it was for a new roadblack/barricade (concrete slabs were also being hauled). It appears to be the same truck Vassili says he lost, or one just like it. And this does look like the type of thing seaparatists would do if they had seized it, and still didn't realize how famous it had become. This thing likes to drive at dawn, doesn't it? How are checkpoints then, a little sleepy maybe? Hmmm... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::(added later: inset image - from the photo, color-corrected and cropped on just the truck - for full view see the article or below) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: FTR I took up HRI's challenge to identify the truck on that picture and did so with almost 100% certainty. It's a Volvo FH second generation (2001-2013) with low cabin. Like [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Volvo_LKW_Fahrerhaus.JPG this one] which has a higher cabin but other than that is quite a match. Also FTR, I noticed that the twitter account has "Donbass Bandera" as location, which can but must not mean anything. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: Bandera might mean something, in context, but no time to puzzle too much. Good ID work there. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Vassili's Truck August 1 Loc.png|left|380px]]The article passes on a geo-location I can confirm: [https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Makiivka,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine/@48.04073,37.967479,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m5!1e2!3m3!1s78165143!2e1!3e10!4m2!3m1!1s0x40e08e984a0db9a9:0xe4e52efde2e0641c Here on Google Maps,] photo taken, as described, from "opposite the Vostochno-evroppeyskiy restaurant & lounge “Atrium” in Makiivka on the H-21." A site photo of the "Atrium" is included. The graphic I made at left shows the approximate view, including the stairwell (to a subway station?), though the billboard is less clear. The view is roughly towards the rising sun northeast - a rough azimuth measure suggests the sun is shining from about <s>66</s> 71 degrees from north, for a time of around <s>5:24</s> 5:52 AM (elevation: <s>1.8</s> 6 degrees). --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC) and corrections --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
FWIW, I went over to militaryphotos.net and scanned [http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?236005-Situation-in-the-Ukraine-Crimea-*Photos-Videos*-ONLY/page200 the thread about Ukraine starting on page 200] in very early July, up until page 225 when all the known truck/BUK info and disinfo was posted. Watched countless military convoys, including a whole bunch from Donetsk in the time between. Not a sign of the truck in question. If it was in "rebel" hands since July 8 like the alleged owner claims, they used it only for "special ops", alone in the early morning or so, not in their larger relocation operations. Two things remotely interesting: in an operation [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0JdcC324Ek reactivating a WWII tank from a war museum in Donetsk], a similar trailer is used, but the truck is a different one. And in [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2eGNPJlkMo this video from July 5] but without given location, the Ukie army does some operations and two BUK TELARs are seen. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Possible Launch Sites ==<br />
*Launch site discussion here is based on a photo of disputed provenance, said to be made '''near [[Category_talk:Ukraine#Torez|Torez]]''', showing a plume of smoke (see on the right and below). Exact date is disputed, but it was posted shortly after the accident. A late update or second version of the photo emerged in December 2014; this is further discussed in the [[File_talk:MH17_Launch_Plume.png|talk page for the photo]]. A different launch location in '''Artemovsk''', based on Bezler account, is discussed elsewhere [[Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17#Bezler_Account|(link).]] . <br />
<br />
===What do we know? ===<br />
Questions about the photo, --if it is genuine-- include:<br />
<br />
*What is shown on the photo? (Likely a missile launch, but can be MANPAD, or some other launch; raising fire smoke not excluded though less likely) <br />
*When was the photo made? (Claimed to be couple of minutes after the MH 17 shootdown launch; but could be made on earlier days)<br />
*Where was the photographer, and where is than the 'launch site" Photograph claimed to be made in Torez (4 microdistrict?) . Claimed launch sites locations are [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/launch-location-detected-of-missile.html SE] or [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2107 NE] from the photographer. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
A site, or maybe a couple of locations, have now been forwarded, based on compelling evidence, as likely SAM launch sites of July 17 or thereabouts. This is worth careful consideration here. To start:<br />
<br />
* [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10984530/MH17-the-clues-which-may-lead-to-missile-launch-site.html UK Telegraph, July 22] This report with some detail and a photo visits a few areas where signs of possible BUK launcher movement and firing occurred recently. Caterpillar tracks, mostly light, signs of burning, various debris left behind, all or mostly "in the area of the town of Snizhnoye." These details might suggest whoever did this had multiple launchers set up in different areas that left as soon as the operation/accident was done. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
::So far, signs are saying it was just the one. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Below: The site shown on video, stitched panoramic view (with confusing curve). This helps get the fullest set of geo-location clues. I may even check if this is the same spot identified by Ukraine@War, below. It should be, or we might have two firing locations pretty near each other, which would be odd. The firing direction from here would be northwest, almost directly along MH17's flight path. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
[[File:MH17 Telegraph site.png|center|940px]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Launch Plume.png|right|340px]]Ukraine@War: [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/launch-location-detected-of-missile.html Launch location detected of missile that brought down MH17] The photo at right, cited by Kiev as proof of a BUK launch in the right area, July 17. The anlysis here looks good on first blush and lines the filming to northern Torez, plume on a line including a supposed patch of cat tracks just revelaed by fresh Google/GeoEye images of some fields [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Donetsk&hl=en&ll=47.989347,38.773155&spn=0.078813,0.195522&t=h&hnear=Donetsk,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&z=13 here] by Snizhne. As traced, the tracks look realistic to me. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: There is (a disappeared) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUvK5m2vxro BBC video ] suggesting that smoke is from a direction of Saur-Mogila (= constant fighting) and a coal mine. <br />
::Thus smoke may be unrelated to the launch. Also timing of photo is unclear. <br />
:: Buk trail from unrelated launch videos appears considerably [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDXScnEKaP0 more impressive than on the photo] , and traces well visible trajectory, likely attracting attention of many people . But there appears to be no witness reports. <br />
::Buk appears to use [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_navigation proportional navigation method], and if so, its navigation control will try to guide it on a straight path to impact.<br />
::Unless it was doing something else (but can it??? the answer requires expert knowledge), it was most likely on a straight line trajectory which can be deduced from the impact direction.<br />
--[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 00:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Yes, an odd video. I'm not certain they even picked the right view, but it looks about right - I think she and Oliphant (Telegraph) point to the same monument as a landmark - a place of fighting. Seems like they got close, but didn't have a specific spot like U@W picked, and didn't find anything. As for angle, I think it can maneuver around, but would prefer to fly straight (not an expert, don't know what "prefer" means here). And if it was hit head-on like the impact marks suggest, then it probably did fly just about straight into the jet. Obviously if it came over the wing, and was fired from here, it would have to curl around, but I don't think that's the case. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
<br />
The satellite images cited at Ukraine@War are available if you have Google Earth. As explained [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/satellite-images-reveal-how-buk-has.html here,] there's a .kmz package you can download [https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxEeOqcjSE5uQXlkWkxKeVhDaEk/edit here] that loads on Google Earth new, murky images from July 20 (but the display still says August, 2013). The tracks he highlights are visible, faintly. There are a couple sets perhaps connecting - some could be local paths - there's no recent enough images to say there weren't there July 16. One important missing thing is a patch of burnt grass it seems should show up up differently - it's not identified there, and not evident right around these tracks. From this, it's not a great fit, except that line of sight pointing here. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Plastic Debris 1.png|left|280px]]So is the Telegraph site and the Ukraine@War site the same thing? Well, the Telegraph article says they went to the spot identified on a blog, but found, as the image suggests: Two possible launch sites – a rundown collective farm and a nearby wheat field – showed some track marks but no sign of any rocket launch whatsoever." It was a farmer plowing his fields there who pointed them to ''a field nearby'' that burned the other day, and that 's the unclear site they show. "The location of the fire lies on the supposed flight path of the rocket, and track marks – though indistinct – are present. Some unidentifiable bits of green plastic littered the site of the fire." There were also discarded bottles (type unclear) and apparently this oddity, shown in a photo but not mentioned - soft bakelite-type plastic ... thing, with years in the 1980s and 1990s stamped in it. It's all near enough to the rebel town, the Russian border, and concealed rebel positions that they think only rebels could operate there. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
First, let's note that author "P. Martin" connects these possibly relevant tracks with the surveillance video showing the Buk launcher driving south The Telegraph spot, from the burnt grass, must the spot the exhaust pushed off from, and the burn line should probably be to the northwest. There's no sign of that alongside these track marks found on that visual line. That's a problem, as the exhaust never said a luncher was driving around thataway, but rather launching from thataway. <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Telegraph Spot Mapped.png|right|380px]][[File:MH17 Telegraph Spot Cleared.png|right|320px]]Rather, it's the nearby "Telegraph spot" - not quite on his line but close - that [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com/2014/07/exact-location-pinpointed-of-mh17.html Martin thinks is the EXACT location] That, he thinks, is in the next field south. It should be visible in the updated imagery, but it turns out this is just off the edge of the area they provided, so it can't be verified or ruled out based on that. The inset graphic shows this cut-off line, his previous possible firing locations (track-based, seemingly un-burnt, in yellow) The spot yields a best placement with coordinates already noted by Petri in a section [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Map#Buk locations and flight paths|here.]] (I picked out the spot myself, best guess, and got the same but 3 seconds east) It can't be checked like that for the telltale stripe to the northwest, but it looks pretty likely to me. The main view down the tracks (left half of the panorama above) would be looking south, and the near line of trees on the right running west. The pretty obvious tracks he identifies as likely launcher tracks, and they do seem to curve in where it stopped. Otherwise, to me, this has more the look of a pre-travelles semi-road on the line between fields. Either way, it probably drove that way, and fired from here, and not from the un-burnt spots north. All the tracks he notes, none certain in themselves, are supported in their possible relevance by this being what's at the end of the trail. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC) and [[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Added in November, the image below that. I noticed Google Maps had new post-crash imagery up, and re-checked the spot for burn marks, since it was just off the grid before. This replacement - overlayed with translucence - seems too late. The strip most likely to show the signs has apparently been harvested/cleared before this image Some will say that constitutes a coverup. And it might, but probably just out of stupid reflexive nervousness. I just wanted to measure its angle and stuff. There is a nice track right up to the spot, likely pre-existing and just unclear before, and what they used to get there. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Location Challenged ===<br />
<br />
The above stuff, as of now and as I've been running it mainly, seems to bear out the vaunted "social media sleuths" placing the launcher and probably the launch in "separatist-held territory." I agree with all locations provided, and times too. Everyone acknowledges date is less sure. There are compelling clues pointing to concrete firing spot, that seems to be lined up the hit the jet head-on, as it's starting to seem the airliner was hit. In this narrative, the questions people should be asking is who was really running that. But readings differ, and some differing views can be considered here. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* [https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByibNV3SiUoobnpCVDduaHVORHM/edit?usp=sharing MH17 Analysis] – CDN <br />
<br />
Petri posted this to the front page, a 25-page report with many graphics and explained reasoning. One of its conclusions, based on range to impact, mainly, meant that "the missile that downed MH17 was not fired from Snizhne." At the moment, I disagree. Petri, who is CDN, and are they soliciting feedback? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::The anonymous PDF was published via Saker's blog: [http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/08/detailed-expert-analysis-of-mh17-downing.html Detailed expert analysis of the MH17 downing] "CDN" has [http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/08/detailed-expert-analysis-of-mh17-downing.html?showComment=1407347983141#c8862773971299986141 responded] [http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/08/detailed-expert-analysis-of-mh17-downing.html?showComment=1407350196815#c7564049628743605813 twice] in the comments. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 00:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
I think these might be part of what threw the author(s) off:<br />
# the heading seems to be off, too southerly to trace back like that. At the end, maybe close enough<br />
# possibly too-wide debris field starting too early - final breakup likely E-NE of their spot (ie closer to in range)<br />
# Wrong presumed angle of impact <br />
# Lack of knowledge, specified on page 23, of this contrail image or, obviously, the supporting clues pointing to what might be "the Telegraph site" excluded here. "Why are there no images of the rebel missile and its impressive launch contrail?" Oops, there is and it point there. <br />
--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: I just skimmed it before coming here. It was posted [http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.de/2014/08/detailed-expert-analysis-of-mh17-downing.html over here] where you can join the discussion (which I haven't read yet just saw that Petri is there chiming in in comment 2 of currently 93). I think it's first valuable in presenting the known capabilities of the Buk etc. If your stuff above is true and it is one single truck with one single TELAR that was seen in the different locations, then it shows quite conclusively that the Telegraph position can not be the launching point, because even if the Ukie claim of disappearance from Radar 50km from the Russian border is not true, due to the position of the debris it could only be further away, not closer, which adds to the argument. My 2 cents for the moment. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
: Oh, not directly related to the critique, but driving around with a huge phone number that leads to a Titan security of all places is more than a bit suspicious, I'd say. ;o) --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: "the Telegraph position can not be the launching point" if my "stuff above is true and it is one single truck with one single TELAR that was seen in the different locations" - how? "because even if the Ukie claim of disappearance from Radar 50km from the Russian border is not true, due to the position of the debris it could only be further away, not closer, which adds to the argument." Huh? I think the field is placed really vaguely in that report, and that's what sets the impact point - it looks maybe kilometers off, to the west. Placed right, the implied impact point is further east, ie closer to the launcher. It is a valuable report, but that point should be re-checked more carefully before I could be convinced to write off all the other evidence pointing there. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::: Take a careful look at pages 9 and 10 of the PDF. Place the spot to where you think it's "right". Think how that would change the picture. The argument is based on the empirical location of the debris and unless I've missed some serious flaw in the numbers and basic calculations made on the pages leading to that, I think it's by rule of thumb a very sound argument. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 13:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::: I'll do my own soon - I can say it would end further east, relative to the border there, and probably start further east too, but maybe I'm unaware of some outlying debris - but first a though on the debris field I just had, even more relevant than size and placement - what does it actually say re: the plane? He presumes it would follow the trajectory east. Not much, really. With only so much momentum and breaking up, with five miles to fall, the main factor will be wind. Even a breeze has five miles to act on it. That was so with PA 103 - the wind was about perpendicular to the path, and that determined just where stuff scattered on a line across the borders area right to the north sea - only the cockpit and a few things were off much from that line. Here, if it blewa along the flight path, the reasoning would work fine. If it blew back, to the west, the plane was probably shot further east than the field suggests. Ie, closer yet to in range. The Zuhres video above shows wind apparently to the northwest, and pretty strong. Worth a review and re-think in that light. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 14:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::: With an initial speed of 907 km/h I see no reason to take wind into serious account. I see no reason at all for going into more detail in this rule of thumb argument, not on the debris, not on the alleged launching point. But I'm as always looking forward to what you can come up with. ;o) --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::: btw there's no exact calculation of the traveled distance of the falling pieces, it's just found plausible resulting from other data. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::::: There's good reason. [http://martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/PA103_debris.gif past precedent.] I did read it wrong - the blue oval is about right, I thought the scale by it, which is way off. That's the 20 km drift - if the wind was blowing due east at the right speed... to the near edge of the oval and 30 km to the far edge... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 15:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 four last points.png|center]]<br />
<br />
Debris fields as shown in MH17 WSJ data combined.jpg. The two tracks, 118 per Flightradar24 and other sources, and 111 from a Russian graphic (see label C), just in case. They cross at point E just to look cool - superimpose wherever to visualize a track-back on these or any line between. <br />
<br />
The four red "last points", eyeballed onto the map as shown in the various graphics used here (all pretty approximate): <br />
<br />
A: last return, flightradar 24 (erred, I think, way too far along - I suspect some inherent offset...)<br />
<br />
B: Russian ATC last return, '50 km' from the border (vague description, likely close to accurate)<br />
<br />
C: end of 111 track shown in MH17 radar 1.png (maybe arbitrary, lower resolution)<br />
<br />
D: report, deduced point of impact (presuming 20-30 km flight due east after impact, wind app. not considered at all)<br />
<br />
E: My guess for breakup point, where the damaged front came apart (should maybe be further east, right over the south part of the first orange blob). Actual impact point, an unclear distance back. probably not very far - downward flight could start anytime after that, decreasing the lateral distance traveled) . <br />
<br />
The cockpit, aerodynamic, shows the most like forward trajectory of this, relatively minimal wind complication. The heavy forward parts had more drag, wound up NW of there. A bit further NW, the light, high-drag, punctured upper fuselage. That these parts aren't spread further out suggests the jet managed to descend some ways before the front totally fell apart, and/or that the wind was fairly light. From there, most of the plane remained together, kept more momentum and little wind effect, and crashed kilometers east. The last part of this plummet, about one minute seen on video, it was nose-free and essentially nose-diving. A slight north trend, perhaps curtailed eastward progress, largely just down, leaves it all hitting together by Hrabove, scattering woth the fireball trajectory and wind deciding where these bits landed. That it only got so far from the forward parts again suggests this breakup was fairly low in the fall - maybe just before the start of the one video. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I'd say forget point D, it is way too far west, this plane was not going to fly 25km once hit. On debris, I'd put breakup where the "f" is in your word "forward" and impact not very far NW of that, lifting the whole 118 line a little northwards. You can't bring breakup below impact and count on wind pushing wreckage "uphill" because that first group of wreckage included 37 bodies, which would not "sail". The impact would be enough to knock the course slightly south, to drop the cockpit at Rozspyne, where it turned NE to end up at Grabovo. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 03:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Thanks. D is the presumed point used to rule out this launch location, the original point of this sub-section. That dot fails by a good margin. My E and your guess are both north of the flight path, along which all the red dots are (this graphic is confusing, needs updating, if I didn't flatten it). I was thinking a NNW wind did the north and west spreading, but the records say the wind was flat "east" (to the west). I'm left suspecting now the plane banked hard left just before it started breaking up. Actual impact, just before that. The "C" label is pretty arbitrary, but it keeps seeming about right. On the imagined red line 1t 117-118, I dunno, maybe 20-30 pixels back. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::Winds are described as 'from' not 'to. So a wind blowing to the NNW is reported as a SSE wind.<br />
::::A slip - I'm trying to say it that way now. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::Getting on to the wind. The actual breeze direction is usually a function of altitude - veering or backing from ground level observation. It can easily be 90 degrees out from ground level. You need to look at the vertical profile used in aeronautical soundings to see where debris will in the main blow to. --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 11:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::Sounds like a real headache to map. There's also changes over time, where east at 5:00 may change briefly ten minutes later, or 10,000 feet up. All that seems can be counted on is easterly winds in general - no exception to that. And generally, even if they measure it at the airport, it must extend up to the clouds, which can be seen swirling east over the area. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::No it doesn't extend to the clouds except by accident. Major direction change can happen in hundreds of metres altitude especially at night. Examples of wind shift between ground level and 700 millibars (9800 ft) in day time can show a direction change of 90 degrees - e.g. North to West. This is significant with MH17 where the breakups occurred between 33,000 feet and probably a few thousand feet for the final disintegrations. --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 11:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::FYI Here is all about [http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/48/ Veering and Backing] --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 11:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::As for the spread issue, I'm re-thinking it. As for the bodies, it depends on a few things but I take your point - bodies are dense. And I didn't know that detail - worth considering. Also a sad side-note: most bodies would be alive and aware, from what I learned looking at Lockerbie. Lack of O2 would black them all out at first, but gravity makes it so there's enough in that final stretch those not dead already (the lucky few) would probably "wake up" in time to both feel their injuries and their fall, and to see the "separatist-held" fields rushing up to kill them. :( ---[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::: My indications are they were all dead when they hit the ground. That's not to say some didn't suffer from the first blast up there. Using my (very long ago) rescue triage training, I examined all the body photos for type of injury. The main findings were (a) almost no blood (as the separatist intercepted call rightly claimed) (b)a lot of legs at angles suggesting hip/pelvic fracture (a very common injury in air crashes to people wearing seat belts) and (c) all the bodies appear swollen (in first-day photos). We are thinking of what happened as a decompression, a low-pressure event. But that was preceded by the blast detonation of the missile just outside... a high-pressure event. The very high pressure shock wave compresses the blood vessels and severely damages the lungs. Blood pressure and heart rate go sky high trying to compensate. In 1/2 a second the blast wave is gone and they are in decompression.The heart can't adjust fast enough. The lack of blood flow makes the brain and liver swell up, too, so normal blood circulation cannot be re-established even if the heart recovers. The Lockerbie bomb, and various exploding fuel tank cases, were lower pressure explosions; sadly many would have survived those until ground/water impact.[[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 20:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::So there is evidence of blast wave, not _just_ decompression alone? But no shrapnel wounds? --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 21:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::(cut my comment - I had misread - taken to [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Debunked topics#Bloodless bodies – fake Facebook profiles?|bloodless bodies spot]] FWIW - but I disagree with both the lack of blood and the validity of many "separatist" communications, but if we're not arguing a planeload of corpses being shot down, I won't argue it much.) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
More to the point, leaving the above graphic aside, would be this newer one I should finally add. Basic straight path, 118 and placed as agreed by most sources. Alleged launch location, measures app. My best guess is a 2 km range from 22.75 to 24.75, weighted to the center. Or most likely about 23.75 km out (irrespective of actual projectile flight path, that's where it made contact, but this helps visualize how the alleged launch site might line up with [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Forensics#Direction of projectiles?|the directional forensics]]). --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
[[File:MH17 missile intercept distances.png]]<br />
::Straight line from launch is okay. But impact has to be further north, ie before the most westerly debris. You've used the map which assumes that debris to be blown back by wind. That can't be right, as it included bodies (too dense to blow back) and witnesses saw them and plane sections falling straight down. This only makes about 1 mile difference to the missile range, so does nothing to exclude that launch location. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 01:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::The map of spread is only app., some orange area I made. The pink dot and lines are from a map, Russian analysis, as you say apparently presuming a SSE wind. Debris including people ''would'' be blown back to some degree, all of it, varyingly; trajectory can only do so much when you have five miles of falling, with the breezes acting the whole time, and the lightest parts will be back a bit, whatever direction and as mentioned above, a SSE winds at some time or altitude still isn't ruled out at all). Do we know just where in that area those passengers landed, and what types of things are its far end? ? <br />
(<br />
:::I mean, you could be right and it's a bit further back, maybe with a continuation due east from there and no real wind effect except slightly back. It was only 9-12 mph, and maybe it fell halfway before starting to fall apart, which means less spread. I'm thinking about a possible left turn to explain the north aspect, or it could be wind, or being further back (more north, as well as west), or a combination. The turn has to be a certain size, the wind direction is not certain aside from east prevailin, ... whatever point best explains whatever happened ... we're down to a shrinking agreed range, and as you say, it's all within range of the one spot, so it's not ruled out after all. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 04:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
At this stay of play, I feel it will be helpful to have displayed prominently an overall map reflecting best guess on impact location as well as already flagged suspected launch sites, that is the two launch sites we have been discussing (near Snezhny ; near Chernukhino) , PLUS launch locations flagged and TIMED by released satellite data (currently only Russian data is available). I would be generous with the range here, we can find range suggested by public sources but presumably actual range depends on a number of things (height, radar range, trajectory, wind), and may exceed the "official" range. Another useful graphics piece info would be indicating the front lines, if there is a way to have those known. '''I would be extremely cautious with displaying graphics reflecting just one way of thinking (whether "worst", "best", or "middle of the way"), for the reason that any graphics is easy for human brain to absorb, more than words spread out on all our numerous pages, and ''no graphics at all'' is better than displayed ''skewed'' graphics.''' One-sided graphics may be '''inviting''' even more noise releases "supporting" some already skewed scenarios, and I feel that was already happening way too often. I feel that most helpful stance at this point would be as neutral as it gets. (Regarding trajectories, a default guess is a straight line, anything else requires an explanation. Straight line is implied so no strong need to actually display it, especially if it ends up curling in suggestive funny ways on graphics). --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 09:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::I've been doing a lot of graphics, so not all fired up for more. But if you are, I wouldn't mind making another if it helps. Maybe this is best taken to [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Map#Interception Location]] (a lot of this is redundant, and I might move it, but at least I can say let's stop piling intercept stuff here as well as there). Up to picking a certain spot around Chernukino? Some outskirts area, on a major road, it'll be a guess. A couple guesses could be mapped. Also, if it seems worth it, I can do updates and upload the new version as needed. Any timed satellite launches, let me know. Front lines, not known and IMO misleading in this case. Those who would know would try - and maybe manage - to sneak this thing behind them... the caution about leading labels, I can leave to you - you could just tell me what to put. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
:::::Would take me forever, may try later on, but not immediately; some cleanup/re-arrangement seems the easiest option. (If there are tools for collaborative mapping, may be good to start using those; but not aware of any) --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 11:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The preliminary [[Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Dutch preliminary report|Dutch report]] says the flight recorders were suddenly lost at 13:20:04 UTC at a point that almost exactly matches the 22.6 km mark. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 22:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Plume Location Re-challenged ===<br />
There is another video, essentially giving a bellingcat in voice-altered Russian. We discussed all that essentially; but he seems at least to end up with a claim for geolocation for the plume photo. Seems to be a new one (or I forgot the old one already by now). The claim is based on [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2055 unrelated panoramic photo] somebody took nearby, and [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2025 claimed to be geolocated by presenter]. Here it is on <br />
[http://maps.yandex.ru/-/CVG0nLo~ yandex map] ; it is taken from a terricon located at Lutuginskii bugor(=hill). There is a cableway from there to TsOF (remember, Khuevyi Torez tells about cableway from Lutugino to TsOF, so here they are); [http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=48.012722&lon=38.665695&z=14&m=b&show=/10590043/ru/ЦОФ-им-Киселёва TsOF is central enrichment plant]; photos from TSOF do show a similar [http://photos.wikimapia.org/p/00/00/62/81/85_big.jpg cableway] . So based on that and an audio of locals of unknown provenance and authenticity, discussing a missile-looking trail in the direction of [http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=48.041767&lon=38.741055&z=14&m=b&show=/18687650/ru/Химмаш Khimmash], our presenter [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2107 ends up] with this [http://maps.yandex.ru/-/CVG0rMnO claimed plume location] , somewhere near this Mochalino village. And apart from this, his contribution to the topic is the claim of a white spot on the other side of 3'2 Buk which he claims to match on the way out. I do not believe all those Buk sightings were taken on the same day, and so do not believe in the overall glue-up of the story, but geolocating the plume, no matter what the plume is, remains legitimate. This author gives his answer to that question. Is this geolocation correct? I do not know, it is not tight, there are lots of cableways out there I presume, and some posts nearby are not too unusual. I do not see a tight fit between Lutuginski bugor photo and the plume photo--some elements do match, but those are obviously not identical places. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 02:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Excellent. Let's keep the title. But I guess you just forgot the previous location. This is the same view. The plume could be added, but I doubt it, and it's to that view at a consistent time on a consistent day. I'm not convinced ''all'' Buk sightings are same day, but most of them being so is a good fit with this plume that way, and a plane down with damage that seems consistent to me. (I hate this case) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::Are you sure it's the same? This new one is NNE from Torez, I thought it was placed SE from Torez by [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/launch-location-detected-of-missile.html U@W ]--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::Going back to check, this is a different filming location proposed. Line of sight isn't included, but it seems to be the same line over the same area to the same place. Even before he could see the distinctive mound, Petros (U@W) had [http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-cfSqhRb2dKo/U80x2OxK1XI/AAAAAAAATNk/r42WpH-Bf-Q/s1600/missile+trail+9.jpg this lineup], which includes this spot. Right where Petros pic says "trees" is what this guy decided were the foreground trees where it was filmed. I wondered when checking but decided on the further version. And seems to be the same result either way. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::I don't think this is accurate, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2107 video at this timestamp] gives 'место пуска ракеты' (launch location) near [http://maps.yandex.ru/-/CVGgVPJN Molchalino]. I have not seen this elsewhere, I only seen the one claimed to be SE of Torez. He does not discuss filming location, but shows it on video and assumes it is in Torez near the terricon, which is close to what other sources assume. He does show the line of site on the video; it is nearly perpendicular to U@W. Lots of terricons, coalmines (so likely cableways), and power lines leading there in this area, so location now seems uncertain. As I understand, no solid evidence for either of these two being the correct geolocation (those cableways seems to be quite common) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::::I am/was confused then. I thought it showed a SW view, just from closer to the mound. Now I see at 33:45 a view from right by it, looking NE? Can't explain the other one you see in the distance in the fuller view (right ?) That's kind of towards Molchalino, but that won't explain anything I suspect. (and what a bad fake or odd coincidence to have a plume up there and a the Buk tracking imagery lead to south of Snizhne, oops!) We'll see south and west faces of buildings if looking NE, so sun will be shining from well east of south, but also quite high, like mid-day in the early AM - or maybe just earlier mid-day, like 11 am. That would be another sloppy mistake. I doubt the details will line up. BUT a couple minor things didn't quite seem to the other way, so maybe worth a try (later). --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I will send this comment also to<br />
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/01/27/is-this-the-launch-site-of-the-missile-that-shot-down-flight-mh17<br />
The US map launch location can best best and almost exactly located from the last magnified picture:<br />
https://wp4553-flywheel.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/32.jpg<br />
That location is here:<br />
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.9571993,38.7466343,488m/data=!3m1!1e3<br />
The triangulation result in the last 3 pictures of the article introduces unnecessary error and clearly does not match the magnified picture.<br />
There is a structure that looks similar to an airfield and it is just south of Chervony Zhovten (=Oktyabr), matching with a witness observation in that place ("it was flying as if from Saurivka", though not matching 2 other witnesses in the zello audio, indicating it came from government held positions further south, [2:00] "Well, it appears everybody saw where the missile has flown from." [2:04] "Well, where you are, everybody saw it, but the Ukrainian media, as usual, will say, will say that that were us.")<br />
It would be outside the range of the plume picture geolocation bounds, which may be either an error given the long distance, or, the plume picture was taken the day before from the reported grad missile launch (as well as the burned field). (The photographer gave his camera to the SBU after twittering the first picture, so later pictures and dates can not be taken for sure).<br />
http://7mei.nl/not-buk-m1-new-video-proof/--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 19:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:(1) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkCcCmYlMZc That audio], as it turns out, was posted by Torezinfo on 24 July, and updated on 1 February. Torezinfo is a favorite posting place of Khuevyi Torez(=KT), who posted a very [https://twitter.com/WowihaY/status/489914266439671808 similar location map on 17 July already]. KT mentions zello recordings on 25 July in the follow-up, so shortly after it gets on torezinfo. With all that stuff linked to this KT poster, I would not put much trust that any of that is genuine. (Or that this KT poster is not acting as a medium for SBU). (2)[http://fr1.sidcdn.net/maps/nsdc/2014/07/large/map-nsdc-2014-07-17-uk-w3000.jpg Ukrainian map] does give us some Ukrainian held area somewhere to the South, but from that map it is hard to tell where exactly opolchenie ends and UAF begins--(I would not know) (3) Actually, going from there, not likely to hit on the left side--so having it from Artemovsk (as Bezler told, indeed) seems most probable --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 21:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:: Here is another map http://liveuamap.com/e/2014/16-of-july-saurivka-is-bombarded-over-and-over-by-rus-grad?ll=47.907137219641115;38.75392913818363&zoom=8<br />
::And here is an article which says that both Marinovka and Tarany were held by National guard. http://www.interpretermag.com/ukraine-liveblog-day-149-russian-tanks-and-artillery-reach-donetsk/#3353<br />
::I just opened bellingcat https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/01/27/is-this-the-launch-site-of-the-missile-that-shot-down-flight-mh17 and see that large parts of the article disappeared, I think they are working on it. That location given by the US photo does not really match well with the plume direction anymore, lets see what they come up with--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 21:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::I believe Marinovka was [http://lifenews.ru/news/136715 taken by opolchenie on 16 July] (lifenews report). Tarany--do not know, perhaps still Ukraine, but not totally sure. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 21:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::: other sources say attack was repelled and forced them to retreat to Stepanivka http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_in_Shakhtarsk_Raion http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/213817.html--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 22:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::: That US photo launch location differs by an angle of about 11 (?) degrees from the brown line in the bellingcat plot (measured from the photographer's location). https://wp4553-flywheel.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/101.jpg (launch location is just visible below the letter 'p' of 'the word 'suspected'). I think this a lot and puts the 'plume' into question. But then there is only the US photo, which itself could be a production based on social media (or worse).--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 22:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Well some believed this is for real, then they got a case to answer [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/22/mh17-us-intelligence-russia-separatists-report Guardian: Photograph: US intelligence community] [https://twitter.com/barbarastarrcnn/status/491559153559932928/photo/1 @barbarastarrcnn] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
In the following, I assume that most of the social media pieces and leaked audio tapes are correct and connect the dots in a different way:<br />
<br />
1. On July 14, an Ukrainian Antonow 26 airplane was shot down by a missile near the Russian border town of Donetsk.<br />
http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/what-weapon-was-used-to-shot-down-ukraine-air-force-antonov-26-at-july-14/<br />
The video in above link showed the missile flying for 39 seconds until it hit. Only a BUK can fly that long, a manpad or Pantsir, also claimed to have been used, not (see first comment in link).<br />
<br />
2. According to a recorded audio tape published by the Ukrainian Secret Service SBU, rebels possessed a BUK ('BUK3x2') in the Donetsk area at least since July 14 ('we already have BUK'). At that date it may have been either on Russian or already rebel held territory.<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVAOTWPmMM4<br />
<br />
3. A social media search discovered only one other system in the area, capable of shooting down AN26 - a Pantsir. However, a Pantsir can't fly for 39 seconds. Based on a max.speed of 780m/s and max range of 20km, it can only fly for about 25s.<br />
http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.co.nz/2014/11/unnoticed-video-of-26-downing-confirms.html<br />
Therefore and because of the crew's intent to engage in the civil war, it is likely that AN26 was shot down by BUK3x2. Afterwards BUK3x2 had only 3 missiles left.<br />
<br />
4. On July 16, Ukrainian and rebel statements both confirmed the shoot down of a SU-25 plane near the "Marinivka border crossing", which is only a few kilometers south-south east of Pervomaiske, the destination of BUK3x2. Ukraine's defence ministry said: "It is likely that [the hit] was carried out by air-to-air rockets from the Russian air force which were patrolling the border in a pair." <br />
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-28345039<br />
This may have been another reason to install a BUK system in this area on the next day, leaving room for an accidental Ukrainian shoot down, apart from an accidental rebel shoot down and a willful Ukrainian false flag shoot down.<br />
<br />
5. On July 16, rebels fired grad missiles from a location near Pervomaiske. The plume may have been photographed as well by an SBU informant in Torez and twittered on the next day, claiming to show the launch of the missile hitting MH17.<br />
http://7mei.nl/not-buk-m1-new-video-proof/<br />
<br />
6. On July 17, BUK3x2 was seen in rebel territory on its way to Pervomaiske, south of Torez. Ukrainian SBU knew about the arrival latest since July 14 and about its destination latest July 17 morning, allowing a false flag operation from positions held nearby.<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVAOTWPmMM4<br />
<br />
7. There was an ongoing battle in the region with "fluent" contact lines. Marinivka and Tarany, about 8 kilometers south-east and south of Pervomaiske, were controlled by Ukrainian National Guard as well as all of the border region. Marinivka would match well with the direction of the Torez plume photo.<br />
http://liveuamap.com/e/2014/16-of-july-saurivka-is-bombarded-over-and-over-by-rus-grad?ll=47.907137219641115;38.75392913818363&zoom=8<br />
http://www.interpretermag.com/ukraine-liveblog-day-149-russian-tanks-and-artillery-reach-donetsk/#3353<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_in_Shakhtarsk_Raion<br />
<br />
8. The Russian Defense ministry claimed in a news conference, that on July 17, Ukraine installed several BUK system near rebel held areas.<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bNPInuSqfs#t=1567<br />
<br />
9. In a popular 'zello' audio recording, witnesses in the area were talking about the launch of the missile hitting MH17. A witness from "Oktyabr" (Chervony Zhovten) claimed "it was flying as if from Saurivka". <br />
Two other witnesses said:<br />
[2:00] "Well, it appears everybody saw where the missile has flown from."<br />
[2:04] "Well, where you are, everybody saw it, but the Ukrainian media, as usual, will say, will say that that were us."<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkCcCmYlMZc<br />
<br />
10. A Reuter's witness also claimed that the missile was fired from Kiev held territory. Reuters, however, said, "off camera, he said that it was launched from a nearby rebel site. Asked why originally he said the opposite he said it was because he was afraid of the rebels."<br />
In a new interview this witness claims that "off camera comments were just made up by the [Reuters] journalist".<br />
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=497_1427729491<br />
<br />
11. BUK3x2 was again photographed in Lugansk with its 3 missiles, no missile fired since July 14.<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4HJmev5xg0<br />
<br />
12. The US presented a very low resolution satellite photo with the track of a missile added. The launch location does not match well with the direction geolocated with the Torez plume photo, it deviates by about 11 degrees in angle, hence either or both appear to be incorrect.<br />
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/01/27/is-this-the-launch-site-of-the-missile-that-shot-down-flight-mh17/#comment-12493<br />
<br />
13. Award winning investigative journalist Robert Parry reported about leaked US intelligence "that U.S. intelligence agencies do have detailed satellite images of the likely missile battery that launched the fateful missile, but the battery appears to have been under the control of Ukrainian government troops dressed in what look like Ukrainian uniforms."<br />
https://consortiumnews.com/2014/07/20/what-did-us-spy-satellites-see-in-ukraine/<br />
And later Parry wrote: "But I’m now told that U.S. intelligence analysts ... are concentrating on the scenario of a willful Ukrainian shoot-down of the plane, albeit possibly not knowing its actual identity."<br />
https://consortiumnews.com/2014/08/03/flight-17-shoot-down-scenario-shifts/<br />
<br />
14. During the coming months BUK shrapnel may have been collected from the AN26 wreckage and planted in the MH17 wreckage.--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 00:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Photographer Statement===<br />
[http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com.au/2014/12/interview-with-eyewitness-who-made.html Reported to say] : "That day did not foretell anything special would happen. In the morning I woke up and went to my work. At four ó clock in the afternoon I arrived home. And at 16:20 we heard an explosion. The first explosion was not very heavy. 15 seconds later, something like that, there was a second explosion, which was louder and it made the windows shake."<br />
: Did not foretell --an ass, --is this lawyer-written? 'We heard". --Took till December to polish up ? --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 16:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:: Agreed. 'I did not know in advance this would happen.' Uh, who said you might? And 15 seconds must be rocket travel. Did he hear the firing from there? Could be, not that far. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Time delay consideration ===<br />
Photographer reported two sound booms td=15 seconds apart; an interpretation may be launch and impact sounds arriving to him in Torez. If P=(0,0,0) is photographer cordinates, I=(d,0, h) is impact, with d ground distance between Torez and Rozypnoe, h is the height of flight at 10 km , and L =(x,y,0) is launch location, dist(A,B) is Euclidean distance between A and B, c is peed of sound, and n (about 2.5) is missile speed in Machs, then<br />
<br />
(1). dist (P,L) = dist(L,I)/n + dist (I,P) - td*c <br />
<br />
(2). dist (P,L) >= h/n + dist (I,P) - td*c <br />
<br />
(1) is a biquadratic equation for y given x (square enough times for square root to disappear); plotting that gives a closed 'ellipse-like' curve on (x,y) plane; once on that curve, time delay is exactly td seconds (doing this involves solving quadratic equations and removing spurious solutions not satisfying (1) ) . That curve is at distance about 13 km in NW direction from photographer in Torez, and about 22 km in SE direction from him on the Southern ( Saur Mogila side). <br />
<br />
(2) gives a simple estimate that distance between photographer and launcher is greater than the known right hand side; that distance is more than something like 13 km<br />
<br />
(3) Requiring launch withing the range, --launch is not more than 20 km horizontally from the impact-- selects a NW arc of the curve described in (1) ; that arc is to the NW from Torez, and goes slightly NW from the impact point (meaning its ground projection). <br />
<br />
Conclusion, based on the above, is that launch is too far from the photographer, to match the photo. <br />
<br />
(Knowing exact time delay can tighten the argument. With what's actually known, and objection can be raised that whatever actual time delay was, it appeared to be 15 seconds to the photographer. Graphics of the curve may be supplied if needed). --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Ooh. That kind of math could really come in handy with recorded audio cues, for example. But based on '15 seconds, something like that,' from memory months later, I wouldn't put any weight on it. If that turns out correct and pretty exact, there's a good point. Otherwise, the photo and other stuff is more solid, and says it's just about where it should be, as far as I've seen anyway. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Contrail ==<br />
This is what an "impressive launch contrail" of a big missile might look like.<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3lLwP1y0w8 АТО. Запуск двух ТРК Точка-У. Артемовск.] (ATO. The launch of two TRK Tochka-U. Artemivs'k.) – August 28, 2014<br />
-- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 22:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Something happens in the sky. This is the people's reaction:<br />
* ''20/09/2014 Over many parts of the DPR and LPR were seen circles in the sky.'' [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7310 1,] [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7311 2,] [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7312 3,] [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7313 4,] [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7314 5]<br />
-- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 03:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
Tochka U missile is single stage solid fuel, which is a mixture of ammonium perchlorate with rubber and aluminum powder (Russian [http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/tochka/9ch151.shtml "ДАП–15В" fuel] ).<br />
I could not find information on Buk with a comparable level of detail. Buk missile is single stage, solid fuel of some type, "dual-mode solid propellant (total work time - about 15 seconds)" [http://www.webcitation.org/67kZeZxeh] , [http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-9K37-Buk.html]<br />
Earlier "Куб" ("Cube") missile used [http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/kub/kub.shtml 'ballist' fuel,] [https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%85#.D0.91.D0.B0.D0.BB.D0.BB.D0.B8.D1.81.D1.82.D0.B8.D1.82.D0.BD.D1.8B.D0.B5 gunpowder] + plasticiser type (Russian "ВИК-2") at the start, followed by some sort of ramjet ("direct flow rocket engine") at final stage. It is not clear, but possible, that fuels and contrails of Tochka U and Buk are different. Here are some videos with Buk launch: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDXScnEKaP0] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EAtNpsXrgWs], and [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSXMhaFntrU a longer with stupid music version]. Those videos appear to be shot from a closer distance than Tochka U video; and a contrail on them does look quite impressive. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 10:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:The amount of smoke is highly dependant om Alumin(i)um loading. In general more aluminum is more 'oomph' and also more smoke.<br />
:On the other hand, it's common to alter the loading for other reasons. I refer to the Syrian Volcano (122mm variety) that started out as high Al-load and quite smokey but recent versions have low Al load but perhaps similar characteristics? --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 10:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Here is something that might be a BUK: Ukrainian AN-26 shot down from Russian border area on July 14th. Ukraine@war claims it as a BUK. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 10:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
* [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.fi/2014/11/unnoticed-video-of-26-downing-confirms.html Unnoticed video of AN-26 downing confirms shot down from Russian territory] – Ukraine@war, November 27, 2014<br />
** Video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoS4kgHxPnE Ukrainian Military Aircraft Su-25 Downed After Russian Attack Near Izvarino, July 16]<br />
:::Does not look like Buk, short contrail, --not all the way to the ground like on Buk video launches. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::It was a BUK. It flew 39 seconds in the video, a Pantsyr can't do this, see also first comment in this link http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/what-weapon-was-used-to-shot-down-ukraine-air-force-antonov-26-at-july-14/. Easy maths - at Mach 3 (1020m/s) it can fly for about 42 seconds (range 42 km, bit more because initially it is slower). According to the audio tape, BUK 3x2 was in the area on that day! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVAOTWPmMM4 Ukraine@war needed 5 months to find something else in the area, but the Pantsyr can't fly that long. This is how BUK 3x2 likely lost a missile.--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 21:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::::Well, yes, it does takes 42 seconds to fly 42 km at 1000 m/s , but that does not mean what we see '''must be''' a Buk. They start discussing that plane caught fire at 0:03 on the video already. We do not see what on hell is going on until some 30 s later. This plane likely was brought down by Igla or similar modern MANPAD. Possibly two hits, at 0:03 and another at around 0:30. Or it got on fire at the start of the video and than eventually went down (It is unlikely to have SU 25 pilot bailing out after Buk strike; or particularly likely catching fire as it's not aiming at the engine; contrail is weak for a Buk, too). Pantsir claims are much later from what I have seen,--- and no need for Pantsir to shoot SU 25. ---If something is there on SBU audio and some murky photo, does not mean it's all for real, and that what we do actually see all have to be linked to all that murky SBU stuff. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 22:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::::There may be some confusion here, just a recapture<br />
::::::First video https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xTT6BDRA8_k<br />
::::::0:03-0:11 buring object <br />
::::::0:17-0:33 contrail making a half looping<br />
::::::Second video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoS4kgHxPnE<br />
::::::0:29-0:39 contrail making a half looping + detonation.<br />
::::::ukraine@war http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/11/unnoticed-video-of-26-downing-confirms.html<br />
::::::says both videos show AN26 shoot down on July 14 (second video with wrong label SU-25)<br />
::::::says 2nd video impact at 0:39, claims missile has been burning for at least 39 seconds--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 06:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::::::After reconsideration, I would say ukraine@war is right, both videos show AN26 shoot down, but wrong, people were initially watching AN26 with engine burning and a second missile was fired. That missile was seen burning about 16 seconds in first video, and time has to be added to reach that altitude/location, so likely over 20 seconds. That would exclude man-pad, Pantsir (?), likely BUK, R73 air-to-air, ...--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 06:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Actually, it is interesting to know how contrail of Buk on a long haul launch looks like. It is said that it fires engine for some 15 seconds only (and unknown will it do less, if it can do away with less). That 15 seconds need to put it at a spot where it can reach the target with little, if any, engine work and doing turns only. It is not very clear how much targeting happens in the first 15 seconds, likely it does some; and it is self-guided and doing proportional navigation later on. Knowing details here allows to find exact trajectory, short of that thinking it goes straight to the collision point is a sensible idea. In any case, heavy contrail '''raising from the ground''', perhaps higher than the target is. Contrail is white, and stays put for a while. Seriously heavier than the stuff we see on social media. There are youtube videos of Buk launches giving an idea --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:These 15 seconds are wrong. Here is a video (start at 2:00) showing a SA-11 burn fuel for 35 seconds until its too far to distinguish. It is detonating at 42 seconds. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBlU2hHYJMg (I just copied the comment from here http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/what-weapon-was-used-to-shot-down-ukraine-air-force-antonov-26-at-july-14/ )--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 23:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::That video probably shows a modern version ('over horizon' capability was mentioned somewhere regarding modern developments; this one seems to be showing us something like that). 15 sec is coming from Russian sources [http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/buk/buk.shtml Зенитная ракета 9М38 выполнена с применением двухрежимного твердотопливного двигателя (общее время работы - около 15 секунд)]. Older versions also had shorter listed range. 22-25-35-42 km range, going through modifications. (Would be happier without 15 sec engine limit actually-easier to know trajectory) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::Actually what goes off is [https://digitalempire.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/9m38m1.jpg 9M38M1], the one supposed to have [http://pvo.guns.ru/buk/buk_02.htm 15 sec engine run], but the video lasts for 40 sec. This appears to be edited video, around 2:30 we got two tracks, than one slides right unreasonably for a natural recording. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 02:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::Since this is a point we haven't already covered around that I know of, I'll pop in for it. 42 seconds I gather is the time for the fuel to burn out and the thing to fall, like a grad rocket or the like can only do. But this is a missile with guidance, set to intercept a moving airliner. Therefore, app. 40-45 seconds is the longest, not the shortest, it can fly (or am I just confused?) But 15 seconds is plausible, depending. Still might be untrue, not trusting people saying stuff. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::::After the engine is off it is high up and and at high speed, still can fly until gravity acceleration brings it down, and is on guided flight -unlike Grad-because fins can move causing it to turn. Issues here are visuals (contrail all the way or only about 15 km in flight), and trajectory. With engine on for 40 +secs it will go straight to collision point doing proportional navigation all the way (exploding earlier if it needs to be). If it is only 15 sec, trajectory is less clear, it may for example use engine to climb high up, than do guided fall and proportional navigation to the target from a spot where engine delivered it (for low and close-by target, that may potentially end up with a hit from another side--some drawings from unclear sources were showing opposite side hits at under 1 km and direct hits at 10-15 km). Or it may use engine to end up on a ballistic trajectory hitting target (no side changing than). This is solid fuel engine so there is not much control on how quickly it burns off, that time is a set design feature. What we see on launch video is 40+ seconds of engine work-- will go direct to collision point in that case. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 12:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::::That's another clue that plume of smoke photo is not a Buk launch, that would give at least some 10-15 km worth of contrail, not a plume; with 40+seconds engine, contrail all the way to impact...(or else, launched from far away, over 40 km distance) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 12:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==About accents==<br />
<br />
[http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29109398 This report,] released one day before the preliminary official report, recycles visual imagery already discussed on this page, and attempts a new claim that a BUK crew spoke with Russian-'Muscovite' accent. The claim is made by (British-accent) actors representing 'eyewitness(es)', with a visual imagery of a car at unknown night-lighted location in the embedded video, and some text, provided in English. Regarding 'Muscovite' accent, first it is not easy to tell, for example [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBCfmlMkYMg this video] is Mr. Poroshenko speaking in Russian to a resident of Crimea, replying in Russian, and commented by a presenter, who is speaking 'Muscovite'. Although Mr. Poroshenko has a slight southern accent, there is little difference between the three speakers in practice. Moreover, actors and presenters can easily switch from Southern to Muscovite as required. <br />
<br />
Secondly, if somebody speaks 'Muscovite', this does not mean this person works for Russia or the rebels,--- he can work for any side (PS. No change of condition to the blue dumpster on Zuhres video was reported in this latest update). --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Thanks for bringing this. What a stupid report. "Three eyewitnesses, all civilians, separately told Panorama that they saw a missile-launcher in rebel-held territory a few hours before the Boeing jet was hit." Yeah, video shows the same. It was there. It probably shot down the plane. Accents, as you note, aren't the best indicator of anything, and even the reason sounds vague: the G thing, which even I know about (back to Olga/Olha). The "Russians" might even be Russian dissident mercenaries right from Moscow, for all we know. Who paid them? Their going up to the media and saying "you didn't see us" was not a good plan to stay secret. The witnesses: chosen at random? Directed to them? <br />
::''If correct, the Kremlin has to explain to the relatives of the 298 passengers and crew who died - including ten Britons - why Russian military personnel were allegedly seen in the area escorting a BUK shortly before MH17 was shot down.''<br />
:I think Russia could come up with a reason or two such allegations are made. Those ten Britons' tax dollars fund it. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: Hmm, this foreigner is confused by dat BBC talk: "If correct" ... doesn't that mean it ''wouldn't be'' merely "allegedly" but, well, correct? ;oP --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 23:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::It means "If {made up vague allegation) is correct....then "SHOCK HORROR CONCLUSION IS TRUE". this lets them be as wild or wide off the mark as they like and the magic "if correct" turns it true. Without any effort to check if it IS true in our understanding of that word.[[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 03:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::Another BBC weapon in its arsenal of innuendo and dissimulation is the quotation mark. Whenever they are dealing with something of dodgy provenance, or something of good provenance they want to weaken they put it in quotation marks. e.g. - ISIS beheaded 20 Syrians. becomes ISIS 'beheaded 20 Syrians' or 'ISIS' beheaded 20 Syrians or ISIS 'beheaded' 20 'Syrians' or ISIS beheaded '20' Syrians. No need for corrections later. Any version can be retrospectively justified or otherwise. --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 03:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== If Buk 3x2 Was in Russia ==<br />
Previously, it seemed quite likely the Buk launcher associated with the shoot-down was one of those owned and operated by the Kiev regime, simply snuck into separatist territory, maybe with some cover to make them even invite it in like a Trojan Horse. Then, I saw the November Bellingcat research on "Buk 3x2." As covered [[#Bellingcat and 3x2|above,]] this claims to match that unit with a distinct one seen three weeks earlier, driving in a military convoy well inside Russian territory. This is widely taken as clear proof the Russian military supplied the weapons, and it is strongly indicative of that. However, the general possibilities are worth laying out at this point.--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
All options below share these presumptions: <br />
* MH17 was brought down by the missing SA-11 missile AND/OR (in some cases) at least the launcher's appearance was coordinated to give that impression and is a clue to the plot <br />
* The videos and photos in question are genuine and not manipulated (my usual presumption, same here)<br />
* The Russia geolocations (many of them, making sense in context) are correct - Buk 3x2 as seen was seen in Russia, between Kurk, Stary Oskol, and a bit south of there (not verified but most likely correct) <br />
<br />
Presuming all that:<br />
* Buk 3x2 (seen in Russia) and the mystery one are not the same - this require paint job match and matching damage to the lip above the track to make a Kiev-owned unit look like that one. It's possible, but not the most compelling.<br />
* The two units are the same - it was in the convoy in Russia and also towed around Donetsk oblast July 17. <br />
<br />
If the unit is the same, there are a few possibilities for the nature of that connection, some of them silly or just there for logical fullness:<br />
* It was Kiev's unit and they snuck it over and into this convoy, and...<br />
** ... got it back later<br />
** ... the Russians kept it and used it for their own operation<br />
* It was Kiev's but some other way lost to the Russians <br />
* It was Russia's but Kiev managed to sneak over and steal it out of the convoy and then use it for the false-flag event<br />
* Same, but Donbass rebels then stole it from Kiev <br />
* It was Russian, and someone on the Russian side drove it over and then it was stolen by Kiev forces <br />
* Someone on the Russian side drove it over and it stayed in their control or handed over to their chosen parties, or transferred at the border - that is, no Kiev interference.<br />
<br />
So far, I'm inclined to call Bellingcat's reading (the last option, the widely accepted one) the single most reasonable one, though maybe outweighed by the ''combined'' alternatives. It's not fun to feel almost swayed to a view so close to Kiev's problematic narrative, but this is what I see, pretty basic. Some combined maybes go against the straightforward reading. As for other thoughts I might be missing, well, that's partly why it's here. Let me know, I'm all ears. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Starting from that reasonable if unproven last option, not one but three final types of possibility remain. If it was freely moving in convoy inside Russia, it probably belongs to Russia at the time. Presumed. However, it could be that...<br />
* '''A rogue officer''' at Kursk - maybe a closet Nazi who sympathizes with Kiev, hates Putin, or just took a bribe - provided this unit to Kiev. He would set up this convoy to anchor the thing in Russia, then send the shady unit on, with his own guys or to hand off to Kiev's, who took it from there as I've speculated. The strangely obvious manner it was displayed - on both sides of the border, with its number slowly fading away - is consistent with this motive + intelligence. <br />
* '''It happened as reported''' (one way or another) Putin's military signed off on the loan, apparently with a sent crew or maybe given to local handlers, who for their own purposes did fire that shot. The strangely obvious manner it was displayed is consistent with this + stupidity/sloppiness, providing proof that probably wasn't even needed, just helpful, to start the punishment. At that point, it would be a real problem about as trumpeted, and still I would suggest we consider what the real crime is under the circumstances, if the solutions pursued are fair, or if this is all just geo-politics and warfare by other means cloaked in a cynical disguise of concern for justice. ^ <br />
* '''Koo-koo (?):''' "as reported plus" - a mega conspiracy theory: it goes all the way to the top, and Putin is that rogue general selling the nation out, to demonize himself and Russia and be sure to get caught, in an elaborate staged play - Putin (or whoever's running things presumed to be run by HIM) is somehow controlled, his opposition scripted and ultimately geared towards provoking and achieving an expansion of "The West" into "The North." (I've always considered this possible, and one that's occurred to me more lately, and seems worth listing ... but I don't buy it. I'm going with "rogue officer" with a second bet on one of the other divergence points listed before that - unspecified. Third choice is "as reported.")--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::^ Not to apologize for egregious behavior if it really is that, but let's please compare this to the shoot-down of Iran Air 655 by the USS Vincennes in 1988. A US Naval ship illegally in Iranian waters shot down an Iranian passenger plane with 290 people aboard, despite all the safeguards and sensors working correctly (the consistent clues the ship's computers gave them saying "do not shoot" can only be overridden so totally by choice). But it was deemed by the US to be no crime, just accident and Iran's fault for being provocative, and useful in the effort to compel them to quit the war with Iraq they were just starting to win. In Ukraine, repeated Air Force attacks on rebel-held cities, often hiding their jets behind civilian airliners, might both justify arming the rebels with such defensive weaponry, and invite an honest mistake from a team running this machine in stand-alone mode. The SBU version however overrides this all: it was an accident, but the Russians' intent was never defensive, always planning to kill an airliner, just meaning it to be a different one. That would clearly be criminal in all regards, and it's a sub-set of "as reported" - not a very good one. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Sorry, I can't help you here as I don't share your presumptions. I consider it a waste of time and energy to connect dots that are laid out by "sources" like the SBU and Brown Noses - proven liars and at least in case of the former producers of fraud "evidence" - and therefore I didn't even read your logical chains based on them. Just saying to not make it appear that I agree. ;o) --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 10:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:Poking at specific presumptions could be helpful, but it all could go on and on and remain inconclusive anyway. And I take back what I say about leaning this way or that - I keep leaning different ways and on balance I'm feeling sort of weightless here. I think that comes through in the text... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I don't see the numbers matching, getting close is not good enough, and I quit it there. Yes, it is weird that they are close, and that this murky business is covered by Spiegel, but can't really help with any of that. There is lots of murky weird stuff going on all the time, can't change the whole world to stop it. (Also: the Russian Government would be fully capable of doing a painting job properly if deciding to starting painting at all, their food trucks are all nicely painted, etc; just too sloppy for them to be behind) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:The paint being what it is, between that and the bend and light patch below all lining up, I think we're down to the same unit, or faked to match, and the possibilities branching off those two. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::As discussed earlier, the dot is shifted off the middle, more on Russian video than in PM photo; in Russian video, number 2 has well-curved semi-circle; in PM, it is almost straight segment. Bad photos for comparison but it's off, as far as it's possible to tell. As for the skirt bend, too blurry and distorted on PM to tell; Russian video, I think it is actually dirt, not a bend. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Also, looks like two squares , a bit darker than background, over first digit in PM photo. Unclear is it paint or digital camera effect. Any sane person hiding something will paint over everything, not paint just specifically over the first digit. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::I think I got everything linesd up - it has to be de-skewed the same, and all ines up. You might be scraping bottom on this one. The curve is there, at its elongated part, at an angle. The dent/dirt looks the same, same place, relative to the light patch and all else. It's too much for coincidence by a couple of degrees. BUT I just shifted back to option ... should have numbered them. ... the middle starting option - image authenticity. I hardly ever call digital image fakery, and not calling it here, but... I still haven't checked the new (to us) June videos, so I'll stay presuming it might be okay - video's harder to fake than a photo. But on the other end, it all comes down to the one photo. That I noticed, no other views are close enough to say if these matching clues are present. (the bend, maybe). The squares you noticed, maybe a paint clue or just artifacting. It may too pixelly. I cannot really analyze the technicals properly to say. It looks okay, but possibly fishy too. Maybe the dirty windshield helps hid the painted in pixels to make this thing - just once - or maybe again in other images - look like that Russian 3x2 unit, exaggerated and going into rebel hands... Some kind of coincidences setting that up to work, but it's possible, and an expert should look closer at this picture. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC) <br />
::::I, --at the very start of discussion,-- zoomed picture on screen (by a lot), and measured length ratios (to the dot/ total panel length), parallel to the 2 sides of the panel, using ruler (millimeters one) over screen. I ended up with ratios in horizontal side of panel directions were off, by more than blurring; in vertical, could not tell-within blurring. This is not sensitive to skewing or zooming. So I don't think it's the same. May double-check measurement when have time; or somebody else can. Did not have time to try doing digital version of the same/similar method. Did not look carefully at comparison the 2 after de-skewing , but have an impression this is different; not that much skewing there; it looks essentially straight line on PM, skewing will not make circle into a line. May look at 2's some other time. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::::Finally took a closer look and PM was still off a bit on rotation and vertical-to-horizontal - in line with your observations. Still working out the adjusted graphic. The white is shifted a bit left of lining up perfectly... I think it's still close enough it's the same or is supposed to be, and not far enough off I'd call a bad fake - probably just pixel shift. Will see tonight. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 00:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Okay, I don't have a comprehensible graphic handy yet, but Maybe Resup is seeing what I am now. I was having a hard time aligning it all, so focused just one the one rectangle panel with the number. Still, on the PM photo I trace apparent edges, best line of dark pixels ... it lines up, proportion-wise, with the white spots on or a hair to apparent left. But when the whole image is placed by lining up that center, the rest of it doesn't line up - both sides seem shifted right, or the middle shifted left. (also the track areas appear far to the left, but they stick out a bit, and from the back angle flattened like this, that's why. Each difference in relief from "true flat" plane of the side will cause this... maybe I'm just not correlating it right, and maybe it's a clue the photo is messed with. possible offsets in both white patches as well, but maybe too in the natural fuzz zone. ?? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
If the launcher was driven over the Russian border, fired once then driven back again after it had carried out its mission, the part of the story that doesn't make sense is the sighting on a stolen flatbed truck outside Donetsk. If the Russians were prepared to supply a launcher but not a truck, the stolen truck would have had to be driven to the border to be loaded and there'd be no reason to risk a journey back to Donetsk. The west to east journey is more consistent with CL's original suggestion of a launcher from the Ukrainian base north of Donetsk. If this was a false flag, there would have had to be a paint job to give it Russian markings (maybe to match one in a recent video). Otherwise the videos would point to separatists with a captured Ukrainian BUK, leaving the Ukrainian government liable for failing to close its airspace when it knew that a BUK had gone missing. [[User:Pmr9|Pmr9]] ([[User talk:Pmr9|talk]]) 16:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:Now this sounds engaged, thanks P. Yes, why drive it to Donetsk? (Other than to be seen in the smoking-gun rebel capitol, before getting seen in Lugansk too) And I never thought of that why it had to be Russian. Indeed, for liability reasons, it had to be a snuck-in surprise, not captured (unless they could come up with a reason why they didn't learn about it, and I suppose they could). The suggestion has problems and was slow to gain adherents, but maybe this kind of thought has swayed people to realize Kiev "must be right" about that... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Sunday Times story: original is behind paywall but reprint [http://malaysiandigest.com/news/531506-ukraine-ignored-warning-to-close-malaysia-airlines-flight-mh17-airspace-before-tragedy.html here]. Eurocontrol's experts "spoke privately to their Ukrainian counterparts" about their concerns but Ukraine refused to close its airspace. "Ukraine intelligence sources said they had been made aware that several anti-aircraft systems had crossed from Russia into Ukraine at least a week before the MH17 incident. But they claimed the intelligence was not “100 per cent reliable” and could not have been used as grounds for 'drastic moves' such as shutting airspace". [[User:Pmr9|Pmr9]] ([[User talk:Pmr9|talk]])<br />
:::Okay, well there's a train headed this way then. Several units? The whole June convoy? We do have this alleged maybe-Buk launch just before on July 14, an associated loader seen later, etc. And Ukie intel somehow did point to this number "312" you can't see on the unit they tracked so quickly. Did they already have that obscure Russian video everyone missed until now? And more yet showing the "1" still there? That early on? (that's all very speculative, but interesting). It has to be snuck in, maybe, but then it helps that you can vouch for it - so they fudge and average this aspect. Main point then seems to be, whatever failures they mumble out on their own end, it has to implicate both Russia (provided weapon) and the rebels (held the space needing demonized).--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references /></div>Antidyatelhttps://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17/BUK_Tracking&diff=22544Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/BUK Tracking2015-06-05T11:29:11Z<p>Antidyatel: /* Paris Match Photo */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:MH17]]<br />
==Who Has the BUK Launchers in Ukraine?==<br />
=== Kiev's Holdings ===<br />
<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3MomxNHnUA#t=288 Ukrainian Buk in ATO area], 16 July 2014. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 23:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CBQbFC9loc#t=350 Captured map] of 1 battalion of UAF 95 air-mobile brigade, dated beginning of July 2014, show location of 2 positions of Ukrainian Buks. Basurin points them on the map; but video resolution is insufficient to see those. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 05:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Maps can be faked, but still I'm curious what it shows. I imagine there might be a flat image of the map somewhere. Resup, could you maybe have a look? It's too slow for me to try an image search with translated words. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
::I have not seen the map in news reports mentioning the finding; and now I see it says explicitly that they are not going to make it public, [http://real-info.info/novorossiya/13429-vlasti-dnr-ne-budut-obnarodovat-karty-vsu-do-okonchaniya-rassledovaniya-krusheniya-mh17 until MH 17 investigation is completed]--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 23:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::Here is a press conference report--with video but not the map --[https://vk.com/strelkov_info?w=wall-57424472_57351 (Basurin press conference)]--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 23:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== BUK 312 and comrades ====<br />
[[File:Buk 312 sbu.jpg|thumb|left|BUK 312 on a trailer. Photo shown on SBU website and later removed. – ''[[:File:Buk 312 sbu.jpg|more...]]'']]<br />
Part of the material the Ukrainian SBU released to suggest that "rebels" shot down MH17 with a BUK, was photo material showing a BUK TELAR numbered 312 on a trailer, alleging it has been photographed on its way back to Russia. This was quickly shown to be extremely questionable as evidence surfaced showing number 312 in Ukrainian hands. The SBU then removed the photos from their website while other material like a suggestive photo showing a "plume" remained there. <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Buk 321.png|thumb|TELAR 321 as posted by @MOR2537 to illustrate what he alleges to have witnessed]]<br />
This was outlined (and a screenshot saved) in more detail [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/07/21/the-mh17-investigation-and-buk-312/ over at Human Rights Investigations]. A [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bj-VZB0ZdEA video embedded there] shows BUK 312 in Ukrainian hands back in March. The other two TELAR's seen in the video are numbers 323 and 321. BUK 321 [http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Ukrainian+government+forces+maneuver+antiaircraft+missile+launchers+they+transported+north+west+from+Slavyansk+eastern+Ukraine+Friday+July+2014+Photo+Dmitry+Lovetsky/10004193/story.html has been seen] in Ukrainian hands just two weeks before MH17 crashed, transported close to "liberated" Slavyansk. <br />
<br />
Interestingly enough, one of the tweets [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com/2014/07/reconstruction-of-whereabouts-of-buk.html spoon-fed by Ukrainian loyalists to imaginative Dutch blogger Ukraine@War] to suggest that there have been eyewitnesses for a "rebel" BUK, is then [https://twitter.com/MOR2537/status/489709431467171841 followed-up by the alleged eyewitness] with a picture of BUK 321 to illustrate what he has seen. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::yep, he is a conduit for Kiev but seems to have outside info, too. Like originals of photos he can get geolocations off (he says). But also has good collection of very early photos etc which have since become hard to find.Not sure I trust him though. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 15:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::I hadn't seen that before, thanks. I'll be considering... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 22:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: More photos: [http://www.armyrecognition.com/images/stories/east_europe/russia/missile_vehicle/sa-11_gadfly/pictures/sa-11_gadfly_anti-aircraft_missile_to_armoured_tracked_vehicle_Russian_army_russia_011.jpg 321] - [http://rt.com/files/news/2a/b1/40/00/640x480.jpg 312] - [http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1870560.1405614701!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_970/correction-ukraine.jpg 321] --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:Buk 312 in Lugansk.png|thumb|left|According to alleged former operator "A", this is BUK 312 after relocation sometime in Spring 2014 in Metallist settlement of Lugansk, with Yubileynaya mines in the background]]<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmI2KCOt_sA Anatolii Sharii] version of events, shows that Buk blamed on Russia has number 312 and was earlier photographed as part of Ukrainian convoy. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 20:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Sharii interviewed a Ukrainian soldier who served on Buk 312; this can be found on [http://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/1947657.html Cassad]. The guy does not know about MH17; but recalls SBU claiming it was this Buk 312 responsible. From this interview, meaning of 312: 3 is division number, 1 battery number, 2 unit number in a battery (there are loading and command vehicles, not just launchers). This UAF Buk is initially from Luhansk; than relocated to Kramatorsk; than places in a field. A serviceman took it on a ride with hand break on, leading to a small fire affecting electrics and requiring repairs. So it was traveling on a trailer at some point. It was than moved to Dnepropetrovsk, village of Novogrigorievka (apparently for repairs, and after trailer photo was taken, but exact date was not given). Buks from Luhansk which were not broken were moved by UAF elsewhere (and according to the soldier, were photographed in variaous places including Gorlovka; while 3 broken Buks remained in Luhansk) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: Interesting. I see that the "[http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Ukrainian+government+forces+maneuver+antiaircraft+missile+launchers+they+transported+north+west+from+Slavyansk+eastern+Ukraine+Friday+July+2014+Photo+Dmitry+Lovetsky/10004193/story.html has been seen]" link to the Montreal Gazette is dead by now. If anything I'm surprised that it lasted that long. Minitrue at work. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 04:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: [http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2014/12/17/shooting-down-mh-17-buk-312-story-false- Here] (and mirrored [http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2014/12/17/buk-312-crew-member-says-rebel-shoot-down-of-flight-mh17-story-is-false-transcript/ here]) is an English translation of the interview. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: And [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2rRCSNp33I here] is the video itself with English subtitles. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 20:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:What you said about the accident and the photo showing the damaged BUK on a trailer is about the very photo the SBU showed on their website as "evidence" and later removed. Also adding that he says friends in Lugansk saw "rebels" trying to repair the units they had left behind, but he knows that "whole equipment units" were lacking so the remaining stuff was "unusable". And that he says that he asked his ex-comrades still operating the BUK if they dunnit, and they said they didn't. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Good to see this section expand. Interesting additions from the alleged operator, and reasonable-sounding (the photo might show smoke stains to the back left side). But in the end, this issue might be not so relevant. I doubt it was Kiev's unit 312 that was used, and seeing how Kiev always was eyeing a supposedly Russian unit 3x2, maybe 312 ... In fact, if the middle number connotes unit number, and it's done the same, the launcher is always 1 and it would be 312 (or is that mixed-up?) So maybe all this really shows is how Kiev knew but didn't want to say all along, implausibly picking their own 312 to illustrate that knowledge with an embarrassing but harmless "error", while awaiting ... as it turns out, the independent Bellingcat investigation that finds 3x2 somehow in Russia... That tracked this ludicrous Buk field trip, as presented and followed on this page, which almost seems tailor-made for them, but Kiev wants us to know they they were secretly on the ball too from the start. (all thoughts in progress, a bit distracted too) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::::If SBU wanted to point out they knew the TELAR had number 312, why would they publish the photo in [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmI2KCOt_sA such a low resolution] that the number could not be read? -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 21:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: As Resup summarized, 1 is the battery number. The leading 3 means it's from the Lugansk division. If this is true, the fact that 312, 321 and 323 have been seen together on video in March perfectly fits with what the alleged operator said: That they were removing units in usable state from (all batteries of the division) Lugansk early on, leaving the crap behind. And the view that the SBU just published everything they could find to fit their tale that the "rebels" used a BUK to down the plane, including this photo, cut-together and taken out of context audio tapes and that ridiculous "plume" pic, and the 3x2 bellingcat nonsense from lately is meant to distract from these facts, is much simpler and straight forward than what you tried to come up with here on the fly. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::Ah, I see it now, not when I was typing, sorrys. Middle number could be anything, bust mostly we always see low numbers, so odds are good it was a "1". 3 means from Lugansk if that's true (presuming so) and it's Ukrainian. Diff. number paintjob though, as noted below. But I'm sure the Ukies just faked this exact 312 to a different style of 312 and then painted it out partly, and just let it slip with the one photo of how it looked before...? We'll have a hard time agreeing here, as the stuff you just dismiss as "nonsense" looks kind of like possible evidence with details I'm sort of trying to consider. I don't see how you can just ignore it as if it must be wrong somehow, and all made up to distract from ... this 312 disguised as 3x2 theory? Where it wasn't even at the end of that fake plume anyway and might be totally irrelevant or entirely fake? Or, what am I missing? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::Didn't you say that you haven't even watched the videos and checked the geolocation/origin yourself, if they really are from Russia etc.? Well, I certainly won't. Because I have no reason to believe that the sources are more truthful with the "evidence" than they have been before, and that track record is well established. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::::Yeah, which is why I'm neither in a good position to say they aren't wrong/fake, nor to go against my usual presumption it will be sound (has been so far, on this subject anyway) And by the supposed stills compare to supposed satellite imagery, it looked like a good match (I did skim the site once I could). I don't like the implication either, and I want it to be wrong. And it may well be, but I'll want to see how. And hey, there's a whole other section or two about this below... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
:::: I watched the video [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bj-VZB0ZdEA with the Ukie BUKs in March] again. There are actually more than the three I mentioned earlier. It starts with 323, which is not a TELAR. Followed by the two TELARs 321 and 312. Then comes what is also not a TELAR but what looks differently than 323: Number 301. Followed by two more TELARs, 331 and 332. So they could all be from the Lugansk division, parts of batteries 0 to 3. But one would suspect that the batteries are internal always numbered the same way. "A" says:<br />
::::: ''BUK is a complex of 4 specialized military vehicles: command post, mobile target detection and assignment station, loading and starting station, self-propelled fire installation.''<br />
::::So if 1 and 2 are TELARs, why are there two of them and why is 301 what could be the detection station with a radar? Is 323 a loading station? --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::::Too rusty, but good questions. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::: Ah, I think we can sort this out [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SA-11 thanks to wikipedia]:<br />
:::::''A standard Buk battalion consists of a command vehicle, target acquisition radar (TAR) vehicle, six transporter erector launcher and radar (TELAR) vehicles and three transporter erector launcher (TEL) vehicles. A Buk missile battery consists of two TELAR and one TEL vehicle.''<br />
:::: So our "A" didn't mean that a battery consists of 4 vehicles, but that the whole BUK consists of 4 different kinds of vehicles, some more than once. From this I deduce that "0" is for command and detection units (here our main radar 301) of the Lugansk division 3, and the batteries 1,2 and 3 each consist of two TELARs (numbered 1 and 2, here 312,321,331 and 332) and one TEL (numbered 3, the first vehicle in the video, 323). Makes sense? --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 13:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::Russia said Ukraine had 27 BUK launchers in the crash area, i.e. one brigade, or what ever comes in the hierarchy above battalion. If all units are numbered the same way, from 101 to 333, then one TELAR in 18 should be numbered 312. Maybe [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:9K37_Buk_of_the_Ukrainian_military,_Independence_Day_parade_in_Kiev.JPG not.] Russian numbers seem to reach higher. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 01:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::::Good find. The existence of 114 and 115 makes it more complicated. The [http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buk_M1 German Wikipedia article] says, contradicting the English one, that one battery consists of one command vehicle, one main radar, four TELARs and four TELs. But if that's true, there's no logical place for Radar 301, and why would one TEL be number 3 and the other three TELs numbers 6 to 8? --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 10:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
How to read BUK numbers<br />
This is how you decipher 312:<br />
<br />
3 stands for the third (Lugansk) division,<br />
1 stands for the battery number, ours was no. 1,<br />
2 stands for one of the 2. service units in each battery, ours was no.2<br />
<br />
according to a Ukrainian who explains it was "his" bUK (but not in his hands at the time)that shot down MH17. One of th many reports [http://www.opednews.com/articles/Shooting-Down-MH-17--BUK-by-Michael-Collins-Buk-312_False-Accusations-Of-Terrorism_False-Flag-Attacks_Mh17-Airline-Crash-141217-104.html about this interview] This claim is now superceded by the Capt Voloshin air-to-air claims. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 15:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
That solder knew nothing about who shot the Boeing. He was talking to Sharii, who previously made a video showing that Buk shown on SBU website is actually Ukrainian Buk 312. Later, the soldier emerged, saying that Buk 312 was his. (Claim of this one shooting Boeing is not his, it is SBU early claim) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 16:48, 26 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
While Voloshin story may be a play on destroyed by SBU evidence. There is supposed to be a log of flights, missiles fired, likely those logs no longer exist. Also before they claimed SU 25 were lost on 16 of July, but SBU denial of Voloshin story had SU 25 shot on 17 of July. And that Dnepropetrovsk airport traffic control lady vanished without a trace. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 16:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Supposed 321 belonging to KIEV<br />
::video shows three BUk sets [http://eurazya.today/2015/04/11/about-the-buk-312-who-allegedly-shot-down-mh17/ from 0.31 mark] but I can't really pick the number, they say it is 321. at Gorlovka in March. One on a white lowloader. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 12:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== Russian claims ====<br />
As part of their July 21 presentation of evidence, the Russian Ministry of Defense published satellite images allegedly showing Ukrainian BUK positions around Donetzk ([http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ RT report]). It's no secret the Ukrainian military maintains a base with anti-aircraft units. The facility shown in the Russian presentation (best seen [http://rt.com/files/news/2a/9a/00/00/4.jpg here]) I located - it's south of Avdeyevka, 3 km north of the airport, about 5 km north of Donetsk like they say. Visual match first, then noticed the label could have found it for me ... [http://wikimapia.org/#lat=48.0999781&lon=37.7578908&z=16&l=0&m=b&show=/16956839/ru/Зенитно-ракетный-дивизион-в-ч-А-1428&search=Donetsk on Wikimapia]. Labels, translated: Anti-aircraft missile battalion (in / h A-1428) One of the three anti-aircraft missile battalions ("Buk-M1"), located in Avdeyevka, Mariupol and Lugansk." BUK-type launcher photos included. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The counter-arguments to this at least sometimes fail. [http://www.interpretermag.com/mh17-and-moscows-magical-mystery-jets/ Interpreter rag] decided "the presence of Ukrainian government air defense systems is something of a red herring, not least given the clear evidence that the separatists had deployed at least one Buk system in the area." The side with a ''motive'' and clear, moving and likely operating units of the things on that day (see below) is irrelevant and shouldn't be considered because there's apparently also proof the presumed bad guys also had the units they needed to be so presumed. The very fact that separatists aren't ruled out means the other side should be free of any danger of being ruled in, and the separatists should ruled in just as automatically as they were ''before'' this social-media verification came in. This is clearly an irresponsible suggestion. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC) and --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Kiev's Buks Shuffled?===<br />
<br />
* From Russia's military press conference: [http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ RT, 10 Questions] - [http://www.ruaviation.com/docs/1/2014/7/22/83/ in more detail]<br />
:''3. Why was a large group of air defense systems deployed to the militia-held area if the self-defense forces have no planes?''<br />
:“As far as we know, the Ukrainian military had three or four air defense battalions equipped with Buk-M1 SAM systems deployed in the vicinity of Donetsk on the day of the crash. This system is capable of hitting targets within the range of 35 km at the altitude of up to 22 km.”'' <br />
:''4. Why did Kiev deploy BUK missile systems on the edge of militia-controlled zones directly before the tragedy?''<br />
:''“We have satellite photos of the places where Ukraine had its air defense units deployed in the southeastern parts of the country. The first three photos were made on July 14. The first photo shows Buk launchers 8 km northwest of Lugansk. You can clearly see a TELAR and two TELs. The second photo shows radars 5 km north of Donetsk. You can see two TARs along with other equipment and technical structures. The third photo shows air defense systems north of Donetsk. You can clearly see a TELAR launcher and about 60 military and auxiliary vehicles, tents for vehicles and other structures.''<br />
<br />
:''“Here’s a photo of the same area made on July 17. Please note that the launcher has disappeared. The fifth photo shows a battery of Buk missiles at the village of Zaroshchenskoye 50 km east of Donetsk and 8 km south of Shakhtyorsk on the morning of the same day. The sixth photo shows the same area on July 18. As you can see, the battery has left.”''<br />
<br />
Note: the <s>latter</s> fourth photo of July 17 has substantial cloud cover, but unless they happened to hide the launchers in those areas (or Russia's satellites waited until the area was covered) it appears the noted vehicles have left to go do something - on/by the 17th, where they say launchers appear and then disappear in a town closer to the crash on the 17th. Zaroshchenskoye [http://maps.yandex.com/?text=Ukraine%2C%20Donets'ka%20region%2C%20Shakhtars'kyi%20district%2C%20Zaroshchens'ke%20ville&sll=38.446008%2C47.98844&ll=38.517419%2C48.048098&spn=0.810242%2C0.300187&z=11&l=map on Yandex maps] - 13 miles SSW of the crash sitel, 9 miles W-SW of Torez..--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
On July 30, Vitalyi Naida, head of Ukrainian Security Service SBU’s counter-intelligence, came up with a series of slides ([http://euromaidanpress.com/2014/07/30/russia-fakes-mh17-crash-site-satellite-images-says-sbu/ short article], [http://www.sbu.gov.ua/sbu/control/en/publish/article?art_id=129610&cat_id=35317 announcement on SBU website] with link to [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ut1JExQKV-0 youtube-video showing the slides (presumably Ukrainian language)]) allegedly showing that the Russian material was "faked". He points to a patch of trees, claiming they had been cut down shortly before the 17th, while Russia's images show the trees intact. On August 1, the Russian Ministry of Defense published [http://eng.mil.ru/en/analytics.htm a rebuttal] advising that<br />
:''Instead of presenting hastily doctored evidence to the international community, the SBU could do with better control over all the mercenary units in the areas around Donetsk and Lugansk organized by Kolomoisky, Lyashko, Yarosh and others, who shell Ukrainian territory without any control from those in charge of the anti-terrorist operation.''<br />
<br />
The trees probably are cut down by now, but we'll have to wait for the true details of just when they were and when the image showing that was taken, or if the image shown is even of any one day and not a composite - "doctored" as Russia says. Other clues suggest launchers moving out of this area at that time: The [[#Paris Match Photo]] - ostensibly from the morning of the 17th - shows the infamous launcher-loaded truck seen in Lugansk, or one just like it, being carried on a truck belonging to a company just south of the missile base in northern Donetsk. That was seen carrying the launcher east out of town at 11:15 AM, purportedly on July 17 (and with the location completely fudged to say Snizhne, when it was only headed there).--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Zaro redeploy.png|left|600px]]The Russian military press conference said "The fifth photo shows a battery of Buk missiles at the village of Zaroshchenskoye 50 km east of Donetsk and 8 km south of Shakhtyorsk on the morning of the same day. The sixth photo shows the same area on July 18. As you can see, the battery has left." (#5 inset) The Ukraine@War blog's analysis decided this image as well was fake. That's mentioned [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com/2014/08/ukrainian-sbu-comes-with-conspiracy.html here] if not elsewhere. The reason: "the shadows of these BUKs have a different direction for all three of them. It means these were pasted into the image." I have to admit, it looks a bit like that. The trees have consistent shadows to the west, in a morning image. The furthest vehicle to the left has a visible shadow about like that. The other two don't seem to, and the one furthest right seems to have a shadow on the wrong side (looks like early PM). I wracked my brain just a little thinking of other explanations aside from just low resolution. Nothing much came up. Anyone else? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br /><br /><br />
<br />
<br />
: '''New video proves UKIE BUKS ACTIVE'''<br />
: video has surfaced, posted to Youtube on July 16, taken a few days before, showing a Ukie BUK radar [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3MomxNHnUA being rotated]. The reporter is taken somewhere in a helicopter and proudly shown the BUK. Segment starts around 4.17 in the chopper, BUK shown briefly at 4.45. Label does not say where exactly, just reads "Officers of Ukrainian Armed Forces patrolling in the ATO zone". <br />
: This ties in with claims that they were doing anti-aircraft exercises, probably in response to claims/fears the Antonovs were brought down not by the rebs but by aircraft from Russia. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 10:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::Thanks! We had this July 16 video [[Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17/BUK_Tracking#Kiev.27s_Holdings| elsewhere]], but here is a good place... The other video, from March, was not seen. There were few more early sightings of Ukrainian Buks, uncertain locations, with those 3** numbers; maybe should get a good place to keep them all --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::: Location of sighting is unclear. But according to some reports ([http://lifenews.ru/news/136731 LifeNews]), on July 16 UAF SU 25 was shot down from a height of 6 km by opolchenie MANPADs. That was near Russian border, --reports say the plane actually crossed into Russia, not far from Marinovka. It could be suspected by Ukraine that a Russian plane was involved, so it will be plausible to have Ukrainian coverage of the accident area by BUKS. On July 14, it was reported that [http://m.rosbalt.ru/ukraina/2014/07/16/1292690.html AN 26 was shot down in Luhansk] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Separatist Holdings===<br />
While much certainty has been shown it was a separatist BUK system responsible, everyone seems to acknowledge that ordinarily, they didn't have any, that were known of. Fresh sighting of them in the field, supposed admissions, and existing presumptions remain the strongest evidence. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;June 29 Seizure?<br />
The Open Newsroom team have latched onto a June 29 message from a Twitter account associated with the Donetsk People’s Republic, @DNRpress claiming separatist forces had conquered a base with anti-air BUK missiles. This is apparently the A-1402 base, as an Itar-Tass report specified. That report noted ... It seems to just cite the tweet which, it was found, used a dated photo online since mid-2013. In essence, there's no good evidence they ever did seize this place. But it was referred to by some as "Deleted DNR tweet confirming Russian rebels indeed have a BUK-M1." The crew at large seems a bit vague on the status of this base:<br />
:'' It appears that the A-1402 military unit was moved into the Donetsk region in 2007 from Odessa, and reports note that the unit was based near Donetsk airport. Local reports from June 29 cited ATO spokesman Alexei Dmitrashkivsky as stating that separatists had attacked the military unit.'' <ref name="Story1" /><br />
As we just found with geo-location, it's 3 km north of Donetsk airport, and it's the same place Russia believes is firmly government-held. It's the place they say at least one BUK-type launcher was removed from on July 17 for some reason, by Kiev's forces who run it. If [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Donetsk_Airport this basic Wikipedia article on the battle for the airport] is correct and/or in line with [[Attack on Donetsk Airport|our page on it]], the airport and anything military-related north of it would probably be government-held continuously to the present time. It's possible some launchers could have been lost during a brief seizure of the base, but this too seems doubtful. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
:Social media published many photos of the "liberated" Buk missiles. I searched for them on Google Image Search; all were old photos from more peaceful times. I have no idea what really happened. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 23:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Thanks. I hadn't looked into it myself, but recycled images made sense given the other clues that they never did take that base, or at least get anything out of it. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 00:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Something in English [https://www.facebook.com/TruthfromUkraine/photos/pb.1452285018328179.-2207520000.1409095455./1515506872005993/ on Facebook,] with links to Russian souces. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 23:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Your geolocation is wrong. The former [http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-SAM-Site-Configs-A.html SA-2 launch site] to the north of the runway is called A-1428, at least according to the [[:File:Donetsk Airport battles 5 Oct 2014.jpg|map by Komsomolskaya Pravda]]. The site was rebuilt sometime between 2002 and 2009 with new garages covering part of the SAM ring. Tactical maps say today it is still held by Ukraine, but may have been in NAF hands earlier. Base A-1402 is located south of the new terminal building along Stratonavtiv Street.<br />
<br />
When looking at the latest airport battles I noticed that Military Maps already shows structural damaged to the new terminal building. I did not expect Google to provide any relevant satelite data. In Libya we had almost daily satellite images of Tripoli, but in Syria we have seen no new photos of the battle-effected areas.<br />
<br />
I opened Google Earth to see what has changed during the war. It seems that the war has had no effect on either base. There is still a lot of military hardware parked on both bases. Most of the trucks and whatever are parked just where they were last year, or on many cases in 2007. I did not see anything that I could identify as a BUK launcher. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 02:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;Held by July 14?<br />
The US embassy in Kiev said in [http://ukraine.usembassy.gov/statements/asmt-07192014.html a press statement of July 19]:<br />
:''Intercepts of separatist communications posted on YouTube by the Ukrainian government indicate the separatists were in possession of a SA-11 system as early as Monday July 14th. In the intercepts, the separatists made repeated references to having and repositioning Buk (SA-11) systems.'' (also quoted [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/20/malaysia-airlines-mh17-videos-missile-launcher-torez-snizhne at the Guardian])<br />
As "Corporal Frisk" [http://corporalfrisk.wordpress.com/2014/07/21/comment-on-the-us-assessment-of-the-downing-of-flight-mh17/ aptly responded:]<br />
:''Having perhaps the world’s best intelligence network, and then using easily faked videos of separatist communications posted on YouTube as evidence sure has a degree of ridicule attached to it, but is also an inidcation that US intelligence believes at least some of these transcripts are real.''<br />
That's totally apt if one suspends the usual definition of "believe" (to include "wants to appear to believe," etc.) In the same piece, the author apparently gives more "credibility to the charges that the Buk-M1 is indeed Russian supplied (and possibly crewed), as opposed to stemming from captured Ukrainian stocks." As covered below, this I can agree with if we suspend the usual definition of "Russian" (to include "allegedly Russian villains," "the Ukrainian version of [http://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2011/07/african-mercenaries.html Libya's African Mercenaries] and [http://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/wiki/The_Shabiha:_Ghost_Stories%3F Syria's Shabiha]," etc.) this would be spot-on. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:54, 10 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
(more allegations to cover?)<br />
<br />
;The One That Matters<br />
Whatever the evidence rebels had Buk systems by the 14th, Kiev also has suggested, and many have accepted, that ''the one that mattered'' at least - the launcher unit that shot down MH17 on the 17th - wasn't theirs at all, but brought in and operated by Russians for the day only. If only for that reason, all the above is likely moot. See next section. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Russian Buk Field Trip? ===<br />
The Kiev regime's narrative also suggests separatists had no BUK systems of their own. Rather, someone else brought one in to their area, took it on some kind of tour through several towns thought accessible only to rebels and allies, and got it seen in each place. Then these people '''shot the airliner down themselves on the separatists' behalf.''' That party is the Russians, they say. This is perhaps best encapsulated by "counter-terrorism" chief Vitaly Nayda's early assessment. AP's July 25 report summarized it, saying "the account was based on information from intercepts, spies and resident tips."<br />
:''Nayda laid the blame fully on Russia: He said the missile launcher came from Russia and was operated by Russians. ... According to Nayda, at 1 a.m. on July 17 the launcher rolled into Ukraine across the Russian border aboard a flatbed truck. He cited communications intercepts that he would not share with the AP. By 9 a.m., he said, the launcher had reached Donetsk, the main rebel stronghold 125 miles (200 kilometers) from the border. In Donetsk it is presumed to have been off-loaded from the flatbed and started to move in a convoy on its own.''<br />
:''Nayda said the Buk turned back east toward Snizhne. Townspeople who spoke to the AP said it rolled into Snizhne around lunchtime.''<br />
:''...As for the Buk, Nayda said, intelligence suggests it went back on the move shortly after the attack. That very night, he said, it crossed the border, back into Russia.''<br />
<br />
This is full of details that don't line up with the emerging record, but the gist including a grand-circuit tour including both separatist stronghold/capitols Donestk and Lugansk plus the disaster zone, seems about right. But the evil they allowed came from and returned to Russia.<br />
<br />
This does however jibe with the Kiev allegation (I learned of through [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/07/25/snizhne-mh17-and-rebel-held-territory/ this excellent and relevant HRI article] that '''Russian jets''' violated Ukrainian airspace to '''bomb an apartment building in Snizneh on July 15th, killing 11 civilians.''' This all makes a bit of sense in context; that false flag attack was blamed by locals on Kiev'a noble Air Force - almost understandably! It "created the conditions" by which people ''might'' accept apparent a team of apparent Russians with a Buk launcher in their town two days later. The best guess for any single firing location is a field just southeast of that town (see [[#Possible Launch Sites|below]]). The locals might smile at, and later even cover for, this poisonous gift. But a trojan horse is a trojan horse, of course. They should have looked it in the mouth better, and been more aggressive with their questions. Because Russia has it in for the separatists, Kiev implies, using its skilled and well-documented team to murder 298 people in a horrific way on the separatists' behalf. This is not an accident, Kiev must know, but proof that Russia and its "inhuman" terrorists they must hate (and who do not seem to have any Buk launchers of their own, BTW) are the new global menace du jour. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Markings and the Mystery Launcher ===<br />
[[File:MH17 Buk 321 Parismatch comp.png|right]]A serial number on the launcher's side is apparently standard in Ukraine's arsenal (see [[#BUK 312 and comrades|above]]). Inset, an image comparing the side of the unit seen in [[#Paris Match Photo]], the one blamed for the shoot-down on the 17th, to TELAR unit 321. The side panels are easy enough to correlate and see the unit in the photo lacks a number, but does have a sliver of white paint (or similar) in one corner. Whoever was moving this painted it it out before this, so there is some attempt at concealment. Is this color of paint only available in Russia? The white sliver here could be part of the number, if it were painted higher up/larger than Ukraine usually does. I can't say yet how they do it. I did a Dogpile Photo search, lots of pictures, context unclear, different vehicles from different sides, mainly Vitaly Kuzmin photos so app. Russian military parades and such: --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
* Number shown, diff. vehicle: [http://military-vehicle-photos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/9881.jpg #1(loader?)] - [http://pix.avaxnews.com/avaxnews/8a/6f/00006f8a_medium.jpeg #2 same?] <br />
* Launchers with no visible numbers: [http://77rus.smugmug.com/Military/May-5th-Parade-rehearsal-2014/i-t7RjrzP/0/M/5may14-33-M.jpg #1] - [http://77rus.smugmug.com/Military/12-April-Parade-2013-rehearsal/i-KHVD3Tv/0/M/12aprilrehearsal_33-M.jpg #2] - [http://livedoor.blogimg.jp/gunzichannel/imgs/b/e/be60ae58.jpg #3] - [http://military-vehicle-photos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/9880.jpg #4] - [http://77rus.smugmug.com/Military/13th-April-rehearsal-Alabino/i-fKQdjW4/0/M/13April-Rehersal-Alabino-26-M.jpg #5] <br />
* Same vehicle, Buk TELAR launcher with numbers: not found. <br />
<br />
At the moment, the lack of a number almost makes it look Russian. The next panel over seems to have smaller numbers, or characters anyway. Nothing yet tells me the Russians add a smaller number on the panel behind that, with or without special stencils available only in Russia. Is that even a number, or does it say return to Putin? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== Bellingcat and 3x2 ====<br />
:''moved from [[#Paris Match Photo]]''<br />
<br />
Adam: somebody's favorite Bellingcat is now saying, I understand, that he is capable to read off the number of this Buk from this blurry low resolution Paris Match photo, using unspecified colored magic and some expertly fitted proprietary boxes. Well actually this is so proprietary that he can ONLY read the first number 3, and the last number 2, but is completely unable to read the middle one. Because, he does not want this to be this Ukrainian [http://uainforg.livejournal.com/1811500.html Buk 312] , nah, noway. He rather want it to be the Russian Buk 3 X 2, where X stand for Russian, and for secret, as somebody is said to unearth this dirty monster in Russia, as he says (I guess). This looks too much baloney as far as I am concerned; you can read any number you set in advance from this blurry photo, and fit there any other crap, boxed-shaped or wiggly, all essentially at will. Just recording this latest saga page in case somebody has more enthusiasm to chase it than myself. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 00:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
:No, you didn't quite understand, but thanks for the tip. An interesting twist I wish I'd caught sooner. First, this helps the West at large get in synch finally with Kiev - it was Russia, not the separatists, who owned and perhaps ran that unit. Second, it seems to me the match is at least as good as they say, but there's at least one aspect of it I think is hilarious and I wouldn't be surprised if they managed to miss it. I'll be back - this one deserves a quick blog post. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: I agree with Resup, this stinks of baloney designed to divert attention from the [[#BUK_312_and_comrades]] story. The worst thing about Brown Noses and cohorts is the amount of coordinated promo they get in pre$$titute media. SPIEGEL today [http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/jan-fleischhauer-ueber-wladimir-putin-und-mh17-abschuss-kolumne-a-1004898.html has a op-ed piece by a particularly douchebaggy example] on those independent genius investigators as well. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::I need to brush up on what that 312 story is... because it looks like this used to say 312. Ultimately I suspect its some kind of baloney, but just where it breaks down I don't know. It is amazing how they get such praise for investigating the right things (never did get back to the Houla Massacre) and finding the right truth... Daily Fail says "The authors said that 'our investigation was made possible by the examination of open source material overlooked by other organisations'." Oh goodness, that technique they must have invested ... maybe if we started doing that we'd get praises too! --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/11/08/origin-of-the-separatists-buk-a-bellingcat-investigation/<br />
The report and whole site was not coming up when I tried (might be a problem on my end), so I don't even know what's behind their pay-wall. In the interim I checked around. [http://thetruthserumblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/an-open-and-transparent-investigation.html Here's a critical blog article I like] that mentions another article praising the report. But what was useful was [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2827853/Russian-military-supplied-missiles-ahead-MH17-shooting-says-new-independent-report-evidence-points-Russian-separatists-responsible.html the Daily Mail's Australian promo article] with the cover and a few images from the report as well as a summary. The 3x2 ... This lets me quickly see what 3x2 refers to. And actually, it looks like a good description and even a good match. The number is not from Paris Match photo but from footage I haven't noticed, they say from inside Russia - presumably a Russian unit then - seen conspicuously moving towards Ukraine in late June. (the source of these images and details might be worth checking into) ... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 3x2 Comp.png|right]]Bottom is Paris Match, skewed to match. Top is the new (to me) Bellingcat June 23 image As I just put together [http://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2014/11/how-russians-covered-up-truth-partly.html here,] they seem to be onto something here. It's something silly. But it's something strongly suggested by real paint in recognizable patterns.<br />
<br />
Implied: Russians wanted to hide this thing's identity, maybe because they were about to do something secret with it. So first they painted out the number in the middle - I think it was a one. Except they left one little corner of white visible. Just got tired. It's identifiable (in both images). <br />
<br />
Then before it appeared in Ukraine, it was rendered totally unidentifiable: they boldly blacked out the 3, and perhaps at the same time even, the 2 - except for a larger identifiable sliver. Just got tired. It's next to the other dot. <br />
<br />
Haha, no way to connect these now! Also a light patch next to the small number (and the number, as far as we can see) matches, as does a light patch along the lip below that. My guess: this is the same suspect vehicle seen gettin' hauled all over on the "stolen" truck with the phone number left on. Was it actually in Russian territory as well as near so many rebel checkpoints around dawn? For how long was it there? Bellingcat cannot confirm that Russian unit 3x2 ever returned to its base in Russia ... nor, I guess, that it ever actually left, or was ever Russian, or didn't have its truncated paint job simulated and expanded on another vehicle... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
::He got some photos of an actual [http://www.kavicom.ru/news-view-12861.html convoy], almost certainly in Russia, fairly hi-res photos, no 3*2 there. Than out-of-a-blue-or-elsewhere, he gives photos from convoy made by 'local residents', now with discolored 3*2 photo(s) there; I could not spot details where this photo is now coming from. He claims it "shows on 8 out of 16 videos", but I do not know where is a single one. He also compares tank track and plate above profiles for these 2 photos; details are blurred (and also those profiles change from use), can't say how much they match each other by eye; don't trust his fitted lines, or his conclusion accepting those, but did not try matching myself (no tools to do it quickly; or enough photo resolution to feel strongly motivated). This is doable but doing it tool-free takes time; and not knowing that second photo is definitely in Russia, I am not convinced spending a lot of time is worthwhile. This is clearly a well-supported operation, so the burden of proving their own version is on them; and they did not bother even linking the videos, no clue where are those. His report downloads without problems at this time. <br />
::Also details such as dirty rear skirt and a bend there likely are common; dirt is because exhaust is through the opening above; skirt likely is bent when there is servicing, or example changing tracks or doing something else, like maybe servicing engine. Buk 321 above on this page has dirt and bend, for example. This bend is something which can be easily produced, same goes with the painting job, both things together can be done in well under 1/2 hour. If they had an example of how something in Russia looks like, not difficult to do it for a blurry photo. Clearly, with phone well-displayed, etc, the purpose of all this is a demo job. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Here is a publication [http://censor.net.ua/video_news/274823/ukraina_zaschischaet_donetsk_ot_napadeniya_rossii_zenitnoraketnye_kompleksy_buk_zanimayut_pozitsii_fotovideo Ukraine defends Donesk from Russiam attack, missile complex Buk takes positions], with photo, video of Ukrainian BUks, numbers 323, 321, 312, 301, 331,332. (Some of them have dirty skirts, e.g. 301 looks dirty and bent...). Ukrainian radio is playing on the video. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 21:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Thanks, and I get the lack of motivation, and the ambiguity. That #312 I'll compare later ... looks like a different number style (thinner) with vehicle color less clear ... I guess this could be innocent dirt instead of black paint, but it's some thick dirt, and by the end almost totally covering the numbers on this particular unit ... or two that can seem the same. (?) So it still seems most likely paint, that is deliberate obfuscation - that was also comically slow and incomplete (with clean edges to the white parts and no visible parts of gray half-covered numbers) . It must be a problem with my system (updating soon) but I still can't connect to the site or get the report. I'm not mad motivated myself, but will want to check the alleged video source and geolocation eventually. Before I was seeing this as a Kiev unit simply snuck across the internal line. So the big wrinkle of course is it being in Russia. Options if the geolocation of June 23 is right: <br />
* it wasn't there (faked match-up - As you say, all matching features ''could'' be faked, not just the paint) <br />
* or Ukraine snuck theirs across (with a whole convoy?) just to get it seen there <br />
* or they snuck over and stole this one while it was near the border <br />
* or Russia willingly sent it over, with or without a subsequent theft by people intent on misusing it on the separatists' behalf. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
There is actually a 3*2 Buk in Russia, he put links to videos on his [https://www.mapbox.com/labs/bellingcat/index.html map], I looked at 06/23 Troitskiy (Odnoklassniki) goroskop odnoklassniki ru/video/14723648043?fromTime=25 . But I doubt it can be concluded that Paris Match is a match (number itself can't be read, this is just bogus). For example, that dot in the Russian version appears to be a bit further to the right (60 % of total panel length) , while Paris Match is closer to 50 (I got 52 %). Also, in Russian version, it is almost level with protruding to the right part of number 2; in Donetsk photo, I'd say it's a bit lower (but blurriness creates problems to measure) . Panel to the left of number panel appear to look very different; in Russian case, clear horizontal line above the main bottom line; not so in Donetsk, a messy lower line. As for the skirt, it it dirty but actually does not look broken in the Russian version, just some frames create such impression. In Donetsk, hard to know (to blurry to tell crack from dirt) but there is serious change in angle there somehow; (could be the windshield playing some tricks). (Also, in Donetsk, it is dirty windshield, not actually certain what makes the dot; but it is roughly where expected, so I can go with this being paint assumption). <br />
:No point for the rebels to display it prominently in Donetsk (not far from UAF BUK base), than go towards Snizhne; this just has no point at all. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 00:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
:I'm the one, ironically, claiming to see things in that griny mess. I'd never do it unless I saw t spot well whiter than the others AND seen in another view ... didn't even notice until then. To note, your descriptions are of the first version of the graphic, now updated. Becuase of overall problems, I cut what seemed just the number panel (including shadowed edge) and put it on top of where it should be. Same proportions, within a pixel or two, "find edges" to mark the white patches, and it remains lining up. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 3x2 comp 2.png|right|420px]]At right: it can't be the embarrassingly misrepresented Ukrainian 312 they're hiding, unless that was painted over before this other one .... FWIW, the middle dot would still line up with the serif on that "1." As the updated blog article notes, if "the Russians" were smart, they would have painted this slender 312, or other recognizable number and style, on there. Instead, this nonsense.... <br />
<br />
I suppose that Ukraine ''might'' have known about this 3x2 video and match in advance (and never mentioned it?) and that's why they found a photo of ''a Buk 312''' (not checking what it actually showed, and just claimed they knew was en route to escape into Russia, after parking for yet another photo?) No, that doesn't make much sense. But I sense a link. Maybe that's because I'm seeing 312 when maybe it's 872, for all we really know. Maybe instead of partly painted out it was just left never fully painted in. Too many unknowns and now I'm unenthusiastic about it. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Whatever one thinks of this graphic comparison and interpretation, the strange and suspect thinking it implies is consistent with what else we know about how this "secret" operation was carried out. If true, it would fit this broader pattern (real or reported clues left by whoever, all open to interpretation, and here couched in the terms of allegations by Kiev and supporters):<br />
<br />
* Recalling that this whole weapon itself would have no normal business in the area and would be denied later, it should have been kept secret. Instead, it was driven around in broad daylight on the same day as the crime, just partly covered with a tarp but revealing all clues needed to identify it, its hidden ID number, and its full rack of missiles.<br />
* The truck it was so displayed on was stolen in Donetsk, and kept with the huge sign on its side with the apparent owner's phone number on it. When the media called that number, little surprise, the owner told them pro-Russian "fighters from Slaviansk" who took over his whole trucking company on July 8 (see [[#The Truck Owner's Story|here]]) Put lightly, this is a stupid way to secure a rig one intends to use for a secret operation like this was supposed to be.<br />
* They loaded the truck in Donetsk, likely at the commandeered site in the north of Donetsk, near the Ukrainian base with Buk launchers, in a coincidence. This truck then got seen leaving Donetsk on the 17th, parked pointing east at the east outskirts, then seen driving in convoy (a couple civilian cars with the operational crew moved with the truck) past Zuhres and then through Torez to the east. They were seen arriving in Snizhne around noon, then the Buk unit seen off the truck and driving in stand-alone, and it was then seen again driving south out of Snizneh, towards the apparent launch location.<br />
* The people running the convoy made sure AP journalists saw them in Snizhne just before the shoot-down from a bit south of there. The convoy stopped, and a man in unusual uniform "approached the journalists. The man wanted to make sure they had not recorded any images of the missile launcher. Satisfied that they hadn’t" filmed that secret missile launcher there, but had noticed it, and their intention to remain sooper seekrit "the convoy moved on." All this was made quite clear to the media and apparently published even before the news that MH17 was shot down. ([http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/what-happened-the-day-flight-17-was-downed/2014/07/25/716c36e4-142b-11e4-ac56-773e54a65906_story.html AP Via Washington Post]) <br />
* After the disastrous attempt to secretly provoke a Russian invasion, with utmost discretion the operators put the smoking gun, its rack of one-less missiles left uncovered, back on the same truck and drove it and the phone number back to Russia - by a strange detour on a long route towards the other easily-recognizable smoking gun rebel capitol, Lugansk ... when government ATO forces had just battled their way to the edge of Lugansk ... and got seen there passing at dawn on the main highway south, apparently having come from the center of town, and then presumably drove to Krasnodon (rebel-held) and to Russia....<br />
<br />
The fail delivery here is almost flawless, with no mistake left unmade and hardly any reasonable gaps to call for deduction. Letting multiple camera views on both sides of the porous border capture and track the gradual move to this stealth mode seems pretty consistent to me.--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Note: the implications of this contested finding, and the visual basis for it as well, is continued below under [[#If Buk 3x2 Was in Russia]] --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== General Observations === <br />
*It is clear that pro-Kiev side produced early and persistent stream of fakes, misrepresentations, or selective half-truths, all aimed to place the blame on Russia and/or "separatists" as a part of well organised and supported information warfare. This information warfare did not establish an objective to prove the blame of Russia or "separatists", as any of those media creations will not survive a rigorous scrutiny, and there is nothing to bring to court in particular. However it successfully altered Western perceptions in early days past the catastrophe, and helped to impose sanctions and other 'increased costs' on Russia, bringing the world on the brink of another cold war. It brought situation in Ukraine closer to perpetual chaos, and kept closely related people to continue killing each other every day. Although those fakes and misrepresentations were later realized to be such, those costs and calamities were not reversed. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*After moving equipment close to border, why would Russia send just a single TELAR to Ukraine in a highly visible manner as it was alleged? For meaningful operation of Buk, one would send at least 1 TELAR, 1 TEL (to be able to load missiles), and 1 command vehicle (as radar on TELAR gives only poor basic operation)? There are also lots of support vehicles seen, in case of something meaningful all that is needed. So moving single TELAR is all but pointless from military standpoint. Single TELAR is mostly for a show of sort. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Reported SIghtings == <br />
(consider along with the visual sightings below) <br />
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/what-happened-the-day-flight-17-was-downed/2014/07/25/716c36e4-142b-11e4-ac56-773e54a65906_story.html AP via Washington Post] <br />
shows the separatists strategy to not be seen as they rolled the murder weapon around:<br />
:''Even before the plane was downed, the AP had reported on the presence of the missile launcher in the town July 17. Here is what that dispatch said:''<br />
:''“An Associated Press reporter on Thursday saw seven rebel-owned tanks parked at a gas station outside the eastern Ukrainian town of Snizhne. In the town, he also observed a Buk missile system, which can fire missiles up to an altitude of 22,000 meters (72,000 feet).''<br />
:''AP journalists saw the Buk moving through town at 1:05 p.m. The vehicle, which carried four 18-foot (5.5-meter) missiles, was in a convoy with two civilian cars.''<br />
:''The convoy stopped. A man in sand-colored camouflage without identifying insignia — different from the green camouflage the rebels normally wear — approached the journalists. The man wanted to make sure they had not recorded any images of the missile launcher. Satisfied that they hadn’t, the convoy moved on.''<br />
<br />
That kind of pro-Russian sooper-seekrisy aimed at the media in front of the media should stop them being seen, right? No, oddly, it didn't. See below. The clumsy bastards could hardly have implicated themselves any more thoroughly than they did that day. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
One interesting post at the Ukraine@War blog mentions two tweets, both from July 17 and before the crash, mentioning this BUK launcher on a trailer at places consistent with the video record. [https://twitter.com/MOR2537/status/489702736766586880 One of them] (translated) sounds perhaps ''too'' informed, and says "Was driven missile system on the tractor cover + two cars after Thorez (Torez) in snowy (Sniznoyeh) in 12-10 (at 12:10? Too early...)." [https://twitter.com/_StradivariuS_/status/489704260045910016 The other one] says "(someone this) morning wrote that (the truck) stood (parked for some time) on b.Shahtostroiteley not intersection with Ilchicha, aside (heading towards) Makeevki. waiting to see (to be seen?) If that's an intersection named, it's a different parking spot identified as being [https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=48.002515,37.854917&spn=0.010222,0.02444&t=h&z=16 here on Google Maps,] one km west of the spot it was parked for the "Paris Match" photo. Otherwise, it refers only to the same place. The contributor noted "Another interesting detail in that tweet is that “it was standing” and “they were waiting”. My understanding of that phrasing is that the #Buk was actually parked there for some time. Meaning there might be witnesses." <ref name="UWD">[http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com/2014/07/reconstruction-of-whereabouts-of-buk.html CONFIRMED the BUK that shot down MH17 has indeed been in Donetsk] P. Martin, Ukraine@War, July 23, 2014</ref> There was a witness with a camera, and a photo sent to the Western media. That almost seems to have been the idea - to get witnessed like that. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== SBU Wiretap Clues ==<br />
I just had a look at the SBU wiretap transcripts, ones released July 19. In it is a segment tying in with the above stop or stops in Donetsk, the exact spot of the [[#Paris Match Photo]], and the general orders to drive east with the launcher. I'm not up on the wiretap stuff - if this is the same material said to be corroborated by the US as the real people talking. But briefly, know that parking spot in just past a roundabout, by a motel and a bus station, well short of a crossing Hornostaivska street halfway to Makiivka. Important clue to why it was here this thing had to get seen and talked about: one source claims this roundabout at the edge of town is "a big separatist checkpoint established on Jun 3 at the road circle." <ref name="UWD" /> This is supposed to all be pretty damning, and I must say it's at least looking like a pretty slick plan may be going on here, with pre-scripted parts that come into play later, etc. From Kiev mouthpiece UaToday, parts of a transcript they ran with the video and other allegations, on the 19th - How credible is this evidence?<br />
:''Khmuryi: Sergei Nikolaevich Petrovskiy, year of birth 1964, officer of Main Intelligence Directorate of Russian Federation, Deputy Chief of Ihor Girkin on Intelligence, at the time of the interception he was in Donetsk.''<br />
:''“Buryat” – militant of terrorist organization “DNR” (to be indentified).''<br />
:''Buryat: – Where should we load this beauty, Nikolaievich?''<br />
:''Khmuryi: Which one? This one?''<br />
:''B: Yes, the one I’ve brought. I’m already in Donetsk.''<br />
:''K: Is it the one I’m thinking about? “B…,”M” one?''<br />
:''B: Yes, yes, yes. “BUK”,”BUK”.''<br />
:''K: Is it on a tractor?''<br />
:''B: Yes, it’s on it. We need to unload it somewhere, '''in order to hide.'''''<br />
:''K: Is it with a crew?''<br />
:''B: Yes, with the crew.''<br />
:''K: '''Don’t hide it anywhere.''' She’ll go there now.''<br />
:...<br />
:''Khmuryi: – Tell me, have you brought me one or two?<br />
:''Buryat: One, one. Because they had a misunderstanding there. They didn’t give us a tug. We loaded it and went at their own pace.''<br />
:''K: Did it go on her own or on a tug?''<br />
:''B: It crossed the line (border).''<br />
:''H: And now have you brought it on a tug? Don’t put in anywhere… I’ll tell now where it should go, it will go together with “Vostok” tanks.''<br />
:...<br />
:''K: Sanych, the point is that my “BUK–M” (modified Russian SAM system) will go with yours, it is on a tug. Where should I drive it to put in a column?''<br />
:''Sanych: There, behind “Motel”, not reaching Hornostaevka.''<br />
:''K: Just after the Motel, right?''<br />
:''Khmuryi: Listen to me carefully, behind the circle near “Motel” there will be you know what. Call to “Bibliotekar” (Librarian).'' <br />
The next part, to me, suggests that as far back as the 19th or earlier, people talking on tape were seeding, or working by, the SBU-proposed Aeroloft plot with the town mix-up. In that light:<br />
:''...Bring inside only those, who just came back, only as much as you need for the convoy. Leave everyone else here. Not far away '''there is Pervomaiskoe, look at the map.'''''<br />
:''DNR militant: I got it.'' (Or did he not quite get it?) <br />
:''Khmuryi: Settle somewhere in that area, bring there those who are left. Your task is reserve, plus protection of this piece (BUK–M), which you will drive now. “Giyrza” will come there too. If anything, I’m on line.'' <ref name="Trans">[http://www.uatoday.info/?p=2579&lang=en SBU releases more conversations implicating Russia in shooting down Malaysia Airlines flight (VIDEO, TRANSCRIPT)] UAToday, July 19, 2014</ref><br />
--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The veracity of that recording needs challenged well now ... the day too early claim [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17#SBU wiretap video|did not pan out,]] so it won't be that easy. Has anyone really done a good analysis tearing it apart some other way? Could it even be half-legit, with some local rebels tricked by some undercover (wire-wearing, not wire-tapping) supposed defector delivering it "with a team" coming "from Russia" (meaning Parubiy et al.)? Who knows? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Imagery Mapping ==<br />
[[File:MH17 Storyful video mapping.png|right|330px]]There have been quite a number now of photos and videos showing BUK launchers ostensibly in separatist strongholds, on July 17. The geo-location of these in such towns by social media networks has been the subject of some recent media commentary. These purported placements are worth collecting and considering here. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
One somewhat comprehensive and updated/evolving page: [http://blog.storyful.com/2014/07/19/how-social-sleuthing-uncovered-evidence-of-anti-aircraft-missile-system-in-eastern-ukraine/#.U9oY_Ua3498 How Social Sleuthing Uncovered Evidence of Surface-to-Air Missile Systems in Eastern Ukraine] Inset is a small preview of the interactive map they made of all placed images (as it stands at the end of July - [https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=200399683004956931329.0004feca5d1fbab0a1d25&msa=0&ie=UTF8&t=h&source=embed&ll=48.206371,38.968506&spn=1.281328,2.334595&z=8 full-size presentation with links, on Google Maps]) <ref name="Story1" /> <s>Note that one of them is way up in Lugansk - which one is a little unclear at the moment - the site may be wrong</s>) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;List of Scenes, placed or not<br />
* Billboard Video: released by Interior Ministry, filmed in Krasnodon before dawn, the Interior Minister says. Russian military analysis places it in Krasnoarmeysk, and the Open Newsroom crew contradicts both and decided "collaborative geo-location was able to place the footage in southwestern Luhansk.'' <ref name="Story1">[http://blog.storyful.com/2014/07/19/how-social-sleuthing-uncovered-evidence-of-anti-aircraft-missile-system-in-eastern-ukraine/#.U9oY_Ua3498 How Social Sleuthing Uncovered Evidence of Surface-to-Air Missile Systems in Eastern Ukraine] Storyful blog, July 19, 2014 and onward (updated)</ref> <br />
* Surveillance Video: located to Snizhne by Eliot Higgins, date unclear. <ref name="Story1" /><br />
* Zuhres video: Pre-geo-located by the uploader [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=48%C2%B0+1'1.38%22N++38%C2%B018'6.04%22E&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=48.034019,38.391724&spn=0.629958,1.564178&gbv=2&hnear=H21,+Zuhres,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&gl=us&t=h&z=10 here in Zuhres.] Higgins confirms, 100% sure, and others concur. Driving east. <ref name="Story1" /><br />
* Torez square photo - located by an associate of Higgins - filmed app. 11:40 AM in central Torez. See below. <br />
* Another photo placed: Snizneh, nearest the shoot-down area (f/c)<br />
* [http://www.parismatch.com/Actu/International/EXCLU-MATCH-Un-camion-vole-pour-transporter-le-systeme-lance-missiles-577289 Paris Match photo] - allegedly Snizhne, reportedly placed '''in northern Donetsk city.''' See below. <br />
<br />
===Billboard Video===<br />
(to be condensed) <br />
A video released by the Ukrainian Interior Ministry is highly dubious and worth some analysis. It shows what seems to be a BUK launcher loaded on a truck driving some direction in some town at what seems to be early twilight (or pre-dawn, depending). The [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4HJmev5xg0 original posting] (with almost 2 million views already) gives no details: "Militants take out missile system "Buk" to the border with Russiam" the title translates. "No description available," it says below, and no comments allowed.<br />
From what I've seen no one knows where this is filmed. Daily Mail says it's a "separatist stronghold," unnamed, and headed south, back towards Russia. "Ukrainian spies reportedly filmed the launcher used in the attack being smuggled to Russia - with two missiles missing." Eliot Higgins was cited by [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/20/malaysia-airlines-mh17-videos-missile-launcher-torez-snizhne the Guardian] with his new team of fundraistigators as geolocating some video and photo but not, apparently, this one. As explained at [https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1278239551/bellingcat/posts/919158 the kickstarter link] they give, Higgins writes:<br />
:''In the above video, posted by the Ukranian Ministry for Interior claiming to show the Buk missile launcher being driven towards Russia it was possible to match the transporter in the video to the transporter in Torez, details of which... (you have to subsidize their operation to see)'' --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== Avakov's Placement: Krasnodon or Lugansk ====<br />
Interior Minister Arsen Avakov said in [https://www.facebook.com/arsen.avakov.1/posts/670837696339673 a Facebook post of July 18] Google-translated: <br />
:''Covert surveillance units of MIA of Ukraine today July 18 at 4.50 am was recorded caterpillar tractor loaded with missile complex, moving in the direction through Krasnodon, toward the border with the Russian Federation. The video can be seen uncovered missiles. Two missiles in place - the average is not visible. ''<br />
:''There is an analysis of this and other information gathered. Presumably this is the missile system "Buk" that made a last shot at a civilian plane from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur .. ''<br />
:''Criminals try to hide the traces of this heinous crime. Not succeed. Security Service and Interior Ministry of Ukraine has collected and collects more irrefutable facts and evidence, the author points out the tragedy of the terrorist organization DNI / LC and its Russian backers Putin.'' <br />
:''The investigation of events MIA issue a comprehensive report on the information. This fragment consider it necessary to publish immediately.''<br />
<br />
By the 22nd, "online sleuths" had placed it in Lugansk (see below). Avakov then confirmed this - he was wrong the first time. One article makes it sound like he wasn't just echoing the sleuths:<br />
:''On July 22, Ukraine's Minister of Internal Affairs, Arsen Avakov, gave the exact coordinates of the video’s location: separatist-held Luhansk, about a 45-minute drive from Krasnodon. Locals quickly verified this claim by photographing the scene, which perfectly matches the landmarks seen in the video.'' ([http://globalvoicesonline.org/2014/07/29/russia-ukraine-mh17-conspiracy-buk/# article by one of the sleuths])<br />
<br />
====Krasnoarmeysk====<br />
One source venturing a guess is [http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ the Russian government and RT witrh their 10 intriguing questions:]<br />
:''“For example, media circulated a video supposedly showing a Buk system being moved from Ukraine to Russia. This is clearly a fabrication. This video was made in the town of Krasnoarmeisk, as evidenced by the billboard you see in the background, advertising a car dealership at 34 Dnepropetrovsk Street. Krasnoarmeysk has been controlled by the Ukrainian military since May 11.”''<br />
[[File:MH17 Billboard Vid Russian Analysis.png|right|250px]]There is a sign, but I cannot make it out just yet, if ever. Can they really? Even if that's so, surrounding towns might be good places for a dealership in Krasnoarmeysk to advertise. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
At right now is a still from a video claiming to show this, I still don't see it. They seem to think the gray span says that, perhaps from seeing a clearer view of this ubiquitous sign elsewhere. Opps. There's no reason to say a dealership in one town can only have billboards in that town. This alone fails. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 14:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Krasnoarmiis'k,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&hl=en&ll=48.323387,37.919312&spn=1.252829,3.128357&sll=48.226502,37.386475&sspn=0.627601,1.564178&oq=Krasnoarm&t=h&doflg=ptk&hnear=Krasnoarmiis'k,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&z=9 on Google Maps as Krasnoarmiis'k] - ''not'' to be confused with the Krasnoarmeisk not far away in Russia. Distance: about 100 km almost due west of the crash site. Panorama, possiblt location, directions/implications forthcoming. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Dnepropetrovsk Street is the main street of Krasnoarmeisk, leading northwest to Dnepropetrovsk. It tried matching this to the street corner where the car dealership is located. Yandex Maps did not provide a street view. It could be there, but too few details to make a positive match. Whatever this is, it is not evidence for anything. The least the SBU could have done is provide the location and some corroborating photographs.<br />
:The same applies to all so called "evidence" provided by Ukraine and the US State Department. As far as I can tell it is only cut-and-paste of unrelated footage to ''illustrate'' the claims made. A perfect example of this illusion is the "satellite photos" of Russian artillery shelling Ukraine released on Sunday morning. A photo of Russian GRADs on some unidentifiable field was placed next to a satellite image with an arrow pointing "Here Be Monsters!" Purely illustrative and no proof. There is a difference between legerdemain Hocus Pocus and outright forgery. The Russian video presentation displayed screen capture recording from the ATC radar, usually stored for two weeks. For this to be a hoax, Russia would need to create a forged tape of the radar data. Highly unlikely, as the the claim of authenticity had support of the full authority and prestige of the Russian Armed Forces. If the US presentation turns out to be hoax, State Department will claim the photos were never meant to be evidence. Some internee was told to prepare a presentation using stock images for some facts they ''knew'' to be true – trust us! -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 14:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: You must have missed [https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BtZSVQrIMAARzKr.jpg:large this], Petri! ;oP --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 18:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
::: That is an awesomely perfect picture for this sorry episode so far. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 14:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
::It would be neat though if we could show where this is and thus which way its's headed. The Kiev authorities, I think, know what happened. They say it was this exact launcher missing two missiles. It could be. Where is it at filming time and where headed? If it's true this same one was in Torez (dubious but possible) we'd have a direction traveled until that point also, and a rough time, 8:30 or so. [http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jul/27/mh17-storyful-social-media-twitter-youtube The Guardian again] citing Storyful's open-source investigation: <br />
::::''“There are now four pieces of content – three pieces of video and one image – which, in the case of three, conclusively show a Buk [surface-to-air] missile within rebel-held territory and in the case of the fourth, almost definitely in their territory,” says Storyful executive editor David Clinch. “Of those four pieces, individual groups or companies probably verified in or around the same time one or another of them.”''<br />
:''Open Newsroom verified three pieces of content and is investigating the fourth, thanks to its 900-strong network of journalists and experts. ''''<br />
:The fourth is this video. Wouldn't it be a coup if we were the first to place it? Force that intern excuse and then laugh at it. That said, it's not the most likely to place but you, Petri, especially, might be able to. I think I might. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 22:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* [https://plus.google.com/118234537318646233652/posts/LZV1XZD854E James Miller Google + July 21] "Was a Buk sighted in Krasnoarmeysk or Krasnodon (continued analysis)? We've taken a new look at this video which has been debated since it was posted days ago. We're fairly confident, though not 100% confident, in this geoanalysis, but we're making significant progress. Any more information would be extremely helpful. " Cited: [http://www.interpretermag.com/russia-this-week-lurid-anti-ukraine-propaganda-broadcast-on-state-tv/#1753 Russia This Week: Defense Ministry Claim on Buk in Billboard Video Doesn’t Add Up]<br />
:''...As we reported on our Ukraine Liveblog, the Buk was spotted before the shoot-down of the Malaysian airplane and ultimately geolocated to the town of Torez, near the location of the crash in Grabovo. Then the video, taken early the next morning on 18 July, showed a scene in Krasnodon,... <br />
--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Google Earth has one photo [http://www.panoramio.com/photo/55329278 from ул. Днепропетровская.] The street has about the same width. The streetlights are not quite the same. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 14:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
::That image doesn't help a match, especially since by now it looks like Lugansk. For the record, there was a go by pro-rebel social media people at identifying a spot in town to explain the video scene, but it didn't do that either. [http://wikimapia.org/#lat=48.276196&lon=37.176087&z=18&l=0&m=b this spot on Wikimapia] is what they pointed to - filmed from the marked building, they say, looking southwest to the mall. No matching anything. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 02:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== Placed in Lugansk! ====<br />
[[File:MH17 Billboard Vid-Lugansk Match.png|right|800px]]Storyful's rundown states of this video:<br />
:''The footage is not the original, however we believe that the first instance of this footage was removed by the uploader and the version below is the earliest we can find. Ukrainian Interior Minister, Arsen Avakov, made early claims that the video was filmed in the Ukrainian town of Krasnodon near the Russian border, however collaborative geo-location was able to place the footage in southwestern Luhansk.'' <ref name="Story1" /> <br />
It links to "Bellingcat," which you have to pay to see much of. [https://plus.google.com/118234537318646233652/posts/bMdeBzY8yty James Miller] passes on that it's "Mystery SOLVED: Video released by Ukraine's Interior Ministry does in fact show a Buk, possibly missing several missiles, in Lugansk headed east from the MH17 crash site and in the direction of Russia." The spot they think matches the video (better panorama coming) is [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=48%C2%B032'44.7%22N+39%C2%B015'52.6%22E&ie=UTF8&ll=48.545926,39.265147&spn=0.002436,0.00611&t=h&cid=0&z=18 here on Google Maps]. Was that a highway? Where's the cross-street? I see elsewhere they have a high view showing the same basic billboard there, but that's going to be true of several spots in this area. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
My impression of the scene - based on the panoramic view below - is far from matching with this. That does not look like a highway, and it just seems like a small town. However, I finally saw some of the supporting images (see [http://news.bigmir.net/ukraine/827864-V-Lygansk-vehala-kolonna-voennoi-tehniki--SMI here] and [https://twitter.com/djp3tros/status/491651820188860416/photo/1 here] - source of the inset image.) It seems a likely match after all. I won't say I confirm it with any certainty, but I don't think I'll be challenging it like I was preparing to do. Note the different billboard in the right spot, and the matching one over there. There are other images, apparently more current, showing that that they moved the one sign over to the right spot They don't point to the pinkish roofed building beyond the red-roofed one, but that adds to the match (compare to below). Whenever this video was made and whatever it really means, it seems quite likely it was at this spot in Lugansk shortly before dawn. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
There is another video from June 2014 showing the same billboard with the same car ad:<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ez8cZ3nqjCs Луганск 02 07 14]<br />
The video shows a column of BMPs with one 9K35 Strela-10 short-range surface to air missile system passing the intersection in Lugansk. I suspect they came from Russia, as [https://www.facebook.com/groups/IOUCO/permalink/584402078339517/ I specifically asked] for Putin to send in the Russian tanks that morning. They passed exactly when I expected them to, at 6 minutes past 4 am. (I estimated it would take 2 hours 6 minutes from the border.) -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 17:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== ACLOS Review ====<br />
As noted above, my review agrees with the placement agreed by the others. For what it's worth, the huge panorama I made (the middle is full-resolution) and starting notes from before I realized no work was needed. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 03:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
[[File:MH17 Billboard Video Pan.png|center|880px]]<br />
It seems to be filmed near the edge of town, or edge of a hill anyway, with a clear view ahead, two vague homes/buildings seen down the slope. Otherwise, very non-descript. The angle of intersection will be one of the better clues - it looks to me not 90 degrees ( |- ), but with the road the truck is on either slanting or curving somewhat towards the camera ( /- ). One important observation: '''there's no logical reason he should have been just happening to film this area''' unless he knew something interesting would drive by at just this odd time. That's clarified by how he zooms in just before it enters frame - he was waiting for that truck. How did he know about it? Informants on the other side of town phoning ahead makes enough sense, I suppose. <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 launcher truck composite.png|left|480px]]Another issue: If this is dusk (sunset 8:20 PM local), isn't this facing roughly northwest? If so, this vehicle is driving roughly north, not south. And we might start looking on the west edge of town. There's a highway out to the northwest, back towards Kiev. This street is too narrow and unmarked to be the highway, obviously, but it might be driving that way, for example. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
:Or, alternately, he's facing towards the sun about to rise, early on the 18th, as alleged by the Interior Ministry) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
::That he happened to be filming just before dawn is even less likely than dusk. He clearly knew this was coming, whatever that means. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 03:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Above is the composite scene without truck. At left is the truck without background. Besides lightening the scene, it seemed worth getting the clearest details from different frames into a composite view of the truck and its load. This helps compare to the launchers seen in other areas and different times. So far, they all seem to look the same and perhaps be the same. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 03:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br /><br />
<br />
==== HRI ====<br />
Pretty good points [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/08/05/mh17-the-lugansk-buk-video/ from Human Rights Investigations]:<br />
:''To sum up, the statement of Avakov, the film and its location suggest the Ukrainian authorities had advance knowledge of this BUK and trailer’s movements or control over it. It is also extremely strange that this BUK, allegedly after shooting down MH17, is supposedly filmed by a Ukrainian surveillance team in ostensibly rebel territory, with its covering missing, as if to show the world a missile is missing.''<br />
--[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Paris Match Photo ===<br />
[[File:MH17 Paris Match.png|770px]]<br /><br />
* [http://www.parismatch.com/Actu/International/EXCLU-MATCH-Un-camion-vole-pour-transporter-le-systeme-lance-missiles-577289 Originally published by Paris Match] on July 25, with the claim the picture was taken by their own reporting team near Snizhne at mid-day on the 17th. Note the prominent, apparent, telephone number prominently centered in the picture - (050) 471-41-80. The truck and launcher, as far as can be seen, are quite similar to or the same as the one seen in the billboard video anyways. How many of its missiles the unit has at this moment is unclear. <br />
<br />
* [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/07/28/why-is-paris-match-on-the-location-of-a-buk/ Human Rights Investigations:] "it turns out to have been taken in Donetsk, 75km away" (citing someone else's geo-location - [https://www.google.com/maps/@48.004592,37.87265,3a,75y,63.38h,82.21t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sRGnHwZ5YZnuGO-n_VvruWg!2e0 site link given.] <br />
:''We know this because the phone number on the truck panel (050 471 4180) leads straight to this hire place (photo):<br />
:''According to Paris-Match, the proprietor of this establishment claimed “rebels” had stolen a number of his vehicles earlier in the month. If we go from here to towards Snizhne we find the location of the Paris-Match photo, near a car dealership on Makiivske Highway on the outskirts of Donetsk:''<br />
:''After informing Paris-Match of the mistake regarding the video location, the author of the article Alfred De Montesquiou has now got back and explained:''<br />
:''Hello, indeed, it appears there was a mixup in caption : the picture was taken leaving Donetsk on road to Snijne, not in actual Snijne'' <br />
<br />
'''Questions:''' Was it a caption mix-up, or did their team really not know where it was taken, and just believed the real source when he said Snizneh? Who is the true photographer who knew to catch this picture near the company's base, apparently at the outset of a rather epic journey? Why did the rebel thieves leave the prominent phone number on the stolen truck used for such an important task? It wound up leading to man who pointed right to the rebel thieves, and prove yet again separatists, not Kiev allies, were the ones driving BUKs around. Was that so hard to foresee? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''To Do:''' Verify the geo-location - set a time, presuming July 17, by sunlight and that location - establish which was it's traveling relative to the government-run anti-aircraft base just a few km north of here and relative to the other places and times this truck and others were spotted rolling around prominently and getting filmed a lot by the right kind of people, in areas presumed to be impenetrable to any such frame-up operation - look into this company, etc. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''Location:''' I can't confirm it with certainty, but it's extremely consistent. Two standard but distinct pole types that close together on the right with a pull-over lane ending at the blue one, and consistent-scale foliage behind. Proceding on the location as likely enough to warrant the work. The stretch of highway identified runs northeast, heading 33 degrees. The truck is most likely not driving at the moment, as it's in the pull-over lane. But it's pointed as if ready to leave Donetsk as soon as they finish doing something in theis spot. All we can see they're doing is getting filmed, and maybe that's just what they're waiting for. Ahead would be the an industrial area, the eastern suburb of Makiivka, then Khartsyzk, etc. and further east Torez and Snizhne (driving times unsure, date also unsure. Russia claims the one launcher left the northern base sometime between in August 14 and 17 images. <ref name="RT10">[http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ 10 more questions Russian military pose to Ukraine, US over MH17 crash] RT. July 21, 2014</ref><br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Donestk Buk Map.png|left|480px]]Left: this truck location, the company's apparent headquarters ([https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Molodykh+Shakhtariv+St,+19,+Donetsk,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&ll=48.044923,37.783184&spn=0.079187,0.195522&hnear=Molodykh+Shakhtariv+St,+19,+Donetsk,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&t=h&z=13 GM link]), and the A-1402 missile base relative to each other. <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Paris Match elev.png|right|220px]]'''Time:''' I'm not sure how exactly to set this up, but the shadows appear to stretch almost right across the highway, with only a slight northern shift. The azimuth thus appears to be fairly close to to 140˚ (reached at 11:09 AM). As for solar altitude, trying to line up the launcher's corner with its shadow gives a reading of app. 56˚ (= 10:50 AM, with azimuth 133˚) or perhaps 59˚ (= 11:18, az 143.5). The graphic shows both readings. Which is better? I used [http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/solcalc/ NOAA solar calculator], with coordinates: lat 48.017102 long:37.9037626 time=GMT+2, DST +1 --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
Bellingcat was originally claiming that photo was taken at 9 am. <br />
[https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/11/08/origin-of-the-separatists-buk-a-bellingcat-investigation/]<br />
<br />
Than they were claiming 11 am as an obvious time without retracting previous 9am claim.<br />
[https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/09/08/images-show-the-buk-that-downed-flight-mh17-inside-russia-controlled-by-russian-troops/]<br />
<br />
Seems like 9am was more comfortable for them to match to photos from Zuhres and Torez. <br />
<br />
Sorry, using smartphone. Not very easy to comment <br />
[added by Antidyatel]<br />
:Looks like you put the same link twice, -it says 11 a.m.--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
::Antidyatel, welcome! Resup, thanks! I'd like to see any 9 am citation. But otherwise they agree on it being around 11? Good. The significance below is if the Zuhres square photo was taken at 11:40 AM as they say, it's basically impossible these images are from the same day as alleged - 69 km, 1 hour 14 mins drive between the spots, when there's only 20-40 minutes between the images. However, fudging it - let's say this is 10:50 and the other is 12:00 as I read it - that's 1:10 between, almost a perfect match. So maybe this isn't a great lead (I was never convinced it was). But 9:00 is way off and suggests they were fudging it to fit at that point. Would be good to document. BTW, on talk pages you can sign with <nowiki>--~~~~</nowiki> or the sign/scribble button. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: [https://web.archive.org/web/20141109132514/https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/11/08/origin-of-the-separatists-buk-a-bellingcat-investigation/ First archive.org snapshot] from the day after publishing (edit: a good month after you called it :o)) says 11 am already. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 10:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
There is more to consider about this truck, its company, its owner, and his story. But other than this photo's extra-clear view of the phone number and apparent proximity to headquarters, those are better covered in the section below [[#The Truck Owner's Story]].<br />
<br />
=== Torez Square Photo ===<br />
[[File:MH17 Torez Buk Analysis.png|left]]This is another image geo-located by the Brown Moses network (ally Aric Toller) to central Torez, [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Donetsk&hl=en&ll=48.023472,38.614014&spn=0.004923,0.01222&hnear=Donetsk,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&t=h&z=17 here on Google Maps.] Like others, it was initially stated as in another locale - Snizhne - and that had to be corrected. I can agree the location pointed to is either the photo's site or one strangely like it. [http://mashable.com/2014/07/23/citizen-journalists-mh17-spies/ Mashable noted] "Toler and Higgins were able to establish that the photograph was shot around 11:40 a.m. local time." I tried a quick azimuth measure, eyeballed relative only to the blue car, and got 165 degrees (yellow line, read backwards). This equates to a time of almost exactly 12:00 noon (about 30 minutes before solar noon, and 20 minutes later than their estimate). Seeing they're close to right, I'll presume they're closer than me and defer to 11:40. <br />
<br />
If this photo is taken at 11:40 AM, and it's the same truck seen leaving Donetsk around 11-11:20 AM, it's impossible these images are from the same day as alleged (Gmaps says it's 68.8 km, 1 hour 14 mins drive, when there's only 20-40 minutes between the images). That would mean multiple mobile launchers with multiple "Titan" trucks, or just one but with some date fudging. The company says a number of its trucks were stolen, so matching multiples are entirely likely. But so is date fudging, multiples or not. If that's so, I suspect the Donetsk photo was from July 15 or 16, and this one more likely from the day of the crime. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 04:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br /><br /><br /><br />
=== Zuhres Video ===<br />
[[File:Buk Zuhres Vid.png|right|480px]]Again, a truck of that same type loaded with the same apparent weapon is briefly seen driving east (detail at right). This one was never reported wrong and was in fact pre-geo-located by the uploader [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=48%C2%B0+1'1.38%22N++38%C2%B018'6.04%22E&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=48.034019,38.391724&spn=0.629958,1.564178&gbv=2&hnear=H21,+Zuhres,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&gl=us&t=h&z=10 here in Zuhres.] Higgins confirms, 100% sure, and others concur. <ref name="Story1" /> Zuhres location: on highway H21 halfway between Donetsk and the general disaster zone - 36 km east by road from the position of the truck in the Paris Match photo. I agree with the location, refined below as I lined up in the still used here - the blue line runs between the blue thing and the building corner (footprint, not roofline) to the front of the truck as it passes. <br />
<br />
The sky is fairly overcast, so solar angles can't be measured precisely; the differences in facet lighting are clear but not massive. A broad and inclusive azimuth range of 167˚ to 214˚ (rounded) is shown by the yellow arrows below. This yields a range (to the nearest minute) of 12:09 PM and 1:45 PM. The best middle is a bit early - 185 degrees. That would be 12:44 PM. Altitude, at solar noon, helps little. 12:09, 12:44, and all times between round off to 63˚. if that simply looks too high, we're forced to the later end of the time frame. - 57˚ at 1:45. My super broad-estimate: 12:45 +/- 50 minutes. Weather at this time on whatever day - as noted, it partly overcast, and it's windy. The clouds are moving fast, with slight lighting changes visible in just these few seconds. Winds by the swaying trees are from the southeast, perhaps, blowing northwest - at least at the building with a face running that way.<br />
[[File:Buk Zuhres analysis.png|center|680px]]<br />
<br />
==The Truck Owner's Story==<br />
The apparent owner of the white truck so important to the MH17 operation was of course tracked down via the giant phone number for his compant on its side. Interviewed at least twice now, first by Paris Match, then by Lithuanian agency Alfa, this businessman has been anonymized as Vassili (then Vasilijus). Thorough summary of the related, alleged facts, from each (translated) report:<br />
* [http://www.parismatch.com/Actu/International/EXCLU-MATCH-Un-camion-vole-pour-transporter-le-systeme-lance-missiles-577289 Paris Match, July 25:]<br />
:''Photographs of Paris Match showed that the rebels had failed to remove the billboard on the truck they had stolen. Thus we joined the owner of the vehicle. Vassili said the rebels occupied warehouses on the outskirts of Donetsk since July 8. "They are fighters Slaviansk. They landed and told me they loved my premises and we had to escape. They shipped me a dozen large vehicles, including the white truck. I do not know what happened to them, "admitted Vassili, distraught.'' (that was actually just what they published, aside from context material) <br />
<br />
* [http://www.alfa.lt/straipsnis/472203/alfa-lt-isskirtinis-interviu-su-raketas-buk-kuriomis-buvo-numustas-malaizijos-avialiniju-lektuvas-gabenusio-vilkiko-savininku?p=1#.U-GIxeOSyuZ Alfa.lt, July 29:]<br />
:''This person's testimony is crucial. After it becomes indisputably known that anti-missile system, which shot down a passenger plane was precisely the Kremlin-sponsored terrorist hands. ''<br />
Here, separatists are throughout called "terrorists" (Bezler is "the "People's Republic of Donetsk" terrorist gangs ringleader"). Vassili says these took over and occupied his company premises on July 8, taking the white truck - they said because it was needed He says they stayed in control of his facility for 8 days, apparently departing on the 9th day - July 17. Becuase of this, he and his staff - especially his drivers - were unable to do anything that whole time. He's entirely certain it's his truck in the videos (the phone number says so) as it's the only one of its type in that part of Donetsk (Žinoma, ji – vienintelė tokia Donecko srityje, tokios kitos nėra. Tokios „Volvo“ su tokia kabina). He says he still hasn't seen it since.<br />
:''...more and more irrefutable evidence that Russia supported the terrorists shot down over the temporary control of the territory in the east of Ukraine aboard passenger "Malaysia Airlines plane, and later sought to hide evidence.''<br />
But as Paris Match noted, they couldn't be bothered to detach the phone number to the guy with the whole dang story. <br />
:''Alfa.lt knowledge of the personal data, company name, knows his responsibilities and phone numbers (one is (050) 471-41-80), but because of '''the danger to his life''' that can not be published. "Stop saying my name, and I already have enough problems," said new horrific crime witness Vasilijus.'' <br />
This is valid; of course his best defense would have been to simply ''not'' implicate the separatists mostly running Donetsk, but it's too late now. DPR authorities might want him for questioning. And especially now that he's been publicized as a "crucial witness," others will want him to '''appear to have been brutally murdered by them''' (he will have served his main purpose by now, perhaps). I hope someone's able to arrange protective custody quickly enough, or that he can arrange his own vacation, or convince his friends (he'll know the ones) of his continuing usefulness to them alive. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Titan Gate blurry.png|left|380px]]Further bits on the business: Wikimapia has labels. One for the front building is generic. In English writing: [http://wikimapia.org/#lat=48.0399571&lon=37.794637&z=16&l=0&m=b&show=/24479492/Ochakivska-vulytsia-19 Ochakivska vulytsia, 19]. Beneath: Category: safety, '''private security company.''' Around this, a bigger labeled area including the back building and surrounding lot. Label: Территория службы охраны "Титан" Translated, it says "Territory protection service "Titan" (Donetsk)." Beneath it: "Category: '''Do not display name''', fenced area." (не отображать название, огороженная территория) Below, their gate area as it appears in Human Rights Investigation's still, and three versions I've seen randomly changing over the last day or so with different parts that could be the name blurred out (most recently back to not blurred). Is that unusual? I predict further twists in this, with the truck found somewhere bolstering the Kiev story, and with the company's "outing" being manipulated somehow. Feels a little spooky. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
;Assessing "Vassili's" Story<br />
<br />
There are a number of problems with and interesting questions about this witness' story and how it meshes with other allegation (details forthcoming).<br />
<br />
In Vassili's defense, I'll say the world needs to hear more. What happened in these eight days? Were Russian officers coming and going? Poring over air charts in the side room, before closing the door with an annoyed look? A lot could have happened - this could be a gold mine of direct evidence for war crimes trials of these terrorist gang's leaders (as understood). --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
[[File:MH17 Vassili's Truck August 1c.png|right|400px]]<br />
An apparent support: as HRI found, [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/08/07/new-sighting-of-volvo-linked-to-buk/ New sighting of Volvo linked to BUK?] August 7 - One of those provocatively deleted tweets, quite recent with a supposedly same-day (dawn or sunset) photo from somewhere in Donetsk - outskirtsy, like where <s>rebel</s> I mean Kiev junta forces proudly claim to almost be. this photo (saved by HRI) shows "a truck" carrying a tank, driving behind another tank. The posted thought it was for a new roadblack/barricade (concrete slabs were also being hauled). It appears to be the same truck Vassili says he lost, or one just like it. And this does look like the type of thing seaparatists would do if they had seized it, and still didn't realize how famous it had become. This thing likes to drive at dawn, doesn't it? How are checkpoints then, a little sleepy maybe? Hmmm... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::(added later: inset image - from the photo, color-corrected and cropped on just the truck - for full view see the article or below) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: FTR I took up HRI's challenge to identify the truck on that picture and did so with almost 100% certainty. It's a Volvo FH second generation (2001-2013) with low cabin. Like [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Volvo_LKW_Fahrerhaus.JPG this one] which has a higher cabin but other than that is quite a match. Also FTR, I noticed that the twitter account has "Donbass Bandera" as location, which can but must not mean anything. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: Bandera might mean something, in context, but no time to puzzle too much. Good ID work there. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Vassili's Truck August 1 Loc.png|left|380px]]The article passes on a geo-location I can confirm: [https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Makiivka,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine/@48.04073,37.967479,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m5!1e2!3m3!1s78165143!2e1!3e10!4m2!3m1!1s0x40e08e984a0db9a9:0xe4e52efde2e0641c Here on Google Maps,] photo taken, as described, from "opposite the Vostochno-evroppeyskiy restaurant & lounge “Atrium” in Makiivka on the H-21." A site photo of the "Atrium" is included. The graphic I made at left shows the approximate view, including the stairwell (to a subway station?), though the billboard is less clear. The view is roughly towards the rising sun northeast - a rough azimuth measure suggests the sun is shining from about <s>66</s> 71 degrees from north, for a time of around <s>5:24</s> 5:52 AM (elevation: <s>1.8</s> 6 degrees). --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC) and corrections --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
FWIW, I went over to militaryphotos.net and scanned [http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?236005-Situation-in-the-Ukraine-Crimea-*Photos-Videos*-ONLY/page200 the thread about Ukraine starting on page 200] in very early July, up until page 225 when all the known truck/BUK info and disinfo was posted. Watched countless military convoys, including a whole bunch from Donetsk in the time between. Not a sign of the truck in question. If it was in "rebel" hands since July 8 like the alleged owner claims, they used it only for "special ops", alone in the early morning or so, not in their larger relocation operations. Two things remotely interesting: in an operation [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0JdcC324Ek reactivating a WWII tank from a war museum in Donetsk], a similar trailer is used, but the truck is a different one. And in [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2eGNPJlkMo this video from July 5] but without given location, the Ukie army does some operations and two BUK TELARs are seen. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Possible Launch Sites ==<br />
*Launch site discussion here is based on a photo of disputed provenance, said to be made '''near [[Category_talk:Ukraine#Torez|Torez]]''', showing a plume of smoke (see on the right and below). Exact date is disputed, but it was posted shortly after the accident. A late update or second version of the photo emerged in December 2014; this is further discussed in the [[File_talk:MH17_Launch_Plume.png|talk page for the photo]]. A different launch location in '''Artemovsk''', based on Bezler account, is discussed elsewhere [[Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17#Bezler_Account|(link).]] . <br />
<br />
===What do we know? ===<br />
Questions about the photo, --if it is genuine-- include:<br />
<br />
*What is shown on the photo? (Likely a missile launch, but can be MANPAD, or some other launch; raising fire smoke not excluded though less likely) <br />
*When was the photo made? (Claimed to be couple of minutes after the MH 17 shootdown launch; but could be made on earlier days)<br />
*Where was the photographer, and where is than the 'launch site" Photograph claimed to be made in Torez (4 microdistrict?) . Claimed launch sites locations are [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/launch-location-detected-of-missile.html SE] or [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2107 NE] from the photographer. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
A site, or maybe a couple of locations, have now been forwarded, based on compelling evidence, as likely SAM launch sites of July 17 or thereabouts. This is worth careful consideration here. To start:<br />
<br />
* [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10984530/MH17-the-clues-which-may-lead-to-missile-launch-site.html UK Telegraph, July 22] This report with some detail and a photo visits a few areas where signs of possible BUK launcher movement and firing occurred recently. Caterpillar tracks, mostly light, signs of burning, various debris left behind, all or mostly "in the area of the town of Snizhnoye." These details might suggest whoever did this had multiple launchers set up in different areas that left as soon as the operation/accident was done. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
::So far, signs are saying it was just the one. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Below: The site shown on video, stitched panoramic view (with confusing curve). This helps get the fullest set of geo-location clues. I may even check if this is the same spot identified by Ukraine@War, below. It should be, or we might have two firing locations pretty near each other, which would be odd. The firing direction from here would be northwest, almost directly along MH17's flight path. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
[[File:MH17 Telegraph site.png|center|940px]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Launch Plume.png|right|340px]]Ukraine@War: [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/launch-location-detected-of-missile.html Launch location detected of missile that brought down MH17] The photo at right, cited by Kiev as proof of a BUK launch in the right area, July 17. The anlysis here looks good on first blush and lines the filming to northern Torez, plume on a line including a supposed patch of cat tracks just revelaed by fresh Google/GeoEye images of some fields [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Donetsk&hl=en&ll=47.989347,38.773155&spn=0.078813,0.195522&t=h&hnear=Donetsk,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&z=13 here] by Snizhne. As traced, the tracks look realistic to me. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: There is (a disappeared) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUvK5m2vxro BBC video ] suggesting that smoke is from a direction of Saur-Mogila (= constant fighting) and a coal mine. <br />
::Thus smoke may be unrelated to the launch. Also timing of photo is unclear. <br />
:: Buk trail from unrelated launch videos appears considerably [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDXScnEKaP0 more impressive than on the photo] , and traces well visible trajectory, likely attracting attention of many people . But there appears to be no witness reports. <br />
::Buk appears to use [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_navigation proportional navigation method], and if so, its navigation control will try to guide it on a straight path to impact.<br />
::Unless it was doing something else (but can it??? the answer requires expert knowledge), it was most likely on a straight line trajectory which can be deduced from the impact direction.<br />
--[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 00:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Yes, an odd video. I'm not certain they even picked the right view, but it looks about right - I think she and Oliphant (Telegraph) point to the same monument as a landmark - a place of fighting. Seems like they got close, but didn't have a specific spot like U@W picked, and didn't find anything. As for angle, I think it can maneuver around, but would prefer to fly straight (not an expert, don't know what "prefer" means here). And if it was hit head-on like the impact marks suggest, then it probably did fly just about straight into the jet. Obviously if it came over the wing, and was fired from here, it would have to curl around, but I don't think that's the case. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
<br />
The satellite images cited at Ukraine@War are available if you have Google Earth. As explained [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/satellite-images-reveal-how-buk-has.html here,] there's a .kmz package you can download [https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxEeOqcjSE5uQXlkWkxKeVhDaEk/edit here] that loads on Google Earth new, murky images from July 20 (but the display still says August, 2013). The tracks he highlights are visible, faintly. There are a couple sets perhaps connecting - some could be local paths - there's no recent enough images to say there weren't there July 16. One important missing thing is a patch of burnt grass it seems should show up up differently - it's not identified there, and not evident right around these tracks. From this, it's not a great fit, except that line of sight pointing here. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Plastic Debris 1.png|left|280px]]So is the Telegraph site and the Ukraine@War site the same thing? Well, the Telegraph article says they went to the spot identified on a blog, but found, as the image suggests: Two possible launch sites – a rundown collective farm and a nearby wheat field – showed some track marks but no sign of any rocket launch whatsoever." It was a farmer plowing his fields there who pointed them to ''a field nearby'' that burned the other day, and that 's the unclear site they show. "The location of the fire lies on the supposed flight path of the rocket, and track marks – though indistinct – are present. Some unidentifiable bits of green plastic littered the site of the fire." There were also discarded bottles (type unclear) and apparently this oddity, shown in a photo but not mentioned - soft bakelite-type plastic ... thing, with years in the 1980s and 1990s stamped in it. It's all near enough to the rebel town, the Russian border, and concealed rebel positions that they think only rebels could operate there. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
First, let's note that author "P. Martin" connects these possibly relevant tracks with the surveillance video showing the Buk launcher driving south The Telegraph spot, from the burnt grass, must the spot the exhaust pushed off from, and the burn line should probably be to the northwest. There's no sign of that alongside these track marks found on that visual line. That's a problem, as the exhaust never said a luncher was driving around thataway, but rather launching from thataway. <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Telegraph Spot Mapped.png|right|380px]][[File:MH17 Telegraph Spot Cleared.png|right|320px]]Rather, it's the nearby "Telegraph spot" - not quite on his line but close - that [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com/2014/07/exact-location-pinpointed-of-mh17.html Martin thinks is the EXACT location] That, he thinks, is in the next field south. It should be visible in the updated imagery, but it turns out this is just off the edge of the area they provided, so it can't be verified or ruled out based on that. The inset graphic shows this cut-off line, his previous possible firing locations (track-based, seemingly un-burnt, in yellow) The spot yields a best placement with coordinates already noted by Petri in a section [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Map#Buk locations and flight paths|here.]] (I picked out the spot myself, best guess, and got the same but 3 seconds east) It can't be checked like that for the telltale stripe to the northwest, but it looks pretty likely to me. The main view down the tracks (left half of the panorama above) would be looking south, and the near line of trees on the right running west. The pretty obvious tracks he identifies as likely launcher tracks, and they do seem to curve in where it stopped. Otherwise, to me, this has more the look of a pre-travelles semi-road on the line between fields. Either way, it probably drove that way, and fired from here, and not from the un-burnt spots north. All the tracks he notes, none certain in themselves, are supported in their possible relevance by this being what's at the end of the trail. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC) and [[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Added in November, the image below that. I noticed Google Maps had new post-crash imagery up, and re-checked the spot for burn marks, since it was just off the grid before. This replacement - overlayed with translucence - seems too late. The strip most likely to show the signs has apparently been harvested/cleared before this image Some will say that constitutes a coverup. And it might, but probably just out of stupid reflexive nervousness. I just wanted to measure its angle and stuff. There is a nice track right up to the spot, likely pre-existing and just unclear before, and what they used to get there. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Location Challenged ===<br />
<br />
The above stuff, as of now and as I've been running it mainly, seems to bear out the vaunted "social media sleuths" placing the launcher and probably the launch in "separatist-held territory." I agree with all locations provided, and times too. Everyone acknowledges date is less sure. There are compelling clues pointing to concrete firing spot, that seems to be lined up the hit the jet head-on, as it's starting to seem the airliner was hit. In this narrative, the questions people should be asking is who was really running that. But readings differ, and some differing views can be considered here. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* [https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByibNV3SiUoobnpCVDduaHVORHM/edit?usp=sharing MH17 Analysis] – CDN <br />
<br />
Petri posted this to the front page, a 25-page report with many graphics and explained reasoning. One of its conclusions, based on range to impact, mainly, meant that "the missile that downed MH17 was not fired from Snizhne." At the moment, I disagree. Petri, who is CDN, and are they soliciting feedback? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::The anonymous PDF was published via Saker's blog: [http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/08/detailed-expert-analysis-of-mh17-downing.html Detailed expert analysis of the MH17 downing] "CDN" has [http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/08/detailed-expert-analysis-of-mh17-downing.html?showComment=1407347983141#c8862773971299986141 responded] [http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/08/detailed-expert-analysis-of-mh17-downing.html?showComment=1407350196815#c7564049628743605813 twice] in the comments. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 00:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
I think these might be part of what threw the author(s) off:<br />
# the heading seems to be off, too southerly to trace back like that. At the end, maybe close enough<br />
# possibly too-wide debris field starting too early - final breakup likely E-NE of their spot (ie closer to in range)<br />
# Wrong presumed angle of impact <br />
# Lack of knowledge, specified on page 23, of this contrail image or, obviously, the supporting clues pointing to what might be "the Telegraph site" excluded here. "Why are there no images of the rebel missile and its impressive launch contrail?" Oops, there is and it point there. <br />
--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: I just skimmed it before coming here. It was posted [http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.de/2014/08/detailed-expert-analysis-of-mh17-downing.html over here] where you can join the discussion (which I haven't read yet just saw that Petri is there chiming in in comment 2 of currently 93). I think it's first valuable in presenting the known capabilities of the Buk etc. If your stuff above is true and it is one single truck with one single TELAR that was seen in the different locations, then it shows quite conclusively that the Telegraph position can not be the launching point, because even if the Ukie claim of disappearance from Radar 50km from the Russian border is not true, due to the position of the debris it could only be further away, not closer, which adds to the argument. My 2 cents for the moment. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
: Oh, not directly related to the critique, but driving around with a huge phone number that leads to a Titan security of all places is more than a bit suspicious, I'd say. ;o) --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: "the Telegraph position can not be the launching point" if my "stuff above is true and it is one single truck with one single TELAR that was seen in the different locations" - how? "because even if the Ukie claim of disappearance from Radar 50km from the Russian border is not true, due to the position of the debris it could only be further away, not closer, which adds to the argument." Huh? I think the field is placed really vaguely in that report, and that's what sets the impact point - it looks maybe kilometers off, to the west. Placed right, the implied impact point is further east, ie closer to the launcher. It is a valuable report, but that point should be re-checked more carefully before I could be convinced to write off all the other evidence pointing there. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::: Take a careful look at pages 9 and 10 of the PDF. Place the spot to where you think it's "right". Think how that would change the picture. The argument is based on the empirical location of the debris and unless I've missed some serious flaw in the numbers and basic calculations made on the pages leading to that, I think it's by rule of thumb a very sound argument. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 13:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::: I'll do my own soon - I can say it would end further east, relative to the border there, and probably start further east too, but maybe I'm unaware of some outlying debris - but first a though on the debris field I just had, even more relevant than size and placement - what does it actually say re: the plane? He presumes it would follow the trajectory east. Not much, really. With only so much momentum and breaking up, with five miles to fall, the main factor will be wind. Even a breeze has five miles to act on it. That was so with PA 103 - the wind was about perpendicular to the path, and that determined just where stuff scattered on a line across the borders area right to the north sea - only the cockpit and a few things were off much from that line. Here, if it blewa along the flight path, the reasoning would work fine. If it blew back, to the west, the plane was probably shot further east than the field suggests. Ie, closer yet to in range. The Zuhres video above shows wind apparently to the northwest, and pretty strong. Worth a review and re-think in that light. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 14:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::: With an initial speed of 907 km/h I see no reason to take wind into serious account. I see no reason at all for going into more detail in this rule of thumb argument, not on the debris, not on the alleged launching point. But I'm as always looking forward to what you can come up with. ;o) --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::: btw there's no exact calculation of the traveled distance of the falling pieces, it's just found plausible resulting from other data. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::::: There's good reason. [http://martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/PA103_debris.gif past precedent.] I did read it wrong - the blue oval is about right, I thought the scale by it, which is way off. That's the 20 km drift - if the wind was blowing due east at the right speed... to the near edge of the oval and 30 km to the far edge... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 15:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 four last points.png|center]]<br />
<br />
Debris fields as shown in MH17 WSJ data combined.jpg. The two tracks, 118 per Flightradar24 and other sources, and 111 from a Russian graphic (see label C), just in case. They cross at point E just to look cool - superimpose wherever to visualize a track-back on these or any line between. <br />
<br />
The four red "last points", eyeballed onto the map as shown in the various graphics used here (all pretty approximate): <br />
<br />
A: last return, flightradar 24 (erred, I think, way too far along - I suspect some inherent offset...)<br />
<br />
B: Russian ATC last return, '50 km' from the border (vague description, likely close to accurate)<br />
<br />
C: end of 111 track shown in MH17 radar 1.png (maybe arbitrary, lower resolution)<br />
<br />
D: report, deduced point of impact (presuming 20-30 km flight due east after impact, wind app. not considered at all)<br />
<br />
E: My guess for breakup point, where the damaged front came apart (should maybe be further east, right over the south part of the first orange blob). Actual impact point, an unclear distance back. probably not very far - downward flight could start anytime after that, decreasing the lateral distance traveled) . <br />
<br />
The cockpit, aerodynamic, shows the most like forward trajectory of this, relatively minimal wind complication. The heavy forward parts had more drag, wound up NW of there. A bit further NW, the light, high-drag, punctured upper fuselage. That these parts aren't spread further out suggests the jet managed to descend some ways before the front totally fell apart, and/or that the wind was fairly light. From there, most of the plane remained together, kept more momentum and little wind effect, and crashed kilometers east. The last part of this plummet, about one minute seen on video, it was nose-free and essentially nose-diving. A slight north trend, perhaps curtailed eastward progress, largely just down, leaves it all hitting together by Hrabove, scattering woth the fireball trajectory and wind deciding where these bits landed. That it only got so far from the forward parts again suggests this breakup was fairly low in the fall - maybe just before the start of the one video. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I'd say forget point D, it is way too far west, this plane was not going to fly 25km once hit. On debris, I'd put breakup where the "f" is in your word "forward" and impact not very far NW of that, lifting the whole 118 line a little northwards. You can't bring breakup below impact and count on wind pushing wreckage "uphill" because that first group of wreckage included 37 bodies, which would not "sail". The impact would be enough to knock the course slightly south, to drop the cockpit at Rozspyne, where it turned NE to end up at Grabovo. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 03:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Thanks. D is the presumed point used to rule out this launch location, the original point of this sub-section. That dot fails by a good margin. My E and your guess are both north of the flight path, along which all the red dots are (this graphic is confusing, needs updating, if I didn't flatten it). I was thinking a NNW wind did the north and west spreading, but the records say the wind was flat "east" (to the west). I'm left suspecting now the plane banked hard left just before it started breaking up. Actual impact, just before that. The "C" label is pretty arbitrary, but it keeps seeming about right. On the imagined red line 1t 117-118, I dunno, maybe 20-30 pixels back. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::Winds are described as 'from' not 'to. So a wind blowing to the NNW is reported as a SSE wind.<br />
::::A slip - I'm trying to say it that way now. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::Getting on to the wind. The actual breeze direction is usually a function of altitude - veering or backing from ground level observation. It can easily be 90 degrees out from ground level. You need to look at the vertical profile used in aeronautical soundings to see where debris will in the main blow to. --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 11:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::Sounds like a real headache to map. There's also changes over time, where east at 5:00 may change briefly ten minutes later, or 10,000 feet up. All that seems can be counted on is easterly winds in general - no exception to that. And generally, even if they measure it at the airport, it must extend up to the clouds, which can be seen swirling east over the area. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::No it doesn't extend to the clouds except by accident. Major direction change can happen in hundreds of metres altitude especially at night. Examples of wind shift between ground level and 700 millibars (9800 ft) in day time can show a direction change of 90 degrees - e.g. North to West. This is significant with MH17 where the breakups occurred between 33,000 feet and probably a few thousand feet for the final disintegrations. --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 11:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::FYI Here is all about [http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/48/ Veering and Backing] --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 11:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::As for the spread issue, I'm re-thinking it. As for the bodies, it depends on a few things but I take your point - bodies are dense. And I didn't know that detail - worth considering. Also a sad side-note: most bodies would be alive and aware, from what I learned looking at Lockerbie. Lack of O2 would black them all out at first, but gravity makes it so there's enough in that final stretch those not dead already (the lucky few) would probably "wake up" in time to both feel their injuries and their fall, and to see the "separatist-held" fields rushing up to kill them. :( ---[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::: My indications are they were all dead when they hit the ground. That's not to say some didn't suffer from the first blast up there. Using my (very long ago) rescue triage training, I examined all the body photos for type of injury. The main findings were (a) almost no blood (as the separatist intercepted call rightly claimed) (b)a lot of legs at angles suggesting hip/pelvic fracture (a very common injury in air crashes to people wearing seat belts) and (c) all the bodies appear swollen (in first-day photos). We are thinking of what happened as a decompression, a low-pressure event. But that was preceded by the blast detonation of the missile just outside... a high-pressure event. The very high pressure shock wave compresses the blood vessels and severely damages the lungs. Blood pressure and heart rate go sky high trying to compensate. In 1/2 a second the blast wave is gone and they are in decompression.The heart can't adjust fast enough. The lack of blood flow makes the brain and liver swell up, too, so normal blood circulation cannot be re-established even if the heart recovers. The Lockerbie bomb, and various exploding fuel tank cases, were lower pressure explosions; sadly many would have survived those until ground/water impact.[[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 20:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::So there is evidence of blast wave, not _just_ decompression alone? But no shrapnel wounds? --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 21:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::(cut my comment - I had misread - taken to [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Debunked topics#Bloodless bodies – fake Facebook profiles?|bloodless bodies spot]] FWIW - but I disagree with both the lack of blood and the validity of many "separatist" communications, but if we're not arguing a planeload of corpses being shot down, I won't argue it much.) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
More to the point, leaving the above graphic aside, would be this newer one I should finally add. Basic straight path, 118 and placed as agreed by most sources. Alleged launch location, measures app. My best guess is a 2 km range from 22.75 to 24.75, weighted to the center. Or most likely about 23.75 km out (irrespective of actual projectile flight path, that's where it made contact, but this helps visualize how the alleged launch site might line up with [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Forensics#Direction of projectiles?|the directional forensics]]). --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
[[File:MH17 missile intercept distances.png]]<br />
::Straight line from launch is okay. But impact has to be further north, ie before the most westerly debris. You've used the map which assumes that debris to be blown back by wind. That can't be right, as it included bodies (too dense to blow back) and witnesses saw them and plane sections falling straight down. This only makes about 1 mile difference to the missile range, so does nothing to exclude that launch location. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 01:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::The map of spread is only app., some orange area I made. The pink dot and lines are from a map, Russian analysis, as you say apparently presuming a SSE wind. Debris including people ''would'' be blown back to some degree, all of it, varyingly; trajectory can only do so much when you have five miles of falling, with the breezes acting the whole time, and the lightest parts will be back a bit, whatever direction and as mentioned above, a SSE winds at some time or altitude still isn't ruled out at all). Do we know just where in that area those passengers landed, and what types of things are its far end? ? <br />
(<br />
:::I mean, you could be right and it's a bit further back, maybe with a continuation due east from there and no real wind effect except slightly back. It was only 9-12 mph, and maybe it fell halfway before starting to fall apart, which means less spread. I'm thinking about a possible left turn to explain the north aspect, or it could be wind, or being further back (more north, as well as west), or a combination. The turn has to be a certain size, the wind direction is not certain aside from east prevailin, ... whatever point best explains whatever happened ... we're down to a shrinking agreed range, and as you say, it's all within range of the one spot, so it's not ruled out after all. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 04:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
At this stay of play, I feel it will be helpful to have displayed prominently an overall map reflecting best guess on impact location as well as already flagged suspected launch sites, that is the two launch sites we have been discussing (near Snezhny ; near Chernukhino) , PLUS launch locations flagged and TIMED by released satellite data (currently only Russian data is available). I would be generous with the range here, we can find range suggested by public sources but presumably actual range depends on a number of things (height, radar range, trajectory, wind), and may exceed the "official" range. Another useful graphics piece info would be indicating the front lines, if there is a way to have those known. '''I would be extremely cautious with displaying graphics reflecting just one way of thinking (whether "worst", "best", or "middle of the way"), for the reason that any graphics is easy for human brain to absorb, more than words spread out on all our numerous pages, and ''no graphics at all'' is better than displayed ''skewed'' graphics.''' One-sided graphics may be '''inviting''' even more noise releases "supporting" some already skewed scenarios, and I feel that was already happening way too often. I feel that most helpful stance at this point would be as neutral as it gets. (Regarding trajectories, a default guess is a straight line, anything else requires an explanation. Straight line is implied so no strong need to actually display it, especially if it ends up curling in suggestive funny ways on graphics). --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 09:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::I've been doing a lot of graphics, so not all fired up for more. But if you are, I wouldn't mind making another if it helps. Maybe this is best taken to [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Map#Interception Location]] (a lot of this is redundant, and I might move it, but at least I can say let's stop piling intercept stuff here as well as there). Up to picking a certain spot around Chernukino? Some outskirts area, on a major road, it'll be a guess. A couple guesses could be mapped. Also, if it seems worth it, I can do updates and upload the new version as needed. Any timed satellite launches, let me know. Front lines, not known and IMO misleading in this case. Those who would know would try - and maybe manage - to sneak this thing behind them... the caution about leading labels, I can leave to you - you could just tell me what to put. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
:::::Would take me forever, may try later on, but not immediately; some cleanup/re-arrangement seems the easiest option. (If there are tools for collaborative mapping, may be good to start using those; but not aware of any) --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 11:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The preliminary [[Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Dutch preliminary report|Dutch report]] says the flight recorders were suddenly lost at 13:20:04 UTC at a point that almost exactly matches the 22.6 km mark. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 22:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Plume Location Re-challenged ===<br />
There is another video, essentially giving a bellingcat in voice-altered Russian. We discussed all that essentially; but he seems at least to end up with a claim for geolocation for the plume photo. Seems to be a new one (or I forgot the old one already by now). The claim is based on [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2055 unrelated panoramic photo] somebody took nearby, and [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2025 claimed to be geolocated by presenter]. Here it is on <br />
[http://maps.yandex.ru/-/CVG0nLo~ yandex map] ; it is taken from a terricon located at Lutuginskii bugor(=hill). There is a cableway from there to TsOF (remember, Khuevyi Torez tells about cableway from Lutugino to TsOF, so here they are); [http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=48.012722&lon=38.665695&z=14&m=b&show=/10590043/ru/ЦОФ-им-Киселёва TsOF is central enrichment plant]; photos from TSOF do show a similar [http://photos.wikimapia.org/p/00/00/62/81/85_big.jpg cableway] . So based on that and an audio of locals of unknown provenance and authenticity, discussing a missile-looking trail in the direction of [http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=48.041767&lon=38.741055&z=14&m=b&show=/18687650/ru/Химмаш Khimmash], our presenter [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2107 ends up] with this [http://maps.yandex.ru/-/CVG0rMnO claimed plume location] , somewhere near this Mochalino village. And apart from this, his contribution to the topic is the claim of a white spot on the other side of 3'2 Buk which he claims to match on the way out. I do not believe all those Buk sightings were taken on the same day, and so do not believe in the overall glue-up of the story, but geolocating the plume, no matter what the plume is, remains legitimate. This author gives his answer to that question. Is this geolocation correct? I do not know, it is not tight, there are lots of cableways out there I presume, and some posts nearby are not too unusual. I do not see a tight fit between Lutuginski bugor photo and the plume photo--some elements do match, but those are obviously not identical places. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 02:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Excellent. Let's keep the title. But I guess you just forgot the previous location. This is the same view. The plume could be added, but I doubt it, and it's to that view at a consistent time on a consistent day. I'm not convinced ''all'' Buk sightings are same day, but most of them being so is a good fit with this plume that way, and a plane down with damage that seems consistent to me. (I hate this case) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::Are you sure it's the same? This new one is NNE from Torez, I thought it was placed SE from Torez by [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/launch-location-detected-of-missile.html U@W ]--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::Going back to check, this is a different filming location proposed. Line of sight isn't included, but it seems to be the same line over the same area to the same place. Even before he could see the distinctive mound, Petros (U@W) had [http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-cfSqhRb2dKo/U80x2OxK1XI/AAAAAAAATNk/r42WpH-Bf-Q/s1600/missile+trail+9.jpg this lineup], which includes this spot. Right where Petros pic says "trees" is what this guy decided were the foreground trees where it was filmed. I wondered when checking but decided on the further version. And seems to be the same result either way. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::I don't think this is accurate, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2107 video at this timestamp] gives 'место пуска ракеты' (launch location) near [http://maps.yandex.ru/-/CVGgVPJN Molchalino]. I have not seen this elsewhere, I only seen the one claimed to be SE of Torez. He does not discuss filming location, but shows it on video and assumes it is in Torez near the terricon, which is close to what other sources assume. He does show the line of site on the video; it is nearly perpendicular to U@W. Lots of terricons, coalmines (so likely cableways), and power lines leading there in this area, so location now seems uncertain. As I understand, no solid evidence for either of these two being the correct geolocation (those cableways seems to be quite common) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::::I am/was confused then. I thought it showed a SW view, just from closer to the mound. Now I see at 33:45 a view from right by it, looking NE? Can't explain the other one you see in the distance in the fuller view (right ?) That's kind of towards Molchalino, but that won't explain anything I suspect. (and what a bad fake or odd coincidence to have a plume up there and a the Buk tracking imagery lead to south of Snizhne, oops!) We'll see south and west faces of buildings if looking NE, so sun will be shining from well east of south, but also quite high, like mid-day in the early AM - or maybe just earlier mid-day, like 11 am. That would be another sloppy mistake. I doubt the details will line up. BUT a couple minor things didn't quite seem to the other way, so maybe worth a try (later). --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I will send this comment also to<br />
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/01/27/is-this-the-launch-site-of-the-missile-that-shot-down-flight-mh17<br />
The US map launch location can best best and almost exactly located from the last magnified picture:<br />
https://wp4553-flywheel.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/32.jpg<br />
That location is here:<br />
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.9571993,38.7466343,488m/data=!3m1!1e3<br />
The triangulation result in the last 3 pictures of the article introduces unnecessary error and clearly does not match the magnified picture.<br />
There is a structure that looks similar to an airfield and it is just south of Chervony Zhovten (=Oktyabr), matching with a witness observation in that place ("it was flying as if from Saurivka", though not matching 2 other witnesses in the zello audio, indicating it came from government held positions further south, [2:00] "Well, it appears everybody saw where the missile has flown from." [2:04] "Well, where you are, everybody saw it, but the Ukrainian media, as usual, will say, will say that that were us.")<br />
It would be outside the range of the plume picture geolocation bounds, which may be either an error given the long distance, or, the plume picture was taken the day before from the reported grad missile launch (as well as the burned field). (The photographer gave his camera to the SBU after twittering the first picture, so later pictures and dates can not be taken for sure).<br />
http://7mei.nl/not-buk-m1-new-video-proof/--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 19:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:(1) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkCcCmYlMZc That audio], as it turns out, was posted by Torezinfo on 24 July, and updated on 1 February. Torezinfo is a favorite posting place of Khuevyi Torez(=KT), who posted a very [https://twitter.com/WowihaY/status/489914266439671808 similar location map on 17 July already]. KT mentions zello recordings on 25 July in the follow-up, so shortly after it gets on torezinfo. With all that stuff linked to this KT poster, I would not put much trust that any of that is genuine. (Or that this KT poster is not acting as a medium for SBU). (2)[http://fr1.sidcdn.net/maps/nsdc/2014/07/large/map-nsdc-2014-07-17-uk-w3000.jpg Ukrainian map] does give us some Ukrainian held area somewhere to the South, but from that map it is hard to tell where exactly opolchenie ends and UAF begins--(I would not know) (3) Actually, going from there, not likely to hit on the left side--so having it from Artemovsk (as Bezler told, indeed) seems most probable --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 21:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:: Here is another map http://liveuamap.com/e/2014/16-of-july-saurivka-is-bombarded-over-and-over-by-rus-grad?ll=47.907137219641115;38.75392913818363&zoom=8<br />
::And here is an article which says that both Marinovka and Tarany were held by National guard. http://www.interpretermag.com/ukraine-liveblog-day-149-russian-tanks-and-artillery-reach-donetsk/#3353<br />
::I just opened bellingcat https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/01/27/is-this-the-launch-site-of-the-missile-that-shot-down-flight-mh17 and see that large parts of the article disappeared, I think they are working on it. That location given by the US photo does not really match well with the plume direction anymore, lets see what they come up with--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 21:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::I believe Marinovka was [http://lifenews.ru/news/136715 taken by opolchenie on 16 July] (lifenews report). Tarany--do not know, perhaps still Ukraine, but not totally sure. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 21:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::: other sources say attack was repelled and forced them to retreat to Stepanivka http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_in_Shakhtarsk_Raion http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/213817.html--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 22:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::: That US photo launch location differs by an angle of about 11 (?) degrees from the brown line in the bellingcat plot (measured from the photographer's location). https://wp4553-flywheel.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/101.jpg (launch location is just visible below the letter 'p' of 'the word 'suspected'). I think this a lot and puts the 'plume' into question. But then there is only the US photo, which itself could be a production based on social media (or worse).--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 22:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Well some believed this is for real, then they got a case to answer [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/22/mh17-us-intelligence-russia-separatists-report Guardian: Photograph: US intelligence community] [https://twitter.com/barbarastarrcnn/status/491559153559932928/photo/1 @barbarastarrcnn] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
In the following, I assume that most of the social media pieces and leaked audio tapes are correct and connect the dots in a different way:<br />
<br />
1. On July 14, an Ukrainian Antonow 26 airplane was shot down by a missile near the Russian border town of Donetsk.<br />
http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/what-weapon-was-used-to-shot-down-ukraine-air-force-antonov-26-at-july-14/<br />
The video in above link showed the missile flying for 39 seconds until it hit. Only a BUK can fly that long, a manpad or Pantsir, also claimed to have been used, not (see first comment in link).<br />
<br />
2. According to a recorded audio tape published by the Ukrainian Secret Service SBU, rebels possessed a BUK ('BUK3x2') in the Donetsk area at least since July 14 ('we already have BUK'). At that date it may have been either on Russian or already rebel held territory.<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVAOTWPmMM4<br />
<br />
3. A social media search discovered only one other system in the area, capable of shooting down AN26 - a Pantsir. However, a Pantsir can't fly for 39 seconds. Based on a max.speed of 780m/s and max range of 20km, it can only fly for about 25s.<br />
http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.co.nz/2014/11/unnoticed-video-of-26-downing-confirms.html<br />
Therefore and because of the crew's intent to engage in the civil war, it is likely that AN26 was shot down by BUK3x2. Afterwards BUK3x2 had only 3 missiles left.<br />
<br />
4. On July 16, Ukrainian and rebel statements both confirmed the shoot down of a SU-25 plane near the "Marinivka border crossing", which is only a few kilometers south-south east of Pervomaiske, the destination of BUK3x2. Ukraine's defence ministry said: "It is likely that [the hit] was carried out by air-to-air rockets from the Russian air force which were patrolling the border in a pair." <br />
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-28345039<br />
This may have been another reason to install a BUK system in this area on the next day, leaving room for an accidental Ukrainian shoot down, apart from an accidental rebel shoot down and a willful Ukrainian false flag shoot down.<br />
<br />
5. On July 16, rebels fired grad missiles from a location near Pervomaiske. The plume may have been photographed as well by an SBU informant in Torez and twittered on the next day, claiming to show the launch of the missile hitting MH17.<br />
http://7mei.nl/not-buk-m1-new-video-proof/<br />
<br />
6. On July 17, BUK3x2 was seen in rebel territory on its way to Pervomaiske, south of Torez. Ukrainian SBU knew about the arrival latest since July 14 and about its destination latest July 17 morning, allowing a false flag operation from positions held nearby.<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVAOTWPmMM4<br />
<br />
7. There was an ongoing battle in the region with "fluent" contact lines. Marinivka and Tarany, about 8 kilometers south-east and south of Pervomaiske, were controlled by Ukrainian National Guard as well as all of the border region. Marinivka would match well with the direction of the Torez plume photo.<br />
http://liveuamap.com/e/2014/16-of-july-saurivka-is-bombarded-over-and-over-by-rus-grad?ll=47.907137219641115;38.75392913818363&zoom=8<br />
http://www.interpretermag.com/ukraine-liveblog-day-149-russian-tanks-and-artillery-reach-donetsk/#3353<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_in_Shakhtarsk_Raion<br />
<br />
8. The Russian Defense ministry claimed in a news conference, that on July 17, Ukraine installed several BUK system near rebel held areas.<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bNPInuSqfs#t=1567<br />
<br />
9. In a popular 'zello' audio recording, witnesses in the area were talking about the launch of the missile hitting MH17. A witness from "Oktyabr" (Chervony Zhovten) claimed "it was flying as if from Saurivka". <br />
Two other witnesses said:<br />
[2:00] "Well, it appears everybody saw where the missile has flown from."<br />
[2:04] "Well, where you are, everybody saw it, but the Ukrainian media, as usual, will say, will say that that were us."<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkCcCmYlMZc<br />
<br />
10. A Reuter's witness also claimed that the missile was fired from Kiev held territory. Reuters, however, said, "off camera, he said that it was launched from a nearby rebel site. Asked why originally he said the opposite he said it was because he was afraid of the rebels."<br />
In a new interview this witness claims that "off camera comments were just made up by the [Reuters] journalist".<br />
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=497_1427729491<br />
<br />
11. BUK3x2 was again photographed in Lugansk with its 3 missiles, no missile fired since July 14.<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4HJmev5xg0<br />
<br />
12. The US presented a very low resolution satellite photo with the track of a missile added. The launch location does not match well with the direction geolocated with the Torez plume photo, it deviates by about 11 degrees in angle, hence either or both appear to be incorrect.<br />
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/01/27/is-this-the-launch-site-of-the-missile-that-shot-down-flight-mh17/#comment-12493<br />
<br />
13. Award winning investigative journalist Robert Parry reported about leaked US intelligence "that U.S. intelligence agencies do have detailed satellite images of the likely missile battery that launched the fateful missile, but the battery appears to have been under the control of Ukrainian government troops dressed in what look like Ukrainian uniforms."<br />
https://consortiumnews.com/2014/07/20/what-did-us-spy-satellites-see-in-ukraine/<br />
And later Parry wrote: "But I’m now told that U.S. intelligence analysts ... are concentrating on the scenario of a willful Ukrainian shoot-down of the plane, albeit possibly not knowing its actual identity."<br />
https://consortiumnews.com/2014/08/03/flight-17-shoot-down-scenario-shifts/<br />
<br />
14. During the coming months BUK shrapnel may have been collected from the AN26 wreckage and planted in the MH17 wreckage.--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 00:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Photographer Statement===<br />
[http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com.au/2014/12/interview-with-eyewitness-who-made.html Reported to say] : "That day did not foretell anything special would happen. In the morning I woke up and went to my work. At four ó clock in the afternoon I arrived home. And at 16:20 we heard an explosion. The first explosion was not very heavy. 15 seconds later, something like that, there was a second explosion, which was louder and it made the windows shake."<br />
: Did not foretell --an ass, --is this lawyer-written? 'We heard". --Took till December to polish up ? --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 16:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:: Agreed. 'I did not know in advance this would happen.' Uh, who said you might? And 15 seconds must be rocket travel. Did he hear the firing from there? Could be, not that far. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Time delay consideration ===<br />
Photographer reported two sound booms td=15 seconds apart; an interpretation may be launch and impact sounds arriving to him in Torez. If P=(0,0,0) is photographer cordinates, I=(d,0, h) is impact, with d ground distance between Torez and Rozypnoe, h is the height of flight at 10 km , and L =(x,y,0) is launch location, dist(A,B) is Euclidean distance between A and B, c is peed of sound, and n (about 2.5) is missile speed in Machs, then<br />
<br />
(1). dist (P,L) = dist(L,I)/n + dist (I,P) - td*c <br />
<br />
(2). dist (P,L) >= h/n + dist (I,P) - td*c <br />
<br />
(1) is a biquadratic equation for y given x (square enough times for square root to disappear); plotting that gives a closed 'ellipse-like' curve on (x,y) plane; once on that curve, time delay is exactly td seconds (doing this involves solving quadratic equations and removing spurious solutions not satisfying (1) ) . That curve is at distance about 13 km in NW direction from photographer in Torez, and about 22 km in SE direction from him on the Southern ( Saur Mogila side). <br />
<br />
(2) gives a simple estimate that distance between photographer and launcher is greater than the known right hand side; that distance is more than something like 13 km<br />
<br />
(3) Requiring launch withing the range, --launch is not more than 20 km horizontally from the impact-- selects a NW arc of the curve described in (1) ; that arc is to the NW from Torez, and goes slightly NW from the impact point (meaning its ground projection). <br />
<br />
Conclusion, based on the above, is that launch is too far from the photographer, to match the photo. <br />
<br />
(Knowing exact time delay can tighten the argument. With what's actually known, and objection can be raised that whatever actual time delay was, it appeared to be 15 seconds to the photographer. Graphics of the curve may be supplied if needed). --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Ooh. That kind of math could really come in handy with recorded audio cues, for example. But based on '15 seconds, something like that,' from memory months later, I wouldn't put any weight on it. If that turns out correct and pretty exact, there's a good point. Otherwise, the photo and other stuff is more solid, and says it's just about where it should be, as far as I've seen anyway. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Contrail ==<br />
This is what an "impressive launch contrail" of a big missile might look like.<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3lLwP1y0w8 АТО. Запуск двух ТРК Точка-У. Артемовск.] (ATO. The launch of two TRK Tochka-U. Artemivs'k.) – August 28, 2014<br />
-- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 22:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Something happens in the sky. This is the people's reaction:<br />
* ''20/09/2014 Over many parts of the DPR and LPR were seen circles in the sky.'' [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7310 1,] [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7311 2,] [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7312 3,] [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7313 4,] [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7314 5]<br />
-- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 03:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
Tochka U missile is single stage solid fuel, which is a mixture of ammonium perchlorate with rubber and aluminum powder (Russian [http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/tochka/9ch151.shtml "ДАП–15В" fuel] ).<br />
I could not find information on Buk with a comparable level of detail. Buk missile is single stage, solid fuel of some type, "dual-mode solid propellant (total work time - about 15 seconds)" [http://www.webcitation.org/67kZeZxeh] , [http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-9K37-Buk.html]<br />
Earlier "Куб" ("Cube") missile used [http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/kub/kub.shtml 'ballist' fuel,] [https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%85#.D0.91.D0.B0.D0.BB.D0.BB.D0.B8.D1.81.D1.82.D0.B8.D1.82.D0.BD.D1.8B.D0.B5 gunpowder] + plasticiser type (Russian "ВИК-2") at the start, followed by some sort of ramjet ("direct flow rocket engine") at final stage. It is not clear, but possible, that fuels and contrails of Tochka U and Buk are different. Here are some videos with Buk launch: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDXScnEKaP0] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EAtNpsXrgWs], and [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSXMhaFntrU a longer with stupid music version]. Those videos appear to be shot from a closer distance than Tochka U video; and a contrail on them does look quite impressive. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 10:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:The amount of smoke is highly dependant om Alumin(i)um loading. In general more aluminum is more 'oomph' and also more smoke.<br />
:On the other hand, it's common to alter the loading for other reasons. I refer to the Syrian Volcano (122mm variety) that started out as high Al-load and quite smokey but recent versions have low Al load but perhaps similar characteristics? --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 10:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Here is something that might be a BUK: Ukrainian AN-26 shot down from Russian border area on July 14th. Ukraine@war claims it as a BUK. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 10:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
* [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.fi/2014/11/unnoticed-video-of-26-downing-confirms.html Unnoticed video of AN-26 downing confirms shot down from Russian territory] – Ukraine@war, November 27, 2014<br />
** Video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoS4kgHxPnE Ukrainian Military Aircraft Su-25 Downed After Russian Attack Near Izvarino, July 16]<br />
:::Does not look like Buk, short contrail, --not all the way to the ground like on Buk video launches. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::It was a BUK. It flew 39 seconds in the video, a Pantsyr can't do this, see also first comment in this link http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/what-weapon-was-used-to-shot-down-ukraine-air-force-antonov-26-at-july-14/. Easy maths - at Mach 3 (1020m/s) it can fly for about 42 seconds (range 42 km, bit more because initially it is slower). According to the audio tape, BUK 3x2 was in the area on that day! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVAOTWPmMM4 Ukraine@war needed 5 months to find something else in the area, but the Pantsyr can't fly that long. This is how BUK 3x2 likely lost a missile.--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 21:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::::Well, yes, it does takes 42 seconds to fly 42 km at 1000 m/s , but that does not mean what we see '''must be''' a Buk. They start discussing that plane caught fire at 0:03 on the video already. We do not see what on hell is going on until some 30 s later. This plane likely was brought down by Igla or similar modern MANPAD. Possibly two hits, at 0:03 and another at around 0:30. Or it got on fire at the start of the video and than eventually went down (It is unlikely to have SU 25 pilot bailing out after Buk strike; or particularly likely catching fire as it's not aiming at the engine; contrail is weak for a Buk, too). Pantsir claims are much later from what I have seen,--- and no need for Pantsir to shoot SU 25. ---If something is there on SBU audio and some murky photo, does not mean it's all for real, and that what we do actually see all have to be linked to all that murky SBU stuff. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 22:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::::There may be some confusion here, just a recapture<br />
::::::First video https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xTT6BDRA8_k<br />
::::::0:03-0:11 buring object <br />
::::::0:17-0:33 contrail making a half looping<br />
::::::Second video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoS4kgHxPnE<br />
::::::0:29-0:39 contrail making a half looping + detonation.<br />
::::::ukraine@war http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/11/unnoticed-video-of-26-downing-confirms.html<br />
::::::says both videos show AN26 shoot down on July 14 (second video with wrong label SU-25)<br />
::::::says 2nd video impact at 0:39, claims missile has been burning for at least 39 seconds--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 06:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::::::After reconsideration, I would say ukraine@war is right, both videos show AN26 shoot down, but wrong, people were initially watching AN26 with engine burning and a second missile was fired. That missile was seen burning about 16 seconds in first video, and time has to be added to reach that altitude/location, so likely over 20 seconds. That would exclude man-pad, Pantsir (?), likely BUK, R73 air-to-air, ...--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 06:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Actually, it is interesting to know how contrail of Buk on a long haul launch looks like. It is said that it fires engine for some 15 seconds only (and unknown will it do less, if it can do away with less). That 15 seconds need to put it at a spot where it can reach the target with little, if any, engine work and doing turns only. It is not very clear how much targeting happens in the first 15 seconds, likely it does some; and it is self-guided and doing proportional navigation later on. Knowing details here allows to find exact trajectory, short of that thinking it goes straight to the collision point is a sensible idea. In any case, heavy contrail '''raising from the ground''', perhaps higher than the target is. Contrail is white, and stays put for a while. Seriously heavier than the stuff we see on social media. There are youtube videos of Buk launches giving an idea --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:These 15 seconds are wrong. Here is a video (start at 2:00) showing a SA-11 burn fuel for 35 seconds until its too far to distinguish. It is detonating at 42 seconds. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBlU2hHYJMg (I just copied the comment from here http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/what-weapon-was-used-to-shot-down-ukraine-air-force-antonov-26-at-july-14/ )--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 23:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::That video probably shows a modern version ('over horizon' capability was mentioned somewhere regarding modern developments; this one seems to be showing us something like that). 15 sec is coming from Russian sources [http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/buk/buk.shtml Зенитная ракета 9М38 выполнена с применением двухрежимного твердотопливного двигателя (общее время работы - около 15 секунд)]. Older versions also had shorter listed range. 22-25-35-42 km range, going through modifications. (Would be happier without 15 sec engine limit actually-easier to know trajectory) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::Actually what goes off is [https://digitalempire.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/9m38m1.jpg 9M38M1], the one supposed to have [http://pvo.guns.ru/buk/buk_02.htm 15 sec engine run], but the video lasts for 40 sec. This appears to be edited video, around 2:30 we got two tracks, than one slides right unreasonably for a natural recording. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 02:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::Since this is a point we haven't already covered around that I know of, I'll pop in for it. 42 seconds I gather is the time for the fuel to burn out and the thing to fall, like a grad rocket or the like can only do. But this is a missile with guidance, set to intercept a moving airliner. Therefore, app. 40-45 seconds is the longest, not the shortest, it can fly (or am I just confused?) But 15 seconds is plausible, depending. Still might be untrue, not trusting people saying stuff. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::::After the engine is off it is high up and and at high speed, still can fly until gravity acceleration brings it down, and is on guided flight -unlike Grad-because fins can move causing it to turn. Issues here are visuals (contrail all the way or only about 15 km in flight), and trajectory. With engine on for 40 +secs it will go straight to collision point doing proportional navigation all the way (exploding earlier if it needs to be). If it is only 15 sec, trajectory is less clear, it may for example use engine to climb high up, than do guided fall and proportional navigation to the target from a spot where engine delivered it (for low and close-by target, that may potentially end up with a hit from another side--some drawings from unclear sources were showing opposite side hits at under 1 km and direct hits at 10-15 km). Or it may use engine to end up on a ballistic trajectory hitting target (no side changing than). This is solid fuel engine so there is not much control on how quickly it burns off, that time is a set design feature. What we see on launch video is 40+ seconds of engine work-- will go direct to collision point in that case. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 12:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::::That's another clue that plume of smoke photo is not a Buk launch, that would give at least some 10-15 km worth of contrail, not a plume; with 40+seconds engine, contrail all the way to impact...(or else, launched from far away, over 40 km distance) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 12:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==About accents==<br />
<br />
[http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29109398 This report,] released one day before the preliminary official report, recycles visual imagery already discussed on this page, and attempts a new claim that a BUK crew spoke with Russian-'Muscovite' accent. The claim is made by (British-accent) actors representing 'eyewitness(es)', with a visual imagery of a car at unknown night-lighted location in the embedded video, and some text, provided in English. Regarding 'Muscovite' accent, first it is not easy to tell, for example [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBCfmlMkYMg this video] is Mr. Poroshenko speaking in Russian to a resident of Crimea, replying in Russian, and commented by a presenter, who is speaking 'Muscovite'. Although Mr. Poroshenko has a slight southern accent, there is little difference between the three speakers in practice. Moreover, actors and presenters can easily switch from Southern to Muscovite as required. <br />
<br />
Secondly, if somebody speaks 'Muscovite', this does not mean this person works for Russia or the rebels,--- he can work for any side (PS. No change of condition to the blue dumpster on Zuhres video was reported in this latest update). --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Thanks for bringing this. What a stupid report. "Three eyewitnesses, all civilians, separately told Panorama that they saw a missile-launcher in rebel-held territory a few hours before the Boeing jet was hit." Yeah, video shows the same. It was there. It probably shot down the plane. Accents, as you note, aren't the best indicator of anything, and even the reason sounds vague: the G thing, which even I know about (back to Olga/Olha). The "Russians" might even be Russian dissident mercenaries right from Moscow, for all we know. Who paid them? Their going up to the media and saying "you didn't see us" was not a good plan to stay secret. The witnesses: chosen at random? Directed to them? <br />
::''If correct, the Kremlin has to explain to the relatives of the 298 passengers and crew who died - including ten Britons - why Russian military personnel were allegedly seen in the area escorting a BUK shortly before MH17 was shot down.''<br />
:I think Russia could come up with a reason or two such allegations are made. Those ten Britons' tax dollars fund it. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: Hmm, this foreigner is confused by dat BBC talk: "If correct" ... doesn't that mean it ''wouldn't be'' merely "allegedly" but, well, correct? ;oP --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 23:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::It means "If {made up vague allegation) is correct....then "SHOCK HORROR CONCLUSION IS TRUE". this lets them be as wild or wide off the mark as they like and the magic "if correct" turns it true. Without any effort to check if it IS true in our understanding of that word.[[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 03:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::Another BBC weapon in its arsenal of innuendo and dissimulation is the quotation mark. Whenever they are dealing with something of dodgy provenance, or something of good provenance they want to weaken they put it in quotation marks. e.g. - ISIS beheaded 20 Syrians. becomes ISIS 'beheaded 20 Syrians' or 'ISIS' beheaded 20 Syrians or ISIS 'beheaded' 20 'Syrians' or ISIS beheaded '20' Syrians. No need for corrections later. Any version can be retrospectively justified or otherwise. --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 03:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== If Buk 3x2 Was in Russia ==<br />
Previously, it seemed quite likely the Buk launcher associated with the shoot-down was one of those owned and operated by the Kiev regime, simply snuck into separatist territory, maybe with some cover to make them even invite it in like a Trojan Horse. Then, I saw the November Bellingcat research on "Buk 3x2." As covered [[#Bellingcat and 3x2|above,]] this claims to match that unit with a distinct one seen three weeks earlier, driving in a military convoy well inside Russian territory. This is widely taken as clear proof the Russian military supplied the weapons, and it is strongly indicative of that. However, the general possibilities are worth laying out at this point.--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
All options below share these presumptions: <br />
* MH17 was brought down by the missing SA-11 missile AND/OR (in some cases) at least the launcher's appearance was coordinated to give that impression and is a clue to the plot <br />
* The videos and photos in question are genuine and not manipulated (my usual presumption, same here)<br />
* The Russia geolocations (many of them, making sense in context) are correct - Buk 3x2 as seen was seen in Russia, between Kurk, Stary Oskol, and a bit south of there (not verified but most likely correct) <br />
<br />
Presuming all that:<br />
* Buk 3x2 (seen in Russia) and the mystery one are not the same - this require paint job match and matching damage to the lip above the track to make a Kiev-owned unit look like that one. It's possible, but not the most compelling.<br />
* The two units are the same - it was in the convoy in Russia and also towed around Donetsk oblast July 17. <br />
<br />
If the unit is the same, there are a few possibilities for the nature of that connection, some of them silly or just there for logical fullness:<br />
* It was Kiev's unit and they snuck it over and into this convoy, and...<br />
** ... got it back later<br />
** ... the Russians kept it and used it for their own operation<br />
* It was Kiev's but some other way lost to the Russians <br />
* It was Russia's but Kiev managed to sneak over and steal it out of the convoy and then use it for the false-flag event<br />
* Same, but Donbass rebels then stole it from Kiev <br />
* It was Russian, and someone on the Russian side drove it over and then it was stolen by Kiev forces <br />
* Someone on the Russian side drove it over and it stayed in their control or handed over to their chosen parties, or transferred at the border - that is, no Kiev interference.<br />
<br />
So far, I'm inclined to call Bellingcat's reading (the last option, the widely accepted one) the single most reasonable one, though maybe outweighed by the ''combined'' alternatives. It's not fun to feel almost swayed to a view so close to Kiev's problematic narrative, but this is what I see, pretty basic. Some combined maybes go against the straightforward reading. As for other thoughts I might be missing, well, that's partly why it's here. Let me know, I'm all ears. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Starting from that reasonable if unproven last option, not one but three final types of possibility remain. If it was freely moving in convoy inside Russia, it probably belongs to Russia at the time. Presumed. However, it could be that...<br />
* '''A rogue officer''' at Kursk - maybe a closet Nazi who sympathizes with Kiev, hates Putin, or just took a bribe - provided this unit to Kiev. He would set up this convoy to anchor the thing in Russia, then send the shady unit on, with his own guys or to hand off to Kiev's, who took it from there as I've speculated. The strangely obvious manner it was displayed - on both sides of the border, with its number slowly fading away - is consistent with this motive + intelligence. <br />
* '''It happened as reported''' (one way or another) Putin's military signed off on the loan, apparently with a sent crew or maybe given to local handlers, who for their own purposes did fire that shot. The strangely obvious manner it was displayed is consistent with this + stupidity/sloppiness, providing proof that probably wasn't even needed, just helpful, to start the punishment. At that point, it would be a real problem about as trumpeted, and still I would suggest we consider what the real crime is under the circumstances, if the solutions pursued are fair, or if this is all just geo-politics and warfare by other means cloaked in a cynical disguise of concern for justice. ^ <br />
* '''Koo-koo (?):''' "as reported plus" - a mega conspiracy theory: it goes all the way to the top, and Putin is that rogue general selling the nation out, to demonize himself and Russia and be sure to get caught, in an elaborate staged play - Putin (or whoever's running things presumed to be run by HIM) is somehow controlled, his opposition scripted and ultimately geared towards provoking and achieving an expansion of "The West" into "The North." (I've always considered this possible, and one that's occurred to me more lately, and seems worth listing ... but I don't buy it. I'm going with "rogue officer" with a second bet on one of the other divergence points listed before that - unspecified. Third choice is "as reported.")--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::^ Not to apologize for egregious behavior if it really is that, but let's please compare this to the shoot-down of Iran Air 655 by the USS Vincennes in 1988. A US Naval ship illegally in Iranian waters shot down an Iranian passenger plane with 290 people aboard, despite all the safeguards and sensors working correctly (the consistent clues the ship's computers gave them saying "do not shoot" can only be overridden so totally by choice). But it was deemed by the US to be no crime, just accident and Iran's fault for being provocative, and useful in the effort to compel them to quit the war with Iraq they were just starting to win. In Ukraine, repeated Air Force attacks on rebel-held cities, often hiding their jets behind civilian airliners, might both justify arming the rebels with such defensive weaponry, and invite an honest mistake from a team running this machine in stand-alone mode. The SBU version however overrides this all: it was an accident, but the Russians' intent was never defensive, always planning to kill an airliner, just meaning it to be a different one. That would clearly be criminal in all regards, and it's a sub-set of "as reported" - not a very good one. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Sorry, I can't help you here as I don't share your presumptions. I consider it a waste of time and energy to connect dots that are laid out by "sources" like the SBU and Brown Noses - proven liars and at least in case of the former producers of fraud "evidence" - and therefore I didn't even read your logical chains based on them. Just saying to not make it appear that I agree. ;o) --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 10:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:Poking at specific presumptions could be helpful, but it all could go on and on and remain inconclusive anyway. And I take back what I say about leaning this way or that - I keep leaning different ways and on balance I'm feeling sort of weightless here. I think that comes through in the text... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I don't see the numbers matching, getting close is not good enough, and I quit it there. Yes, it is weird that they are close, and that this murky business is covered by Spiegel, but can't really help with any of that. There is lots of murky weird stuff going on all the time, can't change the whole world to stop it. (Also: the Russian Government would be fully capable of doing a painting job properly if deciding to starting painting at all, their food trucks are all nicely painted, etc; just too sloppy for them to be behind) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:The paint being what it is, between that and the bend and light patch below all lining up, I think we're down to the same unit, or faked to match, and the possibilities branching off those two. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::As discussed earlier, the dot is shifted off the middle, more on Russian video than in PM photo; in Russian video, number 2 has well-curved semi-circle; in PM, it is almost straight segment. Bad photos for comparison but it's off, as far as it's possible to tell. As for the skirt bend, too blurry and distorted on PM to tell; Russian video, I think it is actually dirt, not a bend. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Also, looks like two squares , a bit darker than background, over first digit in PM photo. Unclear is it paint or digital camera effect. Any sane person hiding something will paint over everything, not paint just specifically over the first digit. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::I think I got everything linesd up - it has to be de-skewed the same, and all ines up. You might be scraping bottom on this one. The curve is there, at its elongated part, at an angle. The dent/dirt looks the same, same place, relative to the light patch and all else. It's too much for coincidence by a couple of degrees. BUT I just shifted back to option ... should have numbered them. ... the middle starting option - image authenticity. I hardly ever call digital image fakery, and not calling it here, but... I still haven't checked the new (to us) June videos, so I'll stay presuming it might be okay - video's harder to fake than a photo. But on the other end, it all comes down to the one photo. That I noticed, no other views are close enough to say if these matching clues are present. (the bend, maybe). The squares you noticed, maybe a paint clue or just artifacting. It may too pixelly. I cannot really analyze the technicals properly to say. It looks okay, but possibly fishy too. Maybe the dirty windshield helps hid the painted in pixels to make this thing - just once - or maybe again in other images - look like that Russian 3x2 unit, exaggerated and going into rebel hands... Some kind of coincidences setting that up to work, but it's possible, and an expert should look closer at this picture. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC) <br />
::::I, --at the very start of discussion,-- zoomed picture on screen (by a lot), and measured length ratios (to the dot/ total panel length), parallel to the 2 sides of the panel, using ruler (millimeters one) over screen. I ended up with ratios in horizontal side of panel directions were off, by more than blurring; in vertical, could not tell-within blurring. This is not sensitive to skewing or zooming. So I don't think it's the same. May double-check measurement when have time; or somebody else can. Did not have time to try doing digital version of the same/similar method. Did not look carefully at comparison the 2 after de-skewing , but have an impression this is different; not that much skewing there; it looks essentially straight line on PM, skewing will not make circle into a line. May look at 2's some other time. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::::Finally took a closer look and PM was still off a bit on rotation and vertical-to-horizontal - in line with your observations. Still working out the adjusted graphic. The white is shifted a bit left of lining up perfectly... I think it's still close enough it's the same or is supposed to be, and not far enough off I'd call a bad fake - probably just pixel shift. Will see tonight. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 00:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Okay, I don't have a comprehensible graphic handy yet, but Maybe Resup is seeing what I am now. I was having a hard time aligning it all, so focused just one the one rectangle panel with the number. Still, on the PM photo I trace apparent edges, best line of dark pixels ... it lines up, proportion-wise, with the white spots on or a hair to apparent left. But when the whole image is placed by lining up that center, the rest of it doesn't line up - both sides seem shifted right, or the middle shifted left. (also the track areas appear far to the left, but they stick out a bit, and from the back angle flattened like this, that's why. Each difference in relief from "true flat" plane of the side will cause this... maybe I'm just not correlating it right, and maybe it's a clue the photo is messed with. possible offsets in both white patches as well, but maybe too in the natural fuzz zone. ?? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
If the launcher was driven over the Russian border, fired once then driven back again after it had carried out its mission, the part of the story that doesn't make sense is the sighting on a stolen flatbed truck outside Donetsk. If the Russians were prepared to supply a launcher but not a truck, the stolen truck would have had to be driven to the border to be loaded and there'd be no reason to risk a journey back to Donetsk. The west to east journey is more consistent with CL's original suggestion of a launcher from the Ukrainian base north of Donetsk. If this was a false flag, there would have had to be a paint job to give it Russian markings (maybe to match one in a recent video). Otherwise the videos would point to separatists with a captured Ukrainian BUK, leaving the Ukrainian government liable for failing to close its airspace when it knew that a BUK had gone missing. [[User:Pmr9|Pmr9]] ([[User talk:Pmr9|talk]]) 16:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:Now this sounds engaged, thanks P. Yes, why drive it to Donetsk? (Other than to be seen in the smoking-gun rebel capitol, before getting seen in Lugansk too) And I never thought of that why it had to be Russian. Indeed, for liability reasons, it had to be a snuck-in surprise, not captured (unless they could come up with a reason why they didn't learn about it, and I suppose they could). The suggestion has problems and was slow to gain adherents, but maybe this kind of thought has swayed people to realize Kiev "must be right" about that... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Sunday Times story: original is behind paywall but reprint [http://malaysiandigest.com/news/531506-ukraine-ignored-warning-to-close-malaysia-airlines-flight-mh17-airspace-before-tragedy.html here]. Eurocontrol's experts "spoke privately to their Ukrainian counterparts" about their concerns but Ukraine refused to close its airspace. "Ukraine intelligence sources said they had been made aware that several anti-aircraft systems had crossed from Russia into Ukraine at least a week before the MH17 incident. But they claimed the intelligence was not “100 per cent reliable” and could not have been used as grounds for 'drastic moves' such as shutting airspace". [[User:Pmr9|Pmr9]] ([[User talk:Pmr9|talk]])<br />
:::Okay, well there's a train headed this way then. Several units? The whole June convoy? We do have this alleged maybe-Buk launch just before on July 14, an associated loader seen later, etc. And Ukie intel somehow did point to this number "312" you can't see on the unit they tracked so quickly. Did they already have that obscure Russian video everyone missed until now? And more yet showing the "1" still there? That early on? (that's all very speculative, but interesting). It has to be snuck in, maybe, but then it helps that you can vouch for it - so they fudge and average this aspect. Main point then seems to be, whatever failures they mumble out on their own end, it has to implicate both Russia (provided weapon) and the rebels (held the space needing demonized).--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references /></div>Antidyatelhttps://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17/BUK_Tracking&diff=22543Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/BUK Tracking2015-06-05T11:25:29Z<p>Antidyatel: /* Paris Match Photo */ corrected the link indicating 9am</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:MH17]]<br />
==Who Has the BUK Launchers in Ukraine?==<br />
=== Kiev's Holdings ===<br />
<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3MomxNHnUA#t=288 Ukrainian Buk in ATO area], 16 July 2014. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 23:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CBQbFC9loc#t=350 Captured map] of 1 battalion of UAF 95 air-mobile brigade, dated beginning of July 2014, show location of 2 positions of Ukrainian Buks. Basurin points them on the map; but video resolution is insufficient to see those. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 05:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Maps can be faked, but still I'm curious what it shows. I imagine there might be a flat image of the map somewhere. Resup, could you maybe have a look? It's too slow for me to try an image search with translated words. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
::I have not seen the map in news reports mentioning the finding; and now I see it says explicitly that they are not going to make it public, [http://real-info.info/novorossiya/13429-vlasti-dnr-ne-budut-obnarodovat-karty-vsu-do-okonchaniya-rassledovaniya-krusheniya-mh17 until MH 17 investigation is completed]--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 23:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::Here is a press conference report--with video but not the map --[https://vk.com/strelkov_info?w=wall-57424472_57351 (Basurin press conference)]--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 23:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== BUK 312 and comrades ====<br />
[[File:Buk 312 sbu.jpg|thumb|left|BUK 312 on a trailer. Photo shown on SBU website and later removed. – ''[[:File:Buk 312 sbu.jpg|more...]]'']]<br />
Part of the material the Ukrainian SBU released to suggest that "rebels" shot down MH17 with a BUK, was photo material showing a BUK TELAR numbered 312 on a trailer, alleging it has been photographed on its way back to Russia. This was quickly shown to be extremely questionable as evidence surfaced showing number 312 in Ukrainian hands. The SBU then removed the photos from their website while other material like a suggestive photo showing a "plume" remained there. <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Buk 321.png|thumb|TELAR 321 as posted by @MOR2537 to illustrate what he alleges to have witnessed]]<br />
This was outlined (and a screenshot saved) in more detail [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/07/21/the-mh17-investigation-and-buk-312/ over at Human Rights Investigations]. A [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bj-VZB0ZdEA video embedded there] shows BUK 312 in Ukrainian hands back in March. The other two TELAR's seen in the video are numbers 323 and 321. BUK 321 [http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Ukrainian+government+forces+maneuver+antiaircraft+missile+launchers+they+transported+north+west+from+Slavyansk+eastern+Ukraine+Friday+July+2014+Photo+Dmitry+Lovetsky/10004193/story.html has been seen] in Ukrainian hands just two weeks before MH17 crashed, transported close to "liberated" Slavyansk. <br />
<br />
Interestingly enough, one of the tweets [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com/2014/07/reconstruction-of-whereabouts-of-buk.html spoon-fed by Ukrainian loyalists to imaginative Dutch blogger Ukraine@War] to suggest that there have been eyewitnesses for a "rebel" BUK, is then [https://twitter.com/MOR2537/status/489709431467171841 followed-up by the alleged eyewitness] with a picture of BUK 321 to illustrate what he has seen. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::yep, he is a conduit for Kiev but seems to have outside info, too. Like originals of photos he can get geolocations off (he says). But also has good collection of very early photos etc which have since become hard to find.Not sure I trust him though. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 15:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::I hadn't seen that before, thanks. I'll be considering... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 22:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: More photos: [http://www.armyrecognition.com/images/stories/east_europe/russia/missile_vehicle/sa-11_gadfly/pictures/sa-11_gadfly_anti-aircraft_missile_to_armoured_tracked_vehicle_Russian_army_russia_011.jpg 321] - [http://rt.com/files/news/2a/b1/40/00/640x480.jpg 312] - [http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1870560.1405614701!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_970/correction-ukraine.jpg 321] --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:Buk 312 in Lugansk.png|thumb|left|According to alleged former operator "A", this is BUK 312 after relocation sometime in Spring 2014 in Metallist settlement of Lugansk, with Yubileynaya mines in the background]]<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmI2KCOt_sA Anatolii Sharii] version of events, shows that Buk blamed on Russia has number 312 and was earlier photographed as part of Ukrainian convoy. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 20:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Sharii interviewed a Ukrainian soldier who served on Buk 312; this can be found on [http://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/1947657.html Cassad]. The guy does not know about MH17; but recalls SBU claiming it was this Buk 312 responsible. From this interview, meaning of 312: 3 is division number, 1 battery number, 2 unit number in a battery (there are loading and command vehicles, not just launchers). This UAF Buk is initially from Luhansk; than relocated to Kramatorsk; than places in a field. A serviceman took it on a ride with hand break on, leading to a small fire affecting electrics and requiring repairs. So it was traveling on a trailer at some point. It was than moved to Dnepropetrovsk, village of Novogrigorievka (apparently for repairs, and after trailer photo was taken, but exact date was not given). Buks from Luhansk which were not broken were moved by UAF elsewhere (and according to the soldier, were photographed in variaous places including Gorlovka; while 3 broken Buks remained in Luhansk) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: Interesting. I see that the "[http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Ukrainian+government+forces+maneuver+antiaircraft+missile+launchers+they+transported+north+west+from+Slavyansk+eastern+Ukraine+Friday+July+2014+Photo+Dmitry+Lovetsky/10004193/story.html has been seen]" link to the Montreal Gazette is dead by now. If anything I'm surprised that it lasted that long. Minitrue at work. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 04:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: [http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2014/12/17/shooting-down-mh-17-buk-312-story-false- Here] (and mirrored [http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2014/12/17/buk-312-crew-member-says-rebel-shoot-down-of-flight-mh17-story-is-false-transcript/ here]) is an English translation of the interview. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: And [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2rRCSNp33I here] is the video itself with English subtitles. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 20:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:What you said about the accident and the photo showing the damaged BUK on a trailer is about the very photo the SBU showed on their website as "evidence" and later removed. Also adding that he says friends in Lugansk saw "rebels" trying to repair the units they had left behind, but he knows that "whole equipment units" were lacking so the remaining stuff was "unusable". And that he says that he asked his ex-comrades still operating the BUK if they dunnit, and they said they didn't. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Good to see this section expand. Interesting additions from the alleged operator, and reasonable-sounding (the photo might show smoke stains to the back left side). But in the end, this issue might be not so relevant. I doubt it was Kiev's unit 312 that was used, and seeing how Kiev always was eyeing a supposedly Russian unit 3x2, maybe 312 ... In fact, if the middle number connotes unit number, and it's done the same, the launcher is always 1 and it would be 312 (or is that mixed-up?) So maybe all this really shows is how Kiev knew but didn't want to say all along, implausibly picking their own 312 to illustrate that knowledge with an embarrassing but harmless "error", while awaiting ... as it turns out, the independent Bellingcat investigation that finds 3x2 somehow in Russia... That tracked this ludicrous Buk field trip, as presented and followed on this page, which almost seems tailor-made for them, but Kiev wants us to know they they were secretly on the ball too from the start. (all thoughts in progress, a bit distracted too) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::::If SBU wanted to point out they knew the TELAR had number 312, why would they publish the photo in [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmI2KCOt_sA such a low resolution] that the number could not be read? -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 21:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: As Resup summarized, 1 is the battery number. The leading 3 means it's from the Lugansk division. If this is true, the fact that 312, 321 and 323 have been seen together on video in March perfectly fits with what the alleged operator said: That they were removing units in usable state from (all batteries of the division) Lugansk early on, leaving the crap behind. And the view that the SBU just published everything they could find to fit their tale that the "rebels" used a BUK to down the plane, including this photo, cut-together and taken out of context audio tapes and that ridiculous "plume" pic, and the 3x2 bellingcat nonsense from lately is meant to distract from these facts, is much simpler and straight forward than what you tried to come up with here on the fly. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::Ah, I see it now, not when I was typing, sorrys. Middle number could be anything, bust mostly we always see low numbers, so odds are good it was a "1". 3 means from Lugansk if that's true (presuming so) and it's Ukrainian. Diff. number paintjob though, as noted below. But I'm sure the Ukies just faked this exact 312 to a different style of 312 and then painted it out partly, and just let it slip with the one photo of how it looked before...? We'll have a hard time agreeing here, as the stuff you just dismiss as "nonsense" looks kind of like possible evidence with details I'm sort of trying to consider. I don't see how you can just ignore it as if it must be wrong somehow, and all made up to distract from ... this 312 disguised as 3x2 theory? Where it wasn't even at the end of that fake plume anyway and might be totally irrelevant or entirely fake? Or, what am I missing? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::Didn't you say that you haven't even watched the videos and checked the geolocation/origin yourself, if they really are from Russia etc.? Well, I certainly won't. Because I have no reason to believe that the sources are more truthful with the "evidence" than they have been before, and that track record is well established. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::::Yeah, which is why I'm neither in a good position to say they aren't wrong/fake, nor to go against my usual presumption it will be sound (has been so far, on this subject anyway) And by the supposed stills compare to supposed satellite imagery, it looked like a good match (I did skim the site once I could). I don't like the implication either, and I want it to be wrong. And it may well be, but I'll want to see how. And hey, there's a whole other section or two about this below... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
:::: I watched the video [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bj-VZB0ZdEA with the Ukie BUKs in March] again. There are actually more than the three I mentioned earlier. It starts with 323, which is not a TELAR. Followed by the two TELARs 321 and 312. Then comes what is also not a TELAR but what looks differently than 323: Number 301. Followed by two more TELARs, 331 and 332. So they could all be from the Lugansk division, parts of batteries 0 to 3. But one would suspect that the batteries are internal always numbered the same way. "A" says:<br />
::::: ''BUK is a complex of 4 specialized military vehicles: command post, mobile target detection and assignment station, loading and starting station, self-propelled fire installation.''<br />
::::So if 1 and 2 are TELARs, why are there two of them and why is 301 what could be the detection station with a radar? Is 323 a loading station? --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::::Too rusty, but good questions. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::: Ah, I think we can sort this out [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SA-11 thanks to wikipedia]:<br />
:::::''A standard Buk battalion consists of a command vehicle, target acquisition radar (TAR) vehicle, six transporter erector launcher and radar (TELAR) vehicles and three transporter erector launcher (TEL) vehicles. A Buk missile battery consists of two TELAR and one TEL vehicle.''<br />
:::: So our "A" didn't mean that a battery consists of 4 vehicles, but that the whole BUK consists of 4 different kinds of vehicles, some more than once. From this I deduce that "0" is for command and detection units (here our main radar 301) of the Lugansk division 3, and the batteries 1,2 and 3 each consist of two TELARs (numbered 1 and 2, here 312,321,331 and 332) and one TEL (numbered 3, the first vehicle in the video, 323). Makes sense? --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 13:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::Russia said Ukraine had 27 BUK launchers in the crash area, i.e. one brigade, or what ever comes in the hierarchy above battalion. If all units are numbered the same way, from 101 to 333, then one TELAR in 18 should be numbered 312. Maybe [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:9K37_Buk_of_the_Ukrainian_military,_Independence_Day_parade_in_Kiev.JPG not.] Russian numbers seem to reach higher. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 01:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::::Good find. The existence of 114 and 115 makes it more complicated. The [http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buk_M1 German Wikipedia article] says, contradicting the English one, that one battery consists of one command vehicle, one main radar, four TELARs and four TELs. But if that's true, there's no logical place for Radar 301, and why would one TEL be number 3 and the other three TELs numbers 6 to 8? --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 10:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
How to read BUK numbers<br />
This is how you decipher 312:<br />
<br />
3 stands for the third (Lugansk) division,<br />
1 stands for the battery number, ours was no. 1,<br />
2 stands for one of the 2. service units in each battery, ours was no.2<br />
<br />
according to a Ukrainian who explains it was "his" bUK (but not in his hands at the time)that shot down MH17. One of th many reports [http://www.opednews.com/articles/Shooting-Down-MH-17--BUK-by-Michael-Collins-Buk-312_False-Accusations-Of-Terrorism_False-Flag-Attacks_Mh17-Airline-Crash-141217-104.html about this interview] This claim is now superceded by the Capt Voloshin air-to-air claims. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 15:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
That solder knew nothing about who shot the Boeing. He was talking to Sharii, who previously made a video showing that Buk shown on SBU website is actually Ukrainian Buk 312. Later, the soldier emerged, saying that Buk 312 was his. (Claim of this one shooting Boeing is not his, it is SBU early claim) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 16:48, 26 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
While Voloshin story may be a play on destroyed by SBU evidence. There is supposed to be a log of flights, missiles fired, likely those logs no longer exist. Also before they claimed SU 25 were lost on 16 of July, but SBU denial of Voloshin story had SU 25 shot on 17 of July. And that Dnepropetrovsk airport traffic control lady vanished without a trace. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 16:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Supposed 321 belonging to KIEV<br />
::video shows three BUk sets [http://eurazya.today/2015/04/11/about-the-buk-312-who-allegedly-shot-down-mh17/ from 0.31 mark] but I can't really pick the number, they say it is 321. at Gorlovka in March. One on a white lowloader. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 12:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== Russian claims ====<br />
As part of their July 21 presentation of evidence, the Russian Ministry of Defense published satellite images allegedly showing Ukrainian BUK positions around Donetzk ([http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ RT report]). It's no secret the Ukrainian military maintains a base with anti-aircraft units. The facility shown in the Russian presentation (best seen [http://rt.com/files/news/2a/9a/00/00/4.jpg here]) I located - it's south of Avdeyevka, 3 km north of the airport, about 5 km north of Donetsk like they say. Visual match first, then noticed the label could have found it for me ... [http://wikimapia.org/#lat=48.0999781&lon=37.7578908&z=16&l=0&m=b&show=/16956839/ru/Зенитно-ракетный-дивизион-в-ч-А-1428&search=Donetsk on Wikimapia]. Labels, translated: Anti-aircraft missile battalion (in / h A-1428) One of the three anti-aircraft missile battalions ("Buk-M1"), located in Avdeyevka, Mariupol and Lugansk." BUK-type launcher photos included. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The counter-arguments to this at least sometimes fail. [http://www.interpretermag.com/mh17-and-moscows-magical-mystery-jets/ Interpreter rag] decided "the presence of Ukrainian government air defense systems is something of a red herring, not least given the clear evidence that the separatists had deployed at least one Buk system in the area." The side with a ''motive'' and clear, moving and likely operating units of the things on that day (see below) is irrelevant and shouldn't be considered because there's apparently also proof the presumed bad guys also had the units they needed to be so presumed. The very fact that separatists aren't ruled out means the other side should be free of any danger of being ruled in, and the separatists should ruled in just as automatically as they were ''before'' this social-media verification came in. This is clearly an irresponsible suggestion. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC) and --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Kiev's Buks Shuffled?===<br />
<br />
* From Russia's military press conference: [http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ RT, 10 Questions] - [http://www.ruaviation.com/docs/1/2014/7/22/83/ in more detail]<br />
:''3. Why was a large group of air defense systems deployed to the militia-held area if the self-defense forces have no planes?''<br />
:“As far as we know, the Ukrainian military had three or four air defense battalions equipped with Buk-M1 SAM systems deployed in the vicinity of Donetsk on the day of the crash. This system is capable of hitting targets within the range of 35 km at the altitude of up to 22 km.”'' <br />
:''4. Why did Kiev deploy BUK missile systems on the edge of militia-controlled zones directly before the tragedy?''<br />
:''“We have satellite photos of the places where Ukraine had its air defense units deployed in the southeastern parts of the country. The first three photos were made on July 14. The first photo shows Buk launchers 8 km northwest of Lugansk. You can clearly see a TELAR and two TELs. The second photo shows radars 5 km north of Donetsk. You can see two TARs along with other equipment and technical structures. The third photo shows air defense systems north of Donetsk. You can clearly see a TELAR launcher and about 60 military and auxiliary vehicles, tents for vehicles and other structures.''<br />
<br />
:''“Here’s a photo of the same area made on July 17. Please note that the launcher has disappeared. The fifth photo shows a battery of Buk missiles at the village of Zaroshchenskoye 50 km east of Donetsk and 8 km south of Shakhtyorsk on the morning of the same day. The sixth photo shows the same area on July 18. As you can see, the battery has left.”''<br />
<br />
Note: the <s>latter</s> fourth photo of July 17 has substantial cloud cover, but unless they happened to hide the launchers in those areas (or Russia's satellites waited until the area was covered) it appears the noted vehicles have left to go do something - on/by the 17th, where they say launchers appear and then disappear in a town closer to the crash on the 17th. Zaroshchenskoye [http://maps.yandex.com/?text=Ukraine%2C%20Donets'ka%20region%2C%20Shakhtars'kyi%20district%2C%20Zaroshchens'ke%20ville&sll=38.446008%2C47.98844&ll=38.517419%2C48.048098&spn=0.810242%2C0.300187&z=11&l=map on Yandex maps] - 13 miles SSW of the crash sitel, 9 miles W-SW of Torez..--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
On July 30, Vitalyi Naida, head of Ukrainian Security Service SBU’s counter-intelligence, came up with a series of slides ([http://euromaidanpress.com/2014/07/30/russia-fakes-mh17-crash-site-satellite-images-says-sbu/ short article], [http://www.sbu.gov.ua/sbu/control/en/publish/article?art_id=129610&cat_id=35317 announcement on SBU website] with link to [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ut1JExQKV-0 youtube-video showing the slides (presumably Ukrainian language)]) allegedly showing that the Russian material was "faked". He points to a patch of trees, claiming they had been cut down shortly before the 17th, while Russia's images show the trees intact. On August 1, the Russian Ministry of Defense published [http://eng.mil.ru/en/analytics.htm a rebuttal] advising that<br />
:''Instead of presenting hastily doctored evidence to the international community, the SBU could do with better control over all the mercenary units in the areas around Donetsk and Lugansk organized by Kolomoisky, Lyashko, Yarosh and others, who shell Ukrainian territory without any control from those in charge of the anti-terrorist operation.''<br />
<br />
The trees probably are cut down by now, but we'll have to wait for the true details of just when they were and when the image showing that was taken, or if the image shown is even of any one day and not a composite - "doctored" as Russia says. Other clues suggest launchers moving out of this area at that time: The [[#Paris Match Photo]] - ostensibly from the morning of the 17th - shows the infamous launcher-loaded truck seen in Lugansk, or one just like it, being carried on a truck belonging to a company just south of the missile base in northern Donetsk. That was seen carrying the launcher east out of town at 11:15 AM, purportedly on July 17 (and with the location completely fudged to say Snizhne, when it was only headed there).--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Zaro redeploy.png|left|600px]]The Russian military press conference said "The fifth photo shows a battery of Buk missiles at the village of Zaroshchenskoye 50 km east of Donetsk and 8 km south of Shakhtyorsk on the morning of the same day. The sixth photo shows the same area on July 18. As you can see, the battery has left." (#5 inset) The Ukraine@War blog's analysis decided this image as well was fake. That's mentioned [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com/2014/08/ukrainian-sbu-comes-with-conspiracy.html here] if not elsewhere. The reason: "the shadows of these BUKs have a different direction for all three of them. It means these were pasted into the image." I have to admit, it looks a bit like that. The trees have consistent shadows to the west, in a morning image. The furthest vehicle to the left has a visible shadow about like that. The other two don't seem to, and the one furthest right seems to have a shadow on the wrong side (looks like early PM). I wracked my brain just a little thinking of other explanations aside from just low resolution. Nothing much came up. Anyone else? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br /><br /><br />
<br />
<br />
: '''New video proves UKIE BUKS ACTIVE'''<br />
: video has surfaced, posted to Youtube on July 16, taken a few days before, showing a Ukie BUK radar [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3MomxNHnUA being rotated]. The reporter is taken somewhere in a helicopter and proudly shown the BUK. Segment starts around 4.17 in the chopper, BUK shown briefly at 4.45. Label does not say where exactly, just reads "Officers of Ukrainian Armed Forces patrolling in the ATO zone". <br />
: This ties in with claims that they were doing anti-aircraft exercises, probably in response to claims/fears the Antonovs were brought down not by the rebs but by aircraft from Russia. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 10:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::Thanks! We had this July 16 video [[Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17/BUK_Tracking#Kiev.27s_Holdings| elsewhere]], but here is a good place... The other video, from March, was not seen. There were few more early sightings of Ukrainian Buks, uncertain locations, with those 3** numbers; maybe should get a good place to keep them all --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::: Location of sighting is unclear. But according to some reports ([http://lifenews.ru/news/136731 LifeNews]), on July 16 UAF SU 25 was shot down from a height of 6 km by opolchenie MANPADs. That was near Russian border, --reports say the plane actually crossed into Russia, not far from Marinovka. It could be suspected by Ukraine that a Russian plane was involved, so it will be plausible to have Ukrainian coverage of the accident area by BUKS. On July 14, it was reported that [http://m.rosbalt.ru/ukraina/2014/07/16/1292690.html AN 26 was shot down in Luhansk] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Separatist Holdings===<br />
While much certainty has been shown it was a separatist BUK system responsible, everyone seems to acknowledge that ordinarily, they didn't have any, that were known of. Fresh sighting of them in the field, supposed admissions, and existing presumptions remain the strongest evidence. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;June 29 Seizure?<br />
The Open Newsroom team have latched onto a June 29 message from a Twitter account associated with the Donetsk People’s Republic, @DNRpress claiming separatist forces had conquered a base with anti-air BUK missiles. This is apparently the A-1402 base, as an Itar-Tass report specified. That report noted ... It seems to just cite the tweet which, it was found, used a dated photo online since mid-2013. In essence, there's no good evidence they ever did seize this place. But it was referred to by some as "Deleted DNR tweet confirming Russian rebels indeed have a BUK-M1." The crew at large seems a bit vague on the status of this base:<br />
:'' It appears that the A-1402 military unit was moved into the Donetsk region in 2007 from Odessa, and reports note that the unit was based near Donetsk airport. Local reports from June 29 cited ATO spokesman Alexei Dmitrashkivsky as stating that separatists had attacked the military unit.'' <ref name="Story1" /><br />
As we just found with geo-location, it's 3 km north of Donetsk airport, and it's the same place Russia believes is firmly government-held. It's the place they say at least one BUK-type launcher was removed from on July 17 for some reason, by Kiev's forces who run it. If [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Donetsk_Airport this basic Wikipedia article on the battle for the airport] is correct and/or in line with [[Attack on Donetsk Airport|our page on it]], the airport and anything military-related north of it would probably be government-held continuously to the present time. It's possible some launchers could have been lost during a brief seizure of the base, but this too seems doubtful. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
:Social media published many photos of the "liberated" Buk missiles. I searched for them on Google Image Search; all were old photos from more peaceful times. I have no idea what really happened. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 23:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Thanks. I hadn't looked into it myself, but recycled images made sense given the other clues that they never did take that base, or at least get anything out of it. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 00:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Something in English [https://www.facebook.com/TruthfromUkraine/photos/pb.1452285018328179.-2207520000.1409095455./1515506872005993/ on Facebook,] with links to Russian souces. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 23:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Your geolocation is wrong. The former [http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-SAM-Site-Configs-A.html SA-2 launch site] to the north of the runway is called A-1428, at least according to the [[:File:Donetsk Airport battles 5 Oct 2014.jpg|map by Komsomolskaya Pravda]]. The site was rebuilt sometime between 2002 and 2009 with new garages covering part of the SAM ring. Tactical maps say today it is still held by Ukraine, but may have been in NAF hands earlier. Base A-1402 is located south of the new terminal building along Stratonavtiv Street.<br />
<br />
When looking at the latest airport battles I noticed that Military Maps already shows structural damaged to the new terminal building. I did not expect Google to provide any relevant satelite data. In Libya we had almost daily satellite images of Tripoli, but in Syria we have seen no new photos of the battle-effected areas.<br />
<br />
I opened Google Earth to see what has changed during the war. It seems that the war has had no effect on either base. There is still a lot of military hardware parked on both bases. Most of the trucks and whatever are parked just where they were last year, or on many cases in 2007. I did not see anything that I could identify as a BUK launcher. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 02:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;Held by July 14?<br />
The US embassy in Kiev said in [http://ukraine.usembassy.gov/statements/asmt-07192014.html a press statement of July 19]:<br />
:''Intercepts of separatist communications posted on YouTube by the Ukrainian government indicate the separatists were in possession of a SA-11 system as early as Monday July 14th. In the intercepts, the separatists made repeated references to having and repositioning Buk (SA-11) systems.'' (also quoted [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/20/malaysia-airlines-mh17-videos-missile-launcher-torez-snizhne at the Guardian])<br />
As "Corporal Frisk" [http://corporalfrisk.wordpress.com/2014/07/21/comment-on-the-us-assessment-of-the-downing-of-flight-mh17/ aptly responded:]<br />
:''Having perhaps the world’s best intelligence network, and then using easily faked videos of separatist communications posted on YouTube as evidence sure has a degree of ridicule attached to it, but is also an inidcation that US intelligence believes at least some of these transcripts are real.''<br />
That's totally apt if one suspends the usual definition of "believe" (to include "wants to appear to believe," etc.) In the same piece, the author apparently gives more "credibility to the charges that the Buk-M1 is indeed Russian supplied (and possibly crewed), as opposed to stemming from captured Ukrainian stocks." As covered below, this I can agree with if we suspend the usual definition of "Russian" (to include "allegedly Russian villains," "the Ukrainian version of [http://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2011/07/african-mercenaries.html Libya's African Mercenaries] and [http://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/wiki/The_Shabiha:_Ghost_Stories%3F Syria's Shabiha]," etc.) this would be spot-on. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:54, 10 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
(more allegations to cover?)<br />
<br />
;The One That Matters<br />
Whatever the evidence rebels had Buk systems by the 14th, Kiev also has suggested, and many have accepted, that ''the one that mattered'' at least - the launcher unit that shot down MH17 on the 17th - wasn't theirs at all, but brought in and operated by Russians for the day only. If only for that reason, all the above is likely moot. See next section. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Russian Buk Field Trip? ===<br />
The Kiev regime's narrative also suggests separatists had no BUK systems of their own. Rather, someone else brought one in to their area, took it on some kind of tour through several towns thought accessible only to rebels and allies, and got it seen in each place. Then these people '''shot the airliner down themselves on the separatists' behalf.''' That party is the Russians, they say. This is perhaps best encapsulated by "counter-terrorism" chief Vitaly Nayda's early assessment. AP's July 25 report summarized it, saying "the account was based on information from intercepts, spies and resident tips."<br />
:''Nayda laid the blame fully on Russia: He said the missile launcher came from Russia and was operated by Russians. ... According to Nayda, at 1 a.m. on July 17 the launcher rolled into Ukraine across the Russian border aboard a flatbed truck. He cited communications intercepts that he would not share with the AP. By 9 a.m., he said, the launcher had reached Donetsk, the main rebel stronghold 125 miles (200 kilometers) from the border. In Donetsk it is presumed to have been off-loaded from the flatbed and started to move in a convoy on its own.''<br />
:''Nayda said the Buk turned back east toward Snizhne. Townspeople who spoke to the AP said it rolled into Snizhne around lunchtime.''<br />
:''...As for the Buk, Nayda said, intelligence suggests it went back on the move shortly after the attack. That very night, he said, it crossed the border, back into Russia.''<br />
<br />
This is full of details that don't line up with the emerging record, but the gist including a grand-circuit tour including both separatist stronghold/capitols Donestk and Lugansk plus the disaster zone, seems about right. But the evil they allowed came from and returned to Russia.<br />
<br />
This does however jibe with the Kiev allegation (I learned of through [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/07/25/snizhne-mh17-and-rebel-held-territory/ this excellent and relevant HRI article] that '''Russian jets''' violated Ukrainian airspace to '''bomb an apartment building in Snizneh on July 15th, killing 11 civilians.''' This all makes a bit of sense in context; that false flag attack was blamed by locals on Kiev'a noble Air Force - almost understandably! It "created the conditions" by which people ''might'' accept apparent a team of apparent Russians with a Buk launcher in their town two days later. The best guess for any single firing location is a field just southeast of that town (see [[#Possible Launch Sites|below]]). The locals might smile at, and later even cover for, this poisonous gift. But a trojan horse is a trojan horse, of course. They should have looked it in the mouth better, and been more aggressive with their questions. Because Russia has it in for the separatists, Kiev implies, using its skilled and well-documented team to murder 298 people in a horrific way on the separatists' behalf. This is not an accident, Kiev must know, but proof that Russia and its "inhuman" terrorists they must hate (and who do not seem to have any Buk launchers of their own, BTW) are the new global menace du jour. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Markings and the Mystery Launcher ===<br />
[[File:MH17 Buk 321 Parismatch comp.png|right]]A serial number on the launcher's side is apparently standard in Ukraine's arsenal (see [[#BUK 312 and comrades|above]]). Inset, an image comparing the side of the unit seen in [[#Paris Match Photo]], the one blamed for the shoot-down on the 17th, to TELAR unit 321. The side panels are easy enough to correlate and see the unit in the photo lacks a number, but does have a sliver of white paint (or similar) in one corner. Whoever was moving this painted it it out before this, so there is some attempt at concealment. Is this color of paint only available in Russia? The white sliver here could be part of the number, if it were painted higher up/larger than Ukraine usually does. I can't say yet how they do it. I did a Dogpile Photo search, lots of pictures, context unclear, different vehicles from different sides, mainly Vitaly Kuzmin photos so app. Russian military parades and such: --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
* Number shown, diff. vehicle: [http://military-vehicle-photos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/9881.jpg #1(loader?)] - [http://pix.avaxnews.com/avaxnews/8a/6f/00006f8a_medium.jpeg #2 same?] <br />
* Launchers with no visible numbers: [http://77rus.smugmug.com/Military/May-5th-Parade-rehearsal-2014/i-t7RjrzP/0/M/5may14-33-M.jpg #1] - [http://77rus.smugmug.com/Military/12-April-Parade-2013-rehearsal/i-KHVD3Tv/0/M/12aprilrehearsal_33-M.jpg #2] - [http://livedoor.blogimg.jp/gunzichannel/imgs/b/e/be60ae58.jpg #3] - [http://military-vehicle-photos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/9880.jpg #4] - [http://77rus.smugmug.com/Military/13th-April-rehearsal-Alabino/i-fKQdjW4/0/M/13April-Rehersal-Alabino-26-M.jpg #5] <br />
* Same vehicle, Buk TELAR launcher with numbers: not found. <br />
<br />
At the moment, the lack of a number almost makes it look Russian. The next panel over seems to have smaller numbers, or characters anyway. Nothing yet tells me the Russians add a smaller number on the panel behind that, with or without special stencils available only in Russia. Is that even a number, or does it say return to Putin? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== Bellingcat and 3x2 ====<br />
:''moved from [[#Paris Match Photo]]''<br />
<br />
Adam: somebody's favorite Bellingcat is now saying, I understand, that he is capable to read off the number of this Buk from this blurry low resolution Paris Match photo, using unspecified colored magic and some expertly fitted proprietary boxes. Well actually this is so proprietary that he can ONLY read the first number 3, and the last number 2, but is completely unable to read the middle one. Because, he does not want this to be this Ukrainian [http://uainforg.livejournal.com/1811500.html Buk 312] , nah, noway. He rather want it to be the Russian Buk 3 X 2, where X stand for Russian, and for secret, as somebody is said to unearth this dirty monster in Russia, as he says (I guess). This looks too much baloney as far as I am concerned; you can read any number you set in advance from this blurry photo, and fit there any other crap, boxed-shaped or wiggly, all essentially at will. Just recording this latest saga page in case somebody has more enthusiasm to chase it than myself. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 00:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
:No, you didn't quite understand, but thanks for the tip. An interesting twist I wish I'd caught sooner. First, this helps the West at large get in synch finally with Kiev - it was Russia, not the separatists, who owned and perhaps ran that unit. Second, it seems to me the match is at least as good as they say, but there's at least one aspect of it I think is hilarious and I wouldn't be surprised if they managed to miss it. I'll be back - this one deserves a quick blog post. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: I agree with Resup, this stinks of baloney designed to divert attention from the [[#BUK_312_and_comrades]] story. The worst thing about Brown Noses and cohorts is the amount of coordinated promo they get in pre$$titute media. SPIEGEL today [http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/jan-fleischhauer-ueber-wladimir-putin-und-mh17-abschuss-kolumne-a-1004898.html has a op-ed piece by a particularly douchebaggy example] on those independent genius investigators as well. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::I need to brush up on what that 312 story is... because it looks like this used to say 312. Ultimately I suspect its some kind of baloney, but just where it breaks down I don't know. It is amazing how they get such praise for investigating the right things (never did get back to the Houla Massacre) and finding the right truth... Daily Fail says "The authors said that 'our investigation was made possible by the examination of open source material overlooked by other organisations'." Oh goodness, that technique they must have invested ... maybe if we started doing that we'd get praises too! --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/11/08/origin-of-the-separatists-buk-a-bellingcat-investigation/<br />
The report and whole site was not coming up when I tried (might be a problem on my end), so I don't even know what's behind their pay-wall. In the interim I checked around. [http://thetruthserumblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/an-open-and-transparent-investigation.html Here's a critical blog article I like] that mentions another article praising the report. But what was useful was [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2827853/Russian-military-supplied-missiles-ahead-MH17-shooting-says-new-independent-report-evidence-points-Russian-separatists-responsible.html the Daily Mail's Australian promo article] with the cover and a few images from the report as well as a summary. The 3x2 ... This lets me quickly see what 3x2 refers to. And actually, it looks like a good description and even a good match. The number is not from Paris Match photo but from footage I haven't noticed, they say from inside Russia - presumably a Russian unit then - seen conspicuously moving towards Ukraine in late June. (the source of these images and details might be worth checking into) ... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 3x2 Comp.png|right]]Bottom is Paris Match, skewed to match. Top is the new (to me) Bellingcat June 23 image As I just put together [http://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2014/11/how-russians-covered-up-truth-partly.html here,] they seem to be onto something here. It's something silly. But it's something strongly suggested by real paint in recognizable patterns.<br />
<br />
Implied: Russians wanted to hide this thing's identity, maybe because they were about to do something secret with it. So first they painted out the number in the middle - I think it was a one. Except they left one little corner of white visible. Just got tired. It's identifiable (in both images). <br />
<br />
Then before it appeared in Ukraine, it was rendered totally unidentifiable: they boldly blacked out the 3, and perhaps at the same time even, the 2 - except for a larger identifiable sliver. Just got tired. It's next to the other dot. <br />
<br />
Haha, no way to connect these now! Also a light patch next to the small number (and the number, as far as we can see) matches, as does a light patch along the lip below that. My guess: this is the same suspect vehicle seen gettin' hauled all over on the "stolen" truck with the phone number left on. Was it actually in Russian territory as well as near so many rebel checkpoints around dawn? For how long was it there? Bellingcat cannot confirm that Russian unit 3x2 ever returned to its base in Russia ... nor, I guess, that it ever actually left, or was ever Russian, or didn't have its truncated paint job simulated and expanded on another vehicle... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
::He got some photos of an actual [http://www.kavicom.ru/news-view-12861.html convoy], almost certainly in Russia, fairly hi-res photos, no 3*2 there. Than out-of-a-blue-or-elsewhere, he gives photos from convoy made by 'local residents', now with discolored 3*2 photo(s) there; I could not spot details where this photo is now coming from. He claims it "shows on 8 out of 16 videos", but I do not know where is a single one. He also compares tank track and plate above profiles for these 2 photos; details are blurred (and also those profiles change from use), can't say how much they match each other by eye; don't trust his fitted lines, or his conclusion accepting those, but did not try matching myself (no tools to do it quickly; or enough photo resolution to feel strongly motivated). This is doable but doing it tool-free takes time; and not knowing that second photo is definitely in Russia, I am not convinced spending a lot of time is worthwhile. This is clearly a well-supported operation, so the burden of proving their own version is on them; and they did not bother even linking the videos, no clue where are those. His report downloads without problems at this time. <br />
::Also details such as dirty rear skirt and a bend there likely are common; dirt is because exhaust is through the opening above; skirt likely is bent when there is servicing, or example changing tracks or doing something else, like maybe servicing engine. Buk 321 above on this page has dirt and bend, for example. This bend is something which can be easily produced, same goes with the painting job, both things together can be done in well under 1/2 hour. If they had an example of how something in Russia looks like, not difficult to do it for a blurry photo. Clearly, with phone well-displayed, etc, the purpose of all this is a demo job. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Here is a publication [http://censor.net.ua/video_news/274823/ukraina_zaschischaet_donetsk_ot_napadeniya_rossii_zenitnoraketnye_kompleksy_buk_zanimayut_pozitsii_fotovideo Ukraine defends Donesk from Russiam attack, missile complex Buk takes positions], with photo, video of Ukrainian BUks, numbers 323, 321, 312, 301, 331,332. (Some of them have dirty skirts, e.g. 301 looks dirty and bent...). Ukrainian radio is playing on the video. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 21:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Thanks, and I get the lack of motivation, and the ambiguity. That #312 I'll compare later ... looks like a different number style (thinner) with vehicle color less clear ... I guess this could be innocent dirt instead of black paint, but it's some thick dirt, and by the end almost totally covering the numbers on this particular unit ... or two that can seem the same. (?) So it still seems most likely paint, that is deliberate obfuscation - that was also comically slow and incomplete (with clean edges to the white parts and no visible parts of gray half-covered numbers) . It must be a problem with my system (updating soon) but I still can't connect to the site or get the report. I'm not mad motivated myself, but will want to check the alleged video source and geolocation eventually. Before I was seeing this as a Kiev unit simply snuck across the internal line. So the big wrinkle of course is it being in Russia. Options if the geolocation of June 23 is right: <br />
* it wasn't there (faked match-up - As you say, all matching features ''could'' be faked, not just the paint) <br />
* or Ukraine snuck theirs across (with a whole convoy?) just to get it seen there <br />
* or they snuck over and stole this one while it was near the border <br />
* or Russia willingly sent it over, with or without a subsequent theft by people intent on misusing it on the separatists' behalf. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
There is actually a 3*2 Buk in Russia, he put links to videos on his [https://www.mapbox.com/labs/bellingcat/index.html map], I looked at 06/23 Troitskiy (Odnoklassniki) goroskop odnoklassniki ru/video/14723648043?fromTime=25 . But I doubt it can be concluded that Paris Match is a match (number itself can't be read, this is just bogus). For example, that dot in the Russian version appears to be a bit further to the right (60 % of total panel length) , while Paris Match is closer to 50 (I got 52 %). Also, in Russian version, it is almost level with protruding to the right part of number 2; in Donetsk photo, I'd say it's a bit lower (but blurriness creates problems to measure) . Panel to the left of number panel appear to look very different; in Russian case, clear horizontal line above the main bottom line; not so in Donetsk, a messy lower line. As for the skirt, it it dirty but actually does not look broken in the Russian version, just some frames create such impression. In Donetsk, hard to know (to blurry to tell crack from dirt) but there is serious change in angle there somehow; (could be the windshield playing some tricks). (Also, in Donetsk, it is dirty windshield, not actually certain what makes the dot; but it is roughly where expected, so I can go with this being paint assumption). <br />
:No point for the rebels to display it prominently in Donetsk (not far from UAF BUK base), than go towards Snizhne; this just has no point at all. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 00:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
:I'm the one, ironically, claiming to see things in that griny mess. I'd never do it unless I saw t spot well whiter than the others AND seen in another view ... didn't even notice until then. To note, your descriptions are of the first version of the graphic, now updated. Becuase of overall problems, I cut what seemed just the number panel (including shadowed edge) and put it on top of where it should be. Same proportions, within a pixel or two, "find edges" to mark the white patches, and it remains lining up. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 3x2 comp 2.png|right|420px]]At right: it can't be the embarrassingly misrepresented Ukrainian 312 they're hiding, unless that was painted over before this other one .... FWIW, the middle dot would still line up with the serif on that "1." As the updated blog article notes, if "the Russians" were smart, they would have painted this slender 312, or other recognizable number and style, on there. Instead, this nonsense.... <br />
<br />
I suppose that Ukraine ''might'' have known about this 3x2 video and match in advance (and never mentioned it?) and that's why they found a photo of ''a Buk 312''' (not checking what it actually showed, and just claimed they knew was en route to escape into Russia, after parking for yet another photo?) No, that doesn't make much sense. But I sense a link. Maybe that's because I'm seeing 312 when maybe it's 872, for all we really know. Maybe instead of partly painted out it was just left never fully painted in. Too many unknowns and now I'm unenthusiastic about it. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Whatever one thinks of this graphic comparison and interpretation, the strange and suspect thinking it implies is consistent with what else we know about how this "secret" operation was carried out. If true, it would fit this broader pattern (real or reported clues left by whoever, all open to interpretation, and here couched in the terms of allegations by Kiev and supporters):<br />
<br />
* Recalling that this whole weapon itself would have no normal business in the area and would be denied later, it should have been kept secret. Instead, it was driven around in broad daylight on the same day as the crime, just partly covered with a tarp but revealing all clues needed to identify it, its hidden ID number, and its full rack of missiles.<br />
* The truck it was so displayed on was stolen in Donetsk, and kept with the huge sign on its side with the apparent owner's phone number on it. When the media called that number, little surprise, the owner told them pro-Russian "fighters from Slaviansk" who took over his whole trucking company on July 8 (see [[#The Truck Owner's Story|here]]) Put lightly, this is a stupid way to secure a rig one intends to use for a secret operation like this was supposed to be.<br />
* They loaded the truck in Donetsk, likely at the commandeered site in the north of Donetsk, near the Ukrainian base with Buk launchers, in a coincidence. This truck then got seen leaving Donetsk on the 17th, parked pointing east at the east outskirts, then seen driving in convoy (a couple civilian cars with the operational crew moved with the truck) past Zuhres and then through Torez to the east. They were seen arriving in Snizhne around noon, then the Buk unit seen off the truck and driving in stand-alone, and it was then seen again driving south out of Snizneh, towards the apparent launch location.<br />
* The people running the convoy made sure AP journalists saw them in Snizhne just before the shoot-down from a bit south of there. The convoy stopped, and a man in unusual uniform "approached the journalists. The man wanted to make sure they had not recorded any images of the missile launcher. Satisfied that they hadn’t" filmed that secret missile launcher there, but had noticed it, and their intention to remain sooper seekrit "the convoy moved on." All this was made quite clear to the media and apparently published even before the news that MH17 was shot down. ([http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/what-happened-the-day-flight-17-was-downed/2014/07/25/716c36e4-142b-11e4-ac56-773e54a65906_story.html AP Via Washington Post]) <br />
* After the disastrous attempt to secretly provoke a Russian invasion, with utmost discretion the operators put the smoking gun, its rack of one-less missiles left uncovered, back on the same truck and drove it and the phone number back to Russia - by a strange detour on a long route towards the other easily-recognizable smoking gun rebel capitol, Lugansk ... when government ATO forces had just battled their way to the edge of Lugansk ... and got seen there passing at dawn on the main highway south, apparently having come from the center of town, and then presumably drove to Krasnodon (rebel-held) and to Russia....<br />
<br />
The fail delivery here is almost flawless, with no mistake left unmade and hardly any reasonable gaps to call for deduction. Letting multiple camera views on both sides of the porous border capture and track the gradual move to this stealth mode seems pretty consistent to me.--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Note: the implications of this contested finding, and the visual basis for it as well, is continued below under [[#If Buk 3x2 Was in Russia]] --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== General Observations === <br />
*It is clear that pro-Kiev side produced early and persistent stream of fakes, misrepresentations, or selective half-truths, all aimed to place the blame on Russia and/or "separatists" as a part of well organised and supported information warfare. This information warfare did not establish an objective to prove the blame of Russia or "separatists", as any of those media creations will not survive a rigorous scrutiny, and there is nothing to bring to court in particular. However it successfully altered Western perceptions in early days past the catastrophe, and helped to impose sanctions and other 'increased costs' on Russia, bringing the world on the brink of another cold war. It brought situation in Ukraine closer to perpetual chaos, and kept closely related people to continue killing each other every day. Although those fakes and misrepresentations were later realized to be such, those costs and calamities were not reversed. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*After moving equipment close to border, why would Russia send just a single TELAR to Ukraine in a highly visible manner as it was alleged? For meaningful operation of Buk, one would send at least 1 TELAR, 1 TEL (to be able to load missiles), and 1 command vehicle (as radar on TELAR gives only poor basic operation)? There are also lots of support vehicles seen, in case of something meaningful all that is needed. So moving single TELAR is all but pointless from military standpoint. Single TELAR is mostly for a show of sort. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Reported SIghtings == <br />
(consider along with the visual sightings below) <br />
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/what-happened-the-day-flight-17-was-downed/2014/07/25/716c36e4-142b-11e4-ac56-773e54a65906_story.html AP via Washington Post] <br />
shows the separatists strategy to not be seen as they rolled the murder weapon around:<br />
:''Even before the plane was downed, the AP had reported on the presence of the missile launcher in the town July 17. Here is what that dispatch said:''<br />
:''“An Associated Press reporter on Thursday saw seven rebel-owned tanks parked at a gas station outside the eastern Ukrainian town of Snizhne. In the town, he also observed a Buk missile system, which can fire missiles up to an altitude of 22,000 meters (72,000 feet).''<br />
:''AP journalists saw the Buk moving through town at 1:05 p.m. The vehicle, which carried four 18-foot (5.5-meter) missiles, was in a convoy with two civilian cars.''<br />
:''The convoy stopped. A man in sand-colored camouflage without identifying insignia — different from the green camouflage the rebels normally wear — approached the journalists. The man wanted to make sure they had not recorded any images of the missile launcher. Satisfied that they hadn’t, the convoy moved on.''<br />
<br />
That kind of pro-Russian sooper-seekrisy aimed at the media in front of the media should stop them being seen, right? No, oddly, it didn't. See below. The clumsy bastards could hardly have implicated themselves any more thoroughly than they did that day. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
One interesting post at the Ukraine@War blog mentions two tweets, both from July 17 and before the crash, mentioning this BUK launcher on a trailer at places consistent with the video record. [https://twitter.com/MOR2537/status/489702736766586880 One of them] (translated) sounds perhaps ''too'' informed, and says "Was driven missile system on the tractor cover + two cars after Thorez (Torez) in snowy (Sniznoyeh) in 12-10 (at 12:10? Too early...)." [https://twitter.com/_StradivariuS_/status/489704260045910016 The other one] says "(someone this) morning wrote that (the truck) stood (parked for some time) on b.Shahtostroiteley not intersection with Ilchicha, aside (heading towards) Makeevki. waiting to see (to be seen?) If that's an intersection named, it's a different parking spot identified as being [https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=48.002515,37.854917&spn=0.010222,0.02444&t=h&z=16 here on Google Maps,] one km west of the spot it was parked for the "Paris Match" photo. Otherwise, it refers only to the same place. The contributor noted "Another interesting detail in that tweet is that “it was standing” and “they were waiting”. My understanding of that phrasing is that the #Buk was actually parked there for some time. Meaning there might be witnesses." <ref name="UWD">[http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com/2014/07/reconstruction-of-whereabouts-of-buk.html CONFIRMED the BUK that shot down MH17 has indeed been in Donetsk] P. Martin, Ukraine@War, July 23, 2014</ref> There was a witness with a camera, and a photo sent to the Western media. That almost seems to have been the idea - to get witnessed like that. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== SBU Wiretap Clues ==<br />
I just had a look at the SBU wiretap transcripts, ones released July 19. In it is a segment tying in with the above stop or stops in Donetsk, the exact spot of the [[#Paris Match Photo]], and the general orders to drive east with the launcher. I'm not up on the wiretap stuff - if this is the same material said to be corroborated by the US as the real people talking. But briefly, know that parking spot in just past a roundabout, by a motel and a bus station, well short of a crossing Hornostaivska street halfway to Makiivka. Important clue to why it was here this thing had to get seen and talked about: one source claims this roundabout at the edge of town is "a big separatist checkpoint established on Jun 3 at the road circle." <ref name="UWD" /> This is supposed to all be pretty damning, and I must say it's at least looking like a pretty slick plan may be going on here, with pre-scripted parts that come into play later, etc. From Kiev mouthpiece UaToday, parts of a transcript they ran with the video and other allegations, on the 19th - How credible is this evidence?<br />
:''Khmuryi: Sergei Nikolaevich Petrovskiy, year of birth 1964, officer of Main Intelligence Directorate of Russian Federation, Deputy Chief of Ihor Girkin on Intelligence, at the time of the interception he was in Donetsk.''<br />
:''“Buryat” – militant of terrorist organization “DNR” (to be indentified).''<br />
:''Buryat: – Where should we load this beauty, Nikolaievich?''<br />
:''Khmuryi: Which one? This one?''<br />
:''B: Yes, the one I’ve brought. I’m already in Donetsk.''<br />
:''K: Is it the one I’m thinking about? “B…,”M” one?''<br />
:''B: Yes, yes, yes. “BUK”,”BUK”.''<br />
:''K: Is it on a tractor?''<br />
:''B: Yes, it’s on it. We need to unload it somewhere, '''in order to hide.'''''<br />
:''K: Is it with a crew?''<br />
:''B: Yes, with the crew.''<br />
:''K: '''Don’t hide it anywhere.''' She’ll go there now.''<br />
:...<br />
:''Khmuryi: – Tell me, have you brought me one or two?<br />
:''Buryat: One, one. Because they had a misunderstanding there. They didn’t give us a tug. We loaded it and went at their own pace.''<br />
:''K: Did it go on her own or on a tug?''<br />
:''B: It crossed the line (border).''<br />
:''H: And now have you brought it on a tug? Don’t put in anywhere… I’ll tell now where it should go, it will go together with “Vostok” tanks.''<br />
:...<br />
:''K: Sanych, the point is that my “BUK–M” (modified Russian SAM system) will go with yours, it is on a tug. Where should I drive it to put in a column?''<br />
:''Sanych: There, behind “Motel”, not reaching Hornostaevka.''<br />
:''K: Just after the Motel, right?''<br />
:''Khmuryi: Listen to me carefully, behind the circle near “Motel” there will be you know what. Call to “Bibliotekar” (Librarian).'' <br />
The next part, to me, suggests that as far back as the 19th or earlier, people talking on tape were seeding, or working by, the SBU-proposed Aeroloft plot with the town mix-up. In that light:<br />
:''...Bring inside only those, who just came back, only as much as you need for the convoy. Leave everyone else here. Not far away '''there is Pervomaiskoe, look at the map.'''''<br />
:''DNR militant: I got it.'' (Or did he not quite get it?) <br />
:''Khmuryi: Settle somewhere in that area, bring there those who are left. Your task is reserve, plus protection of this piece (BUK–M), which you will drive now. “Giyrza” will come there too. If anything, I’m on line.'' <ref name="Trans">[http://www.uatoday.info/?p=2579&lang=en SBU releases more conversations implicating Russia in shooting down Malaysia Airlines flight (VIDEO, TRANSCRIPT)] UAToday, July 19, 2014</ref><br />
--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The veracity of that recording needs challenged well now ... the day too early claim [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17#SBU wiretap video|did not pan out,]] so it won't be that easy. Has anyone really done a good analysis tearing it apart some other way? Could it even be half-legit, with some local rebels tricked by some undercover (wire-wearing, not wire-tapping) supposed defector delivering it "with a team" coming "from Russia" (meaning Parubiy et al.)? Who knows? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Imagery Mapping ==<br />
[[File:MH17 Storyful video mapping.png|right|330px]]There have been quite a number now of photos and videos showing BUK launchers ostensibly in separatist strongholds, on July 17. The geo-location of these in such towns by social media networks has been the subject of some recent media commentary. These purported placements are worth collecting and considering here. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
One somewhat comprehensive and updated/evolving page: [http://blog.storyful.com/2014/07/19/how-social-sleuthing-uncovered-evidence-of-anti-aircraft-missile-system-in-eastern-ukraine/#.U9oY_Ua3498 How Social Sleuthing Uncovered Evidence of Surface-to-Air Missile Systems in Eastern Ukraine] Inset is a small preview of the interactive map they made of all placed images (as it stands at the end of July - [https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=200399683004956931329.0004feca5d1fbab0a1d25&msa=0&ie=UTF8&t=h&source=embed&ll=48.206371,38.968506&spn=1.281328,2.334595&z=8 full-size presentation with links, on Google Maps]) <ref name="Story1" /> <s>Note that one of them is way up in Lugansk - which one is a little unclear at the moment - the site may be wrong</s>) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;List of Scenes, placed or not<br />
* Billboard Video: released by Interior Ministry, filmed in Krasnodon before dawn, the Interior Minister says. Russian military analysis places it in Krasnoarmeysk, and the Open Newsroom crew contradicts both and decided "collaborative geo-location was able to place the footage in southwestern Luhansk.'' <ref name="Story1">[http://blog.storyful.com/2014/07/19/how-social-sleuthing-uncovered-evidence-of-anti-aircraft-missile-system-in-eastern-ukraine/#.U9oY_Ua3498 How Social Sleuthing Uncovered Evidence of Surface-to-Air Missile Systems in Eastern Ukraine] Storyful blog, July 19, 2014 and onward (updated)</ref> <br />
* Surveillance Video: located to Snizhne by Eliot Higgins, date unclear. <ref name="Story1" /><br />
* Zuhres video: Pre-geo-located by the uploader [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=48%C2%B0+1'1.38%22N++38%C2%B018'6.04%22E&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=48.034019,38.391724&spn=0.629958,1.564178&gbv=2&hnear=H21,+Zuhres,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&gl=us&t=h&z=10 here in Zuhres.] Higgins confirms, 100% sure, and others concur. Driving east. <ref name="Story1" /><br />
* Torez square photo - located by an associate of Higgins - filmed app. 11:40 AM in central Torez. See below. <br />
* Another photo placed: Snizneh, nearest the shoot-down area (f/c)<br />
* [http://www.parismatch.com/Actu/International/EXCLU-MATCH-Un-camion-vole-pour-transporter-le-systeme-lance-missiles-577289 Paris Match photo] - allegedly Snizhne, reportedly placed '''in northern Donetsk city.''' See below. <br />
<br />
===Billboard Video===<br />
(to be condensed) <br />
A video released by the Ukrainian Interior Ministry is highly dubious and worth some analysis. It shows what seems to be a BUK launcher loaded on a truck driving some direction in some town at what seems to be early twilight (or pre-dawn, depending). The [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4HJmev5xg0 original posting] (with almost 2 million views already) gives no details: "Militants take out missile system "Buk" to the border with Russiam" the title translates. "No description available," it says below, and no comments allowed.<br />
From what I've seen no one knows where this is filmed. Daily Mail says it's a "separatist stronghold," unnamed, and headed south, back towards Russia. "Ukrainian spies reportedly filmed the launcher used in the attack being smuggled to Russia - with two missiles missing." Eliot Higgins was cited by [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/20/malaysia-airlines-mh17-videos-missile-launcher-torez-snizhne the Guardian] with his new team of fundraistigators as geolocating some video and photo but not, apparently, this one. As explained at [https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1278239551/bellingcat/posts/919158 the kickstarter link] they give, Higgins writes:<br />
:''In the above video, posted by the Ukranian Ministry for Interior claiming to show the Buk missile launcher being driven towards Russia it was possible to match the transporter in the video to the transporter in Torez, details of which... (you have to subsidize their operation to see)'' --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== Avakov's Placement: Krasnodon or Lugansk ====<br />
Interior Minister Arsen Avakov said in [https://www.facebook.com/arsen.avakov.1/posts/670837696339673 a Facebook post of July 18] Google-translated: <br />
:''Covert surveillance units of MIA of Ukraine today July 18 at 4.50 am was recorded caterpillar tractor loaded with missile complex, moving in the direction through Krasnodon, toward the border with the Russian Federation. The video can be seen uncovered missiles. Two missiles in place - the average is not visible. ''<br />
:''There is an analysis of this and other information gathered. Presumably this is the missile system "Buk" that made a last shot at a civilian plane from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur .. ''<br />
:''Criminals try to hide the traces of this heinous crime. Not succeed. Security Service and Interior Ministry of Ukraine has collected and collects more irrefutable facts and evidence, the author points out the tragedy of the terrorist organization DNI / LC and its Russian backers Putin.'' <br />
:''The investigation of events MIA issue a comprehensive report on the information. This fragment consider it necessary to publish immediately.''<br />
<br />
By the 22nd, "online sleuths" had placed it in Lugansk (see below). Avakov then confirmed this - he was wrong the first time. One article makes it sound like he wasn't just echoing the sleuths:<br />
:''On July 22, Ukraine's Minister of Internal Affairs, Arsen Avakov, gave the exact coordinates of the video’s location: separatist-held Luhansk, about a 45-minute drive from Krasnodon. Locals quickly verified this claim by photographing the scene, which perfectly matches the landmarks seen in the video.'' ([http://globalvoicesonline.org/2014/07/29/russia-ukraine-mh17-conspiracy-buk/# article by one of the sleuths])<br />
<br />
====Krasnoarmeysk====<br />
One source venturing a guess is [http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ the Russian government and RT witrh their 10 intriguing questions:]<br />
:''“For example, media circulated a video supposedly showing a Buk system being moved from Ukraine to Russia. This is clearly a fabrication. This video was made in the town of Krasnoarmeisk, as evidenced by the billboard you see in the background, advertising a car dealership at 34 Dnepropetrovsk Street. Krasnoarmeysk has been controlled by the Ukrainian military since May 11.”''<br />
[[File:MH17 Billboard Vid Russian Analysis.png|right|250px]]There is a sign, but I cannot make it out just yet, if ever. Can they really? Even if that's so, surrounding towns might be good places for a dealership in Krasnoarmeysk to advertise. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
At right now is a still from a video claiming to show this, I still don't see it. They seem to think the gray span says that, perhaps from seeing a clearer view of this ubiquitous sign elsewhere. Opps. There's no reason to say a dealership in one town can only have billboards in that town. This alone fails. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 14:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Krasnoarmiis'k,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&hl=en&ll=48.323387,37.919312&spn=1.252829,3.128357&sll=48.226502,37.386475&sspn=0.627601,1.564178&oq=Krasnoarm&t=h&doflg=ptk&hnear=Krasnoarmiis'k,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&z=9 on Google Maps as Krasnoarmiis'k] - ''not'' to be confused with the Krasnoarmeisk not far away in Russia. Distance: about 100 km almost due west of the crash site. Panorama, possiblt location, directions/implications forthcoming. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Dnepropetrovsk Street is the main street of Krasnoarmeisk, leading northwest to Dnepropetrovsk. It tried matching this to the street corner where the car dealership is located. Yandex Maps did not provide a street view. It could be there, but too few details to make a positive match. Whatever this is, it is not evidence for anything. The least the SBU could have done is provide the location and some corroborating photographs.<br />
:The same applies to all so called "evidence" provided by Ukraine and the US State Department. As far as I can tell it is only cut-and-paste of unrelated footage to ''illustrate'' the claims made. A perfect example of this illusion is the "satellite photos" of Russian artillery shelling Ukraine released on Sunday morning. A photo of Russian GRADs on some unidentifiable field was placed next to a satellite image with an arrow pointing "Here Be Monsters!" Purely illustrative and no proof. There is a difference between legerdemain Hocus Pocus and outright forgery. The Russian video presentation displayed screen capture recording from the ATC radar, usually stored for two weeks. For this to be a hoax, Russia would need to create a forged tape of the radar data. Highly unlikely, as the the claim of authenticity had support of the full authority and prestige of the Russian Armed Forces. If the US presentation turns out to be hoax, State Department will claim the photos were never meant to be evidence. Some internee was told to prepare a presentation using stock images for some facts they ''knew'' to be true – trust us! -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 14:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: You must have missed [https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BtZSVQrIMAARzKr.jpg:large this], Petri! ;oP --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 18:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
::: That is an awesomely perfect picture for this sorry episode so far. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 14:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
::It would be neat though if we could show where this is and thus which way its's headed. The Kiev authorities, I think, know what happened. They say it was this exact launcher missing two missiles. It could be. Where is it at filming time and where headed? If it's true this same one was in Torez (dubious but possible) we'd have a direction traveled until that point also, and a rough time, 8:30 or so. [http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jul/27/mh17-storyful-social-media-twitter-youtube The Guardian again] citing Storyful's open-source investigation: <br />
::::''“There are now four pieces of content – three pieces of video and one image – which, in the case of three, conclusively show a Buk [surface-to-air] missile within rebel-held territory and in the case of the fourth, almost definitely in their territory,” says Storyful executive editor David Clinch. “Of those four pieces, individual groups or companies probably verified in or around the same time one or another of them.”''<br />
:''Open Newsroom verified three pieces of content and is investigating the fourth, thanks to its 900-strong network of journalists and experts. ''''<br />
:The fourth is this video. Wouldn't it be a coup if we were the first to place it? Force that intern excuse and then laugh at it. That said, it's not the most likely to place but you, Petri, especially, might be able to. I think I might. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 22:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* [https://plus.google.com/118234537318646233652/posts/LZV1XZD854E James Miller Google + July 21] "Was a Buk sighted in Krasnoarmeysk or Krasnodon (continued analysis)? We've taken a new look at this video which has been debated since it was posted days ago. We're fairly confident, though not 100% confident, in this geoanalysis, but we're making significant progress. Any more information would be extremely helpful. " Cited: [http://www.interpretermag.com/russia-this-week-lurid-anti-ukraine-propaganda-broadcast-on-state-tv/#1753 Russia This Week: Defense Ministry Claim on Buk in Billboard Video Doesn’t Add Up]<br />
:''...As we reported on our Ukraine Liveblog, the Buk was spotted before the shoot-down of the Malaysian airplane and ultimately geolocated to the town of Torez, near the location of the crash in Grabovo. Then the video, taken early the next morning on 18 July, showed a scene in Krasnodon,... <br />
--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Google Earth has one photo [http://www.panoramio.com/photo/55329278 from ул. Днепропетровская.] The street has about the same width. The streetlights are not quite the same. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 14:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
::That image doesn't help a match, especially since by now it looks like Lugansk. For the record, there was a go by pro-rebel social media people at identifying a spot in town to explain the video scene, but it didn't do that either. [http://wikimapia.org/#lat=48.276196&lon=37.176087&z=18&l=0&m=b this spot on Wikimapia] is what they pointed to - filmed from the marked building, they say, looking southwest to the mall. No matching anything. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 02:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== Placed in Lugansk! ====<br />
[[File:MH17 Billboard Vid-Lugansk Match.png|right|800px]]Storyful's rundown states of this video:<br />
:''The footage is not the original, however we believe that the first instance of this footage was removed by the uploader and the version below is the earliest we can find. Ukrainian Interior Minister, Arsen Avakov, made early claims that the video was filmed in the Ukrainian town of Krasnodon near the Russian border, however collaborative geo-location was able to place the footage in southwestern Luhansk.'' <ref name="Story1" /> <br />
It links to "Bellingcat," which you have to pay to see much of. [https://plus.google.com/118234537318646233652/posts/bMdeBzY8yty James Miller] passes on that it's "Mystery SOLVED: Video released by Ukraine's Interior Ministry does in fact show a Buk, possibly missing several missiles, in Lugansk headed east from the MH17 crash site and in the direction of Russia." The spot they think matches the video (better panorama coming) is [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=48%C2%B032'44.7%22N+39%C2%B015'52.6%22E&ie=UTF8&ll=48.545926,39.265147&spn=0.002436,0.00611&t=h&cid=0&z=18 here on Google Maps]. Was that a highway? Where's the cross-street? I see elsewhere they have a high view showing the same basic billboard there, but that's going to be true of several spots in this area. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
My impression of the scene - based on the panoramic view below - is far from matching with this. That does not look like a highway, and it just seems like a small town. However, I finally saw some of the supporting images (see [http://news.bigmir.net/ukraine/827864-V-Lygansk-vehala-kolonna-voennoi-tehniki--SMI here] and [https://twitter.com/djp3tros/status/491651820188860416/photo/1 here] - source of the inset image.) It seems a likely match after all. I won't say I confirm it with any certainty, but I don't think I'll be challenging it like I was preparing to do. Note the different billboard in the right spot, and the matching one over there. There are other images, apparently more current, showing that that they moved the one sign over to the right spot They don't point to the pinkish roofed building beyond the red-roofed one, but that adds to the match (compare to below). Whenever this video was made and whatever it really means, it seems quite likely it was at this spot in Lugansk shortly before dawn. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
There is another video from June 2014 showing the same billboard with the same car ad:<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ez8cZ3nqjCs Луганск 02 07 14]<br />
The video shows a column of BMPs with one 9K35 Strela-10 short-range surface to air missile system passing the intersection in Lugansk. I suspect they came from Russia, as [https://www.facebook.com/groups/IOUCO/permalink/584402078339517/ I specifically asked] for Putin to send in the Russian tanks that morning. They passed exactly when I expected them to, at 6 minutes past 4 am. (I estimated it would take 2 hours 6 minutes from the border.) -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 17:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==== ACLOS Review ====<br />
As noted above, my review agrees with the placement agreed by the others. For what it's worth, the huge panorama I made (the middle is full-resolution) and starting notes from before I realized no work was needed. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 03:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
[[File:MH17 Billboard Video Pan.png|center|880px]]<br />
It seems to be filmed near the edge of town, or edge of a hill anyway, with a clear view ahead, two vague homes/buildings seen down the slope. Otherwise, very non-descript. The angle of intersection will be one of the better clues - it looks to me not 90 degrees ( |- ), but with the road the truck is on either slanting or curving somewhat towards the camera ( /- ). One important observation: '''there's no logical reason he should have been just happening to film this area''' unless he knew something interesting would drive by at just this odd time. That's clarified by how he zooms in just before it enters frame - he was waiting for that truck. How did he know about it? Informants on the other side of town phoning ahead makes enough sense, I suppose. <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 launcher truck composite.png|left|480px]]Another issue: If this is dusk (sunset 8:20 PM local), isn't this facing roughly northwest? If so, this vehicle is driving roughly north, not south. And we might start looking on the west edge of town. There's a highway out to the northwest, back towards Kiev. This street is too narrow and unmarked to be the highway, obviously, but it might be driving that way, for example. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
:Or, alternately, he's facing towards the sun about to rise, early on the 18th, as alleged by the Interior Ministry) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
::That he happened to be filming just before dawn is even less likely than dusk. He clearly knew this was coming, whatever that means. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 03:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Above is the composite scene without truck. At left is the truck without background. Besides lightening the scene, it seemed worth getting the clearest details from different frames into a composite view of the truck and its load. This helps compare to the launchers seen in other areas and different times. So far, they all seem to look the same and perhaps be the same. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 03:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br /><br />
<br />
==== HRI ====<br />
Pretty good points [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/08/05/mh17-the-lugansk-buk-video/ from Human Rights Investigations]:<br />
:''To sum up, the statement of Avakov, the film and its location suggest the Ukrainian authorities had advance knowledge of this BUK and trailer’s movements or control over it. It is also extremely strange that this BUK, allegedly after shooting down MH17, is supposedly filmed by a Ukrainian surveillance team in ostensibly rebel territory, with its covering missing, as if to show the world a missile is missing.''<br />
--[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Paris Match Photo ===<br />
[[File:MH17 Paris Match.png|770px]]<br /><br />
* [http://www.parismatch.com/Actu/International/EXCLU-MATCH-Un-camion-vole-pour-transporter-le-systeme-lance-missiles-577289 Originally published by Paris Match] on July 25, with the claim the picture was taken by their own reporting team near Snizhne at mid-day on the 17th. Note the prominent, apparent, telephone number prominently centered in the picture - (050) 471-41-80. The truck and launcher, as far as can be seen, are quite similar to or the same as the one seen in the billboard video anyways. How many of its missiles the unit has at this moment is unclear. <br />
<br />
* [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/07/28/why-is-paris-match-on-the-location-of-a-buk/ Human Rights Investigations:] "it turns out to have been taken in Donetsk, 75km away" (citing someone else's geo-location - [https://www.google.com/maps/@48.004592,37.87265,3a,75y,63.38h,82.21t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sRGnHwZ5YZnuGO-n_VvruWg!2e0 site link given.] <br />
:''We know this because the phone number on the truck panel (050 471 4180) leads straight to this hire place (photo):<br />
:''According to Paris-Match, the proprietor of this establishment claimed “rebels” had stolen a number of his vehicles earlier in the month. If we go from here to towards Snizhne we find the location of the Paris-Match photo, near a car dealership on Makiivske Highway on the outskirts of Donetsk:''<br />
:''After informing Paris-Match of the mistake regarding the video location, the author of the article Alfred De Montesquiou has now got back and explained:''<br />
:''Hello, indeed, it appears there was a mixup in caption : the picture was taken leaving Donetsk on road to Snijne, not in actual Snijne'' <br />
<br />
'''Questions:''' Was it a caption mix-up, or did their team really not know where it was taken, and just believed the real source when he said Snizneh? Who is the true photographer who knew to catch this picture near the company's base, apparently at the outset of a rather epic journey? Why did the rebel thieves leave the prominent phone number on the stolen truck used for such an important task? It wound up leading to man who pointed right to the rebel thieves, and prove yet again separatists, not Kiev allies, were the ones driving BUKs around. Was that so hard to foresee? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''To Do:''' Verify the geo-location - set a time, presuming July 17, by sunlight and that location - establish which was it's traveling relative to the government-run anti-aircraft base just a few km north of here and relative to the other places and times this truck and others were spotted rolling around prominently and getting filmed a lot by the right kind of people, in areas presumed to be impenetrable to any such frame-up operation - look into this company, etc. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''Location:''' I can't confirm it with certainty, but it's extremely consistent. Two standard but distinct pole types that close together on the right with a pull-over lane ending at the blue one, and consistent-scale foliage behind. Proceding on the location as likely enough to warrant the work. The stretch of highway identified runs northeast, heading 33 degrees. The truck is most likely not driving at the moment, as it's in the pull-over lane. But it's pointed as if ready to leave Donetsk as soon as they finish doing something in theis spot. All we can see they're doing is getting filmed, and maybe that's just what they're waiting for. Ahead would be the an industrial area, the eastern suburb of Makiivka, then Khartsyzk, etc. and further east Torez and Snizhne (driving times unsure, date also unsure. Russia claims the one launcher left the northern base sometime between in August 14 and 17 images. <ref name="RT10">[http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ 10 more questions Russian military pose to Ukraine, US over MH17 crash] RT. July 21, 2014</ref><br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Donestk Buk Map.png|left|480px]]Left: this truck location, the company's apparent headquarters ([https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Molodykh+Shakhtariv+St,+19,+Donetsk,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&ll=48.044923,37.783184&spn=0.079187,0.195522&hnear=Molodykh+Shakhtariv+St,+19,+Donetsk,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&t=h&z=13 GM link]), and the A-1402 missile base relative to each other. <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Paris Match elev.png|right|220px]]'''Time:''' I'm not sure how exactly to set this up, but the shadows appear to stretch almost right across the highway, with only a slight northern shift. The azimuth thus appears to be fairly close to to 140˚ (reached at 11:09 AM). As for solar altitude, trying to line up the launcher's corner with its shadow gives a reading of app. 56˚ (= 10:50 AM, with azimuth 133˚) or perhaps 59˚ (= 11:18, az 143.5). The graphic shows both readings. Which is better? I used [http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/solcalc/ NOAA solar calculator], with coordinates: lat 48.017102 long:37.9037626 time=GMT+2, DST +1 --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
Bellingcat was originally claiming that photo was taken at 9 am. <br />
[https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/11/08/origin-of-the-separatists-buk-a-bellingcat-investigation/]<br />
<br />
Than they were claiming 11 am as an obvious time without retracting previous 9am claim.<br />
[https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/09/08/images-show-the-buk-that-downed-flight-mh17-inside-russia-controlled-by-russian-troops/]<br />
<br />
Seems like 9am was more comfortable for them to match to photos from Zuhres and Torez. <br />
[added by Antidyatel]<br />
:Looks like you put the same link twice, -it says 11 a.m.--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
::Antidyatel, welcome! Resup, thanks! I'd like to see any 9 am citation. But otherwise they agree on it being around 11? Good. The significance below is if the Zuhres square photo was taken at 11:40 AM as they say, it's basically impossible these images are from the same day as alleged - 69 km, 1 hour 14 mins drive between the spots, when there's only 20-40 minutes between the images. However, fudging it - let's say this is 10:50 and the other is 12:00 as I read it - that's 1:10 between, almost a perfect match. So maybe this isn't a great lead (I was never convinced it was). But 9:00 is way off and suggests they were fudging it to fit at that point. Would be good to document. BTW, on talk pages you can sign with <nowiki>--~~~~</nowiki> or the sign/scribble button. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: [https://web.archive.org/web/20141109132514/https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/11/08/origin-of-the-separatists-buk-a-bellingcat-investigation/ First archive.org snapshot] from the day after publishing (edit: a good month after you called it :o)) says 11 am already. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 10:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
There is more to consider about this truck, its company, its owner, and his story. But other than this photo's extra-clear view of the phone number and apparent proximity to headquarters, those are better covered in the section below [[#The Truck Owner's Story]].<br />
<br />
=== Torez Square Photo ===<br />
[[File:MH17 Torez Buk Analysis.png|left]]This is another image geo-located by the Brown Moses network (ally Aric Toller) to central Torez, [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Donetsk&hl=en&ll=48.023472,38.614014&spn=0.004923,0.01222&hnear=Donetsk,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&t=h&z=17 here on Google Maps.] Like others, it was initially stated as in another locale - Snizhne - and that had to be corrected. I can agree the location pointed to is either the photo's site or one strangely like it. [http://mashable.com/2014/07/23/citizen-journalists-mh17-spies/ Mashable noted] "Toler and Higgins were able to establish that the photograph was shot around 11:40 a.m. local time." I tried a quick azimuth measure, eyeballed relative only to the blue car, and got 165 degrees (yellow line, read backwards). This equates to a time of almost exactly 12:00 noon (about 30 minutes before solar noon, and 20 minutes later than their estimate). Seeing they're close to right, I'll presume they're closer than me and defer to 11:40. <br />
<br />
If this photo is taken at 11:40 AM, and it's the same truck seen leaving Donetsk around 11-11:20 AM, it's impossible these images are from the same day as alleged (Gmaps says it's 68.8 km, 1 hour 14 mins drive, when there's only 20-40 minutes between the images). That would mean multiple mobile launchers with multiple "Titan" trucks, or just one but with some date fudging. The company says a number of its trucks were stolen, so matching multiples are entirely likely. But so is date fudging, multiples or not. If that's so, I suspect the Donetsk photo was from July 15 or 16, and this one more likely from the day of the crime. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 04:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br /><br /><br /><br />
=== Zuhres Video ===<br />
[[File:Buk Zuhres Vid.png|right|480px]]Again, a truck of that same type loaded with the same apparent weapon is briefly seen driving east (detail at right). This one was never reported wrong and was in fact pre-geo-located by the uploader [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=48%C2%B0+1'1.38%22N++38%C2%B018'6.04%22E&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=48.034019,38.391724&spn=0.629958,1.564178&gbv=2&hnear=H21,+Zuhres,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&gl=us&t=h&z=10 here in Zuhres.] Higgins confirms, 100% sure, and others concur. <ref name="Story1" /> Zuhres location: on highway H21 halfway between Donetsk and the general disaster zone - 36 km east by road from the position of the truck in the Paris Match photo. I agree with the location, refined below as I lined up in the still used here - the blue line runs between the blue thing and the building corner (footprint, not roofline) to the front of the truck as it passes. <br />
<br />
The sky is fairly overcast, so solar angles can't be measured precisely; the differences in facet lighting are clear but not massive. A broad and inclusive azimuth range of 167˚ to 214˚ (rounded) is shown by the yellow arrows below. This yields a range (to the nearest minute) of 12:09 PM and 1:45 PM. The best middle is a bit early - 185 degrees. That would be 12:44 PM. Altitude, at solar noon, helps little. 12:09, 12:44, and all times between round off to 63˚. if that simply looks too high, we're forced to the later end of the time frame. - 57˚ at 1:45. My super broad-estimate: 12:45 +/- 50 minutes. Weather at this time on whatever day - as noted, it partly overcast, and it's windy. The clouds are moving fast, with slight lighting changes visible in just these few seconds. Winds by the swaying trees are from the southeast, perhaps, blowing northwest - at least at the building with a face running that way.<br />
[[File:Buk Zuhres analysis.png|center|680px]]<br />
<br />
==The Truck Owner's Story==<br />
The apparent owner of the white truck so important to the MH17 operation was of course tracked down via the giant phone number for his compant on its side. Interviewed at least twice now, first by Paris Match, then by Lithuanian agency Alfa, this businessman has been anonymized as Vassili (then Vasilijus). Thorough summary of the related, alleged facts, from each (translated) report:<br />
* [http://www.parismatch.com/Actu/International/EXCLU-MATCH-Un-camion-vole-pour-transporter-le-systeme-lance-missiles-577289 Paris Match, July 25:]<br />
:''Photographs of Paris Match showed that the rebels had failed to remove the billboard on the truck they had stolen. Thus we joined the owner of the vehicle. Vassili said the rebels occupied warehouses on the outskirts of Donetsk since July 8. "They are fighters Slaviansk. They landed and told me they loved my premises and we had to escape. They shipped me a dozen large vehicles, including the white truck. I do not know what happened to them, "admitted Vassili, distraught.'' (that was actually just what they published, aside from context material) <br />
<br />
* [http://www.alfa.lt/straipsnis/472203/alfa-lt-isskirtinis-interviu-su-raketas-buk-kuriomis-buvo-numustas-malaizijos-avialiniju-lektuvas-gabenusio-vilkiko-savininku?p=1#.U-GIxeOSyuZ Alfa.lt, July 29:]<br />
:''This person's testimony is crucial. After it becomes indisputably known that anti-missile system, which shot down a passenger plane was precisely the Kremlin-sponsored terrorist hands. ''<br />
Here, separatists are throughout called "terrorists" (Bezler is "the "People's Republic of Donetsk" terrorist gangs ringleader"). Vassili says these took over and occupied his company premises on July 8, taking the white truck - they said because it was needed He says they stayed in control of his facility for 8 days, apparently departing on the 9th day - July 17. Becuase of this, he and his staff - especially his drivers - were unable to do anything that whole time. He's entirely certain it's his truck in the videos (the phone number says so) as it's the only one of its type in that part of Donetsk (Žinoma, ji – vienintelė tokia Donecko srityje, tokios kitos nėra. Tokios „Volvo“ su tokia kabina). He says he still hasn't seen it since.<br />
:''...more and more irrefutable evidence that Russia supported the terrorists shot down over the temporary control of the territory in the east of Ukraine aboard passenger "Malaysia Airlines plane, and later sought to hide evidence.''<br />
But as Paris Match noted, they couldn't be bothered to detach the phone number to the guy with the whole dang story. <br />
:''Alfa.lt knowledge of the personal data, company name, knows his responsibilities and phone numbers (one is (050) 471-41-80), but because of '''the danger to his life''' that can not be published. "Stop saying my name, and I already have enough problems," said new horrific crime witness Vasilijus.'' <br />
This is valid; of course his best defense would have been to simply ''not'' implicate the separatists mostly running Donetsk, but it's too late now. DPR authorities might want him for questioning. And especially now that he's been publicized as a "crucial witness," others will want him to '''appear to have been brutally murdered by them''' (he will have served his main purpose by now, perhaps). I hope someone's able to arrange protective custody quickly enough, or that he can arrange his own vacation, or convince his friends (he'll know the ones) of his continuing usefulness to them alive. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Titan Gate blurry.png|left|380px]]Further bits on the business: Wikimapia has labels. One for the front building is generic. In English writing: [http://wikimapia.org/#lat=48.0399571&lon=37.794637&z=16&l=0&m=b&show=/24479492/Ochakivska-vulytsia-19 Ochakivska vulytsia, 19]. Beneath: Category: safety, '''private security company.''' Around this, a bigger labeled area including the back building and surrounding lot. Label: Территория службы охраны "Титан" Translated, it says "Territory protection service "Titan" (Donetsk)." Beneath it: "Category: '''Do not display name''', fenced area." (не отображать название, огороженная территория) Below, their gate area as it appears in Human Rights Investigation's still, and three versions I've seen randomly changing over the last day or so with different parts that could be the name blurred out (most recently back to not blurred). Is that unusual? I predict further twists in this, with the truck found somewhere bolstering the Kiev story, and with the company's "outing" being manipulated somehow. Feels a little spooky. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
;Assessing "Vassili's" Story<br />
<br />
There are a number of problems with and interesting questions about this witness' story and how it meshes with other allegation (details forthcoming).<br />
<br />
In Vassili's defense, I'll say the world needs to hear more. What happened in these eight days? Were Russian officers coming and going? Poring over air charts in the side room, before closing the door with an annoyed look? A lot could have happened - this could be a gold mine of direct evidence for war crimes trials of these terrorist gang's leaders (as understood). --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
[[File:MH17 Vassili's Truck August 1c.png|right|400px]]<br />
An apparent support: as HRI found, [http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/08/07/new-sighting-of-volvo-linked-to-buk/ New sighting of Volvo linked to BUK?] August 7 - One of those provocatively deleted tweets, quite recent with a supposedly same-day (dawn or sunset) photo from somewhere in Donetsk - outskirtsy, like where <s>rebel</s> I mean Kiev junta forces proudly claim to almost be. this photo (saved by HRI) shows "a truck" carrying a tank, driving behind another tank. The posted thought it was for a new roadblack/barricade (concrete slabs were also being hauled). It appears to be the same truck Vassili says he lost, or one just like it. And this does look like the type of thing seaparatists would do if they had seized it, and still didn't realize how famous it had become. This thing likes to drive at dawn, doesn't it? How are checkpoints then, a little sleepy maybe? Hmmm... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::(added later: inset image - from the photo, color-corrected and cropped on just the truck - for full view see the article or below) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: FTR I took up HRI's challenge to identify the truck on that picture and did so with almost 100% certainty. It's a Volvo FH second generation (2001-2013) with low cabin. Like [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Volvo_LKW_Fahrerhaus.JPG this one] which has a higher cabin but other than that is quite a match. Also FTR, I noticed that the twitter account has "Donbass Bandera" as location, which can but must not mean anything. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: Bandera might mean something, in context, but no time to puzzle too much. Good ID work there. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Vassili's Truck August 1 Loc.png|left|380px]]The article passes on a geo-location I can confirm: [https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Makiivka,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine/@48.04073,37.967479,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m5!1e2!3m3!1s78165143!2e1!3e10!4m2!3m1!1s0x40e08e984a0db9a9:0xe4e52efde2e0641c Here on Google Maps,] photo taken, as described, from "opposite the Vostochno-evroppeyskiy restaurant & lounge “Atrium” in Makiivka on the H-21." A site photo of the "Atrium" is included. The graphic I made at left shows the approximate view, including the stairwell (to a subway station?), though the billboard is less clear. The view is roughly towards the rising sun northeast - a rough azimuth measure suggests the sun is shining from about <s>66</s> 71 degrees from north, for a time of around <s>5:24</s> 5:52 AM (elevation: <s>1.8</s> 6 degrees). --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC) and corrections --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
FWIW, I went over to militaryphotos.net and scanned [http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?236005-Situation-in-the-Ukraine-Crimea-*Photos-Videos*-ONLY/page200 the thread about Ukraine starting on page 200] in very early July, up until page 225 when all the known truck/BUK info and disinfo was posted. Watched countless military convoys, including a whole bunch from Donetsk in the time between. Not a sign of the truck in question. If it was in "rebel" hands since July 8 like the alleged owner claims, they used it only for "special ops", alone in the early morning or so, not in their larger relocation operations. Two things remotely interesting: in an operation [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0JdcC324Ek reactivating a WWII tank from a war museum in Donetsk], a similar trailer is used, but the truck is a different one. And in [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2eGNPJlkMo this video from July 5] but without given location, the Ukie army does some operations and two BUK TELARs are seen. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Possible Launch Sites ==<br />
*Launch site discussion here is based on a photo of disputed provenance, said to be made '''near [[Category_talk:Ukraine#Torez|Torez]]''', showing a plume of smoke (see on the right and below). Exact date is disputed, but it was posted shortly after the accident. A late update or second version of the photo emerged in December 2014; this is further discussed in the [[File_talk:MH17_Launch_Plume.png|talk page for the photo]]. A different launch location in '''Artemovsk''', based on Bezler account, is discussed elsewhere [[Talk:Crash_of_Malaysia_Airlines_flight_MH17#Bezler_Account|(link).]] . <br />
<br />
===What do we know? ===<br />
Questions about the photo, --if it is genuine-- include:<br />
<br />
*What is shown on the photo? (Likely a missile launch, but can be MANPAD, or some other launch; raising fire smoke not excluded though less likely) <br />
*When was the photo made? (Claimed to be couple of minutes after the MH 17 shootdown launch; but could be made on earlier days)<br />
*Where was the photographer, and where is than the 'launch site" Photograph claimed to be made in Torez (4 microdistrict?) . Claimed launch sites locations are [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/launch-location-detected-of-missile.html SE] or [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2107 NE] from the photographer. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
A site, or maybe a couple of locations, have now been forwarded, based on compelling evidence, as likely SAM launch sites of July 17 or thereabouts. This is worth careful consideration here. To start:<br />
<br />
* [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10984530/MH17-the-clues-which-may-lead-to-missile-launch-site.html UK Telegraph, July 22] This report with some detail and a photo visits a few areas where signs of possible BUK launcher movement and firing occurred recently. Caterpillar tracks, mostly light, signs of burning, various debris left behind, all or mostly "in the area of the town of Snizhnoye." These details might suggest whoever did this had multiple launchers set up in different areas that left as soon as the operation/accident was done. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
::So far, signs are saying it was just the one. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Below: The site shown on video, stitched panoramic view (with confusing curve). This helps get the fullest set of geo-location clues. I may even check if this is the same spot identified by Ukraine@War, below. It should be, or we might have two firing locations pretty near each other, which would be odd. The firing direction from here would be northwest, almost directly along MH17's flight path. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
[[File:MH17 Telegraph site.png|center|940px]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Launch Plume.png|right|340px]]Ukraine@War: [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/launch-location-detected-of-missile.html Launch location detected of missile that brought down MH17] The photo at right, cited by Kiev as proof of a BUK launch in the right area, July 17. The anlysis here looks good on first blush and lines the filming to northern Torez, plume on a line including a supposed patch of cat tracks just revelaed by fresh Google/GeoEye images of some fields [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Donetsk&hl=en&ll=47.989347,38.773155&spn=0.078813,0.195522&t=h&hnear=Donetsk,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine&z=13 here] by Snizhne. As traced, the tracks look realistic to me. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: There is (a disappeared) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUvK5m2vxro BBC video ] suggesting that smoke is from a direction of Saur-Mogila (= constant fighting) and a coal mine. <br />
::Thus smoke may be unrelated to the launch. Also timing of photo is unclear. <br />
:: Buk trail from unrelated launch videos appears considerably [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDXScnEKaP0 more impressive than on the photo] , and traces well visible trajectory, likely attracting attention of many people . But there appears to be no witness reports. <br />
::Buk appears to use [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_navigation proportional navigation method], and if so, its navigation control will try to guide it on a straight path to impact.<br />
::Unless it was doing something else (but can it??? the answer requires expert knowledge), it was most likely on a straight line trajectory which can be deduced from the impact direction.<br />
--[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 00:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Yes, an odd video. I'm not certain they even picked the right view, but it looks about right - I think she and Oliphant (Telegraph) point to the same monument as a landmark - a place of fighting. Seems like they got close, but didn't have a specific spot like U@W picked, and didn't find anything. As for angle, I think it can maneuver around, but would prefer to fly straight (not an expert, don't know what "prefer" means here). And if it was hit head-on like the impact marks suggest, then it probably did fly just about straight into the jet. Obviously if it came over the wing, and was fired from here, it would have to curl around, but I don't think that's the case. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
<br />
The satellite images cited at Ukraine@War are available if you have Google Earth. As explained [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/satellite-images-reveal-how-buk-has.html here,] there's a .kmz package you can download [https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxEeOqcjSE5uQXlkWkxKeVhDaEk/edit here] that loads on Google Earth new, murky images from July 20 (but the display still says August, 2013). The tracks he highlights are visible, faintly. There are a couple sets perhaps connecting - some could be local paths - there's no recent enough images to say there weren't there July 16. One important missing thing is a patch of burnt grass it seems should show up up differently - it's not identified there, and not evident right around these tracks. From this, it's not a great fit, except that line of sight pointing here. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Plastic Debris 1.png|left|280px]]So is the Telegraph site and the Ukraine@War site the same thing? Well, the Telegraph article says they went to the spot identified on a blog, but found, as the image suggests: Two possible launch sites – a rundown collective farm and a nearby wheat field – showed some track marks but no sign of any rocket launch whatsoever." It was a farmer plowing his fields there who pointed them to ''a field nearby'' that burned the other day, and that 's the unclear site they show. "The location of the fire lies on the supposed flight path of the rocket, and track marks – though indistinct – are present. Some unidentifiable bits of green plastic littered the site of the fire." There were also discarded bottles (type unclear) and apparently this oddity, shown in a photo but not mentioned - soft bakelite-type plastic ... thing, with years in the 1980s and 1990s stamped in it. It's all near enough to the rebel town, the Russian border, and concealed rebel positions that they think only rebels could operate there. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
First, let's note that author "P. Martin" connects these possibly relevant tracks with the surveillance video showing the Buk launcher driving south The Telegraph spot, from the burnt grass, must the spot the exhaust pushed off from, and the burn line should probably be to the northwest. There's no sign of that alongside these track marks found on that visual line. That's a problem, as the exhaust never said a luncher was driving around thataway, but rather launching from thataway. <br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 Telegraph Spot Mapped.png|right|380px]][[File:MH17 Telegraph Spot Cleared.png|right|320px]]Rather, it's the nearby "Telegraph spot" - not quite on his line but close - that [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com/2014/07/exact-location-pinpointed-of-mh17.html Martin thinks is the EXACT location] That, he thinks, is in the next field south. It should be visible in the updated imagery, but it turns out this is just off the edge of the area they provided, so it can't be verified or ruled out based on that. The inset graphic shows this cut-off line, his previous possible firing locations (track-based, seemingly un-burnt, in yellow) The spot yields a best placement with coordinates already noted by Petri in a section [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Map#Buk locations and flight paths|here.]] (I picked out the spot myself, best guess, and got the same but 3 seconds east) It can't be checked like that for the telltale stripe to the northwest, but it looks pretty likely to me. The main view down the tracks (left half of the panorama above) would be looking south, and the near line of trees on the right running west. The pretty obvious tracks he identifies as likely launcher tracks, and they do seem to curve in where it stopped. Otherwise, to me, this has more the look of a pre-travelles semi-road on the line between fields. Either way, it probably drove that way, and fired from here, and not from the un-burnt spots north. All the tracks he notes, none certain in themselves, are supported in their possible relevance by this being what's at the end of the trail. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC) and [[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Added in November, the image below that. I noticed Google Maps had new post-crash imagery up, and re-checked the spot for burn marks, since it was just off the grid before. This replacement - overlayed with translucence - seems too late. The strip most likely to show the signs has apparently been harvested/cleared before this image Some will say that constitutes a coverup. And it might, but probably just out of stupid reflexive nervousness. I just wanted to measure its angle and stuff. There is a nice track right up to the spot, likely pre-existing and just unclear before, and what they used to get there. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Location Challenged ===<br />
<br />
The above stuff, as of now and as I've been running it mainly, seems to bear out the vaunted "social media sleuths" placing the launcher and probably the launch in "separatist-held territory." I agree with all locations provided, and times too. Everyone acknowledges date is less sure. There are compelling clues pointing to concrete firing spot, that seems to be lined up the hit the jet head-on, as it's starting to seem the airliner was hit. In this narrative, the questions people should be asking is who was really running that. But readings differ, and some differing views can be considered here. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* [https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByibNV3SiUoobnpCVDduaHVORHM/edit?usp=sharing MH17 Analysis] – CDN <br />
<br />
Petri posted this to the front page, a 25-page report with many graphics and explained reasoning. One of its conclusions, based on range to impact, mainly, meant that "the missile that downed MH17 was not fired from Snizhne." At the moment, I disagree. Petri, who is CDN, and are they soliciting feedback? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::The anonymous PDF was published via Saker's blog: [http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/08/detailed-expert-analysis-of-mh17-downing.html Detailed expert analysis of the MH17 downing] "CDN" has [http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/08/detailed-expert-analysis-of-mh17-downing.html?showComment=1407347983141#c8862773971299986141 responded] [http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/08/detailed-expert-analysis-of-mh17-downing.html?showComment=1407350196815#c7564049628743605813 twice] in the comments. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 00:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
I think these might be part of what threw the author(s) off:<br />
# the heading seems to be off, too southerly to trace back like that. At the end, maybe close enough<br />
# possibly too-wide debris field starting too early - final breakup likely E-NE of their spot (ie closer to in range)<br />
# Wrong presumed angle of impact <br />
# Lack of knowledge, specified on page 23, of this contrail image or, obviously, the supporting clues pointing to what might be "the Telegraph site" excluded here. "Why are there no images of the rebel missile and its impressive launch contrail?" Oops, there is and it point there. <br />
--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: I just skimmed it before coming here. It was posted [http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.de/2014/08/detailed-expert-analysis-of-mh17-downing.html over here] where you can join the discussion (which I haven't read yet just saw that Petri is there chiming in in comment 2 of currently 93). I think it's first valuable in presenting the known capabilities of the Buk etc. If your stuff above is true and it is one single truck with one single TELAR that was seen in the different locations, then it shows quite conclusively that the Telegraph position can not be the launching point, because even if the Ukie claim of disappearance from Radar 50km from the Russian border is not true, due to the position of the debris it could only be further away, not closer, which adds to the argument. My 2 cents for the moment. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 11:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
: Oh, not directly related to the critique, but driving around with a huge phone number that leads to a Titan security of all places is more than a bit suspicious, I'd say. ;o) --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 12:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: "the Telegraph position can not be the launching point" if my "stuff above is true and it is one single truck with one single TELAR that was seen in the different locations" - how? "because even if the Ukie claim of disappearance from Radar 50km from the Russian border is not true, due to the position of the debris it could only be further away, not closer, which adds to the argument." Huh? I think the field is placed really vaguely in that report, and that's what sets the impact point - it looks maybe kilometers off, to the west. Placed right, the implied impact point is further east, ie closer to the launcher. It is a valuable report, but that point should be re-checked more carefully before I could be convinced to write off all the other evidence pointing there. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::: Take a careful look at pages 9 and 10 of the PDF. Place the spot to where you think it's "right". Think how that would change the picture. The argument is based on the empirical location of the debris and unless I've missed some serious flaw in the numbers and basic calculations made on the pages leading to that, I think it's by rule of thumb a very sound argument. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 13:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::: I'll do my own soon - I can say it would end further east, relative to the border there, and probably start further east too, but maybe I'm unaware of some outlying debris - but first a though on the debris field I just had, even more relevant than size and placement - what does it actually say re: the plane? He presumes it would follow the trajectory east. Not much, really. With only so much momentum and breaking up, with five miles to fall, the main factor will be wind. Even a breeze has five miles to act on it. That was so with PA 103 - the wind was about perpendicular to the path, and that determined just where stuff scattered on a line across the borders area right to the north sea - only the cockpit and a few things were off much from that line. Here, if it blewa along the flight path, the reasoning would work fine. If it blew back, to the west, the plane was probably shot further east than the field suggests. Ie, closer yet to in range. The Zuhres video above shows wind apparently to the northwest, and pretty strong. Worth a review and re-think in that light. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 14:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::: With an initial speed of 907 km/h I see no reason to take wind into serious account. I see no reason at all for going into more detail in this rule of thumb argument, not on the debris, not on the alleged launching point. But I'm as always looking forward to what you can come up with. ;o) --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::: btw there's no exact calculation of the traveled distance of the falling pieces, it's just found plausible resulting from other data. --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 14:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::::: There's good reason. [http://martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/PA103_debris.gif past precedent.] I did read it wrong - the blue oval is about right, I thought the scale by it, which is way off. That's the 20 km drift - if the wind was blowing due east at the right speed... to the near edge of the oval and 30 km to the far edge... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 15:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:MH17 four last points.png|center]]<br />
<br />
Debris fields as shown in MH17 WSJ data combined.jpg. The two tracks, 118 per Flightradar24 and other sources, and 111 from a Russian graphic (see label C), just in case. They cross at point E just to look cool - superimpose wherever to visualize a track-back on these or any line between. <br />
<br />
The four red "last points", eyeballed onto the map as shown in the various graphics used here (all pretty approximate): <br />
<br />
A: last return, flightradar 24 (erred, I think, way too far along - I suspect some inherent offset...)<br />
<br />
B: Russian ATC last return, '50 km' from the border (vague description, likely close to accurate)<br />
<br />
C: end of 111 track shown in MH17 radar 1.png (maybe arbitrary, lower resolution)<br />
<br />
D: report, deduced point of impact (presuming 20-30 km flight due east after impact, wind app. not considered at all)<br />
<br />
E: My guess for breakup point, where the damaged front came apart (should maybe be further east, right over the south part of the first orange blob). Actual impact point, an unclear distance back. probably not very far - downward flight could start anytime after that, decreasing the lateral distance traveled) . <br />
<br />
The cockpit, aerodynamic, shows the most like forward trajectory of this, relatively minimal wind complication. The heavy forward parts had more drag, wound up NW of there. A bit further NW, the light, high-drag, punctured upper fuselage. That these parts aren't spread further out suggests the jet managed to descend some ways before the front totally fell apart, and/or that the wind was fairly light. From there, most of the plane remained together, kept more momentum and little wind effect, and crashed kilometers east. The last part of this plummet, about one minute seen on video, it was nose-free and essentially nose-diving. A slight north trend, perhaps curtailed eastward progress, largely just down, leaves it all hitting together by Hrabove, scattering woth the fireball trajectory and wind deciding where these bits landed. That it only got so far from the forward parts again suggests this breakup was fairly low in the fall - maybe just before the start of the one video. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I'd say forget point D, it is way too far west, this plane was not going to fly 25km once hit. On debris, I'd put breakup where the "f" is in your word "forward" and impact not very far NW of that, lifting the whole 118 line a little northwards. You can't bring breakup below impact and count on wind pushing wreckage "uphill" because that first group of wreckage included 37 bodies, which would not "sail". The impact would be enough to knock the course slightly south, to drop the cockpit at Rozspyne, where it turned NE to end up at Grabovo. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 03:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Thanks. D is the presumed point used to rule out this launch location, the original point of this sub-section. That dot fails by a good margin. My E and your guess are both north of the flight path, along which all the red dots are (this graphic is confusing, needs updating, if I didn't flatten it). I was thinking a NNW wind did the north and west spreading, but the records say the wind was flat "east" (to the west). I'm left suspecting now the plane banked hard left just before it started breaking up. Actual impact, just before that. The "C" label is pretty arbitrary, but it keeps seeming about right. On the imagined red line 1t 117-118, I dunno, maybe 20-30 pixels back. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::Winds are described as 'from' not 'to. So a wind blowing to the NNW is reported as a SSE wind.<br />
::::A slip - I'm trying to say it that way now. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::Getting on to the wind. The actual breeze direction is usually a function of altitude - veering or backing from ground level observation. It can easily be 90 degrees out from ground level. You need to look at the vertical profile used in aeronautical soundings to see where debris will in the main blow to. --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 11:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::Sounds like a real headache to map. There's also changes over time, where east at 5:00 may change briefly ten minutes later, or 10,000 feet up. All that seems can be counted on is easterly winds in general - no exception to that. And generally, even if they measure it at the airport, it must extend up to the clouds, which can be seen swirling east over the area. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::No it doesn't extend to the clouds except by accident. Major direction change can happen in hundreds of metres altitude especially at night. Examples of wind shift between ground level and 700 millibars (9800 ft) in day time can show a direction change of 90 degrees - e.g. North to West. This is significant with MH17 where the breakups occurred between 33,000 feet and probably a few thousand feet for the final disintegrations. --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 11:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::FYI Here is all about [http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/48/ Veering and Backing] --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 11:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::As for the spread issue, I'm re-thinking it. As for the bodies, it depends on a few things but I take your point - bodies are dense. And I didn't know that detail - worth considering. Also a sad side-note: most bodies would be alive and aware, from what I learned looking at Lockerbie. Lack of O2 would black them all out at first, but gravity makes it so there's enough in that final stretch those not dead already (the lucky few) would probably "wake up" in time to both feel their injuries and their fall, and to see the "separatist-held" fields rushing up to kill them. :( ---[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::: My indications are they were all dead when they hit the ground. That's not to say some didn't suffer from the first blast up there. Using my (very long ago) rescue triage training, I examined all the body photos for type of injury. The main findings were (a) almost no blood (as the separatist intercepted call rightly claimed) (b)a lot of legs at angles suggesting hip/pelvic fracture (a very common injury in air crashes to people wearing seat belts) and (c) all the bodies appear swollen (in first-day photos). We are thinking of what happened as a decompression, a low-pressure event. But that was preceded by the blast detonation of the missile just outside... a high-pressure event. The very high pressure shock wave compresses the blood vessels and severely damages the lungs. Blood pressure and heart rate go sky high trying to compensate. In 1/2 a second the blast wave is gone and they are in decompression.The heart can't adjust fast enough. The lack of blood flow makes the brain and liver swell up, too, so normal blood circulation cannot be re-established even if the heart recovers. The Lockerbie bomb, and various exploding fuel tank cases, were lower pressure explosions; sadly many would have survived those until ground/water impact.[[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 20:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::So there is evidence of blast wave, not _just_ decompression alone? But no shrapnel wounds? --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 21:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::(cut my comment - I had misread - taken to [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Debunked topics#Bloodless bodies – fake Facebook profiles?|bloodless bodies spot]] FWIW - but I disagree with both the lack of blood and the validity of many "separatist" communications, but if we're not arguing a planeload of corpses being shot down, I won't argue it much.) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
More to the point, leaving the above graphic aside, would be this newer one I should finally add. Basic straight path, 118 and placed as agreed by most sources. Alleged launch location, measures app. My best guess is a 2 km range from 22.75 to 24.75, weighted to the center. Or most likely about 23.75 km out (irrespective of actual projectile flight path, that's where it made contact, but this helps visualize how the alleged launch site might line up with [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Forensics#Direction of projectiles?|the directional forensics]]). --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
[[File:MH17 missile intercept distances.png]]<br />
::Straight line from launch is okay. But impact has to be further north, ie before the most westerly debris. You've used the map which assumes that debris to be blown back by wind. That can't be right, as it included bodies (too dense to blow back) and witnesses saw them and plane sections falling straight down. This only makes about 1 mile difference to the missile range, so does nothing to exclude that launch location. [[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 01:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::The map of spread is only app., some orange area I made. The pink dot and lines are from a map, Russian analysis, as you say apparently presuming a SSE wind. Debris including people ''would'' be blown back to some degree, all of it, varyingly; trajectory can only do so much when you have five miles of falling, with the breezes acting the whole time, and the lightest parts will be back a bit, whatever direction and as mentioned above, a SSE winds at some time or altitude still isn't ruled out at all). Do we know just where in that area those passengers landed, and what types of things are its far end? ? <br />
(<br />
:::I mean, you could be right and it's a bit further back, maybe with a continuation due east from there and no real wind effect except slightly back. It was only 9-12 mph, and maybe it fell halfway before starting to fall apart, which means less spread. I'm thinking about a possible left turn to explain the north aspect, or it could be wind, or being further back (more north, as well as west), or a combination. The turn has to be a certain size, the wind direction is not certain aside from east prevailin, ... whatever point best explains whatever happened ... we're down to a shrinking agreed range, and as you say, it's all within range of the one spot, so it's not ruled out after all. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 04:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
At this stay of play, I feel it will be helpful to have displayed prominently an overall map reflecting best guess on impact location as well as already flagged suspected launch sites, that is the two launch sites we have been discussing (near Snezhny ; near Chernukhino) , PLUS launch locations flagged and TIMED by released satellite data (currently only Russian data is available). I would be generous with the range here, we can find range suggested by public sources but presumably actual range depends on a number of things (height, radar range, trajectory, wind), and may exceed the "official" range. Another useful graphics piece info would be indicating the front lines, if there is a way to have those known. '''I would be extremely cautious with displaying graphics reflecting just one way of thinking (whether "worst", "best", or "middle of the way"), for the reason that any graphics is easy for human brain to absorb, more than words spread out on all our numerous pages, and ''no graphics at all'' is better than displayed ''skewed'' graphics.''' One-sided graphics may be '''inviting''' even more noise releases "supporting" some already skewed scenarios, and I feel that was already happening way too often. I feel that most helpful stance at this point would be as neutral as it gets. (Regarding trajectories, a default guess is a straight line, anything else requires an explanation. Straight line is implied so no strong need to actually display it, especially if it ends up curling in suggestive funny ways on graphics). --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 09:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::I've been doing a lot of graphics, so not all fired up for more. But if you are, I wouldn't mind making another if it helps. Maybe this is best taken to [[Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Map#Interception Location]] (a lot of this is redundant, and I might move it, but at least I can say let's stop piling intercept stuff here as well as there). Up to picking a certain spot around Chernukino? Some outskirts area, on a major road, it'll be a guess. A couple guesses could be mapped. Also, if it seems worth it, I can do updates and upload the new version as needed. Any timed satellite launches, let me know. Front lines, not known and IMO misleading in this case. Those who would know would try - and maybe manage - to sneak this thing behind them... the caution about leading labels, I can leave to you - you could just tell me what to put. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
:::::Would take me forever, may try later on, but not immediately; some cleanup/re-arrangement seems the easiest option. (If there are tools for collaborative mapping, may be good to start using those; but not aware of any) --[[User:Chingachgook|Chingachgook]] ([[User talk:Chingachgook|talk]]) 11:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The preliminary [[Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Dutch preliminary report|Dutch report]] says the flight recorders were suddenly lost at 13:20:04 UTC at a point that almost exactly matches the 22.6 km mark. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 22:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Plume Location Re-challenged ===<br />
There is another video, essentially giving a bellingcat in voice-altered Russian. We discussed all that essentially; but he seems at least to end up with a claim for geolocation for the plume photo. Seems to be a new one (or I forgot the old one already by now). The claim is based on [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2055 unrelated panoramic photo] somebody took nearby, and [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2025 claimed to be geolocated by presenter]. Here it is on <br />
[http://maps.yandex.ru/-/CVG0nLo~ yandex map] ; it is taken from a terricon located at Lutuginskii bugor(=hill). There is a cableway from there to TsOF (remember, Khuevyi Torez tells about cableway from Lutugino to TsOF, so here they are); [http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=48.012722&lon=38.665695&z=14&m=b&show=/10590043/ru/ЦОФ-им-Киселёва TsOF is central enrichment plant]; photos from TSOF do show a similar [http://photos.wikimapia.org/p/00/00/62/81/85_big.jpg cableway] . So based on that and an audio of locals of unknown provenance and authenticity, discussing a missile-looking trail in the direction of [http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=48.041767&lon=38.741055&z=14&m=b&show=/18687650/ru/Химмаш Khimmash], our presenter [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2107 ends up] with this [http://maps.yandex.ru/-/CVG0rMnO claimed plume location] , somewhere near this Mochalino village. And apart from this, his contribution to the topic is the claim of a white spot on the other side of 3'2 Buk which he claims to match on the way out. I do not believe all those Buk sightings were taken on the same day, and so do not believe in the overall glue-up of the story, but geolocating the plume, no matter what the plume is, remains legitimate. This author gives his answer to that question. Is this geolocation correct? I do not know, it is not tight, there are lots of cableways out there I presume, and some posts nearby are not too unusual. I do not see a tight fit between Lutuginski bugor photo and the plume photo--some elements do match, but those are obviously not identical places. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 02:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Excellent. Let's keep the title. But I guess you just forgot the previous location. This is the same view. The plume could be added, but I doubt it, and it's to that view at a consistent time on a consistent day. I'm not convinced ''all'' Buk sightings are same day, but most of them being so is a good fit with this plume that way, and a plane down with damage that seems consistent to me. (I hate this case) --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 13:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::Are you sure it's the same? This new one is NNE from Torez, I thought it was placed SE from Torez by [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/launch-location-detected-of-missile.html U@W ]--[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::Going back to check, this is a different filming location proposed. Line of sight isn't included, but it seems to be the same line over the same area to the same place. Even before he could see the distinctive mound, Petros (U@W) had [http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-cfSqhRb2dKo/U80x2OxK1XI/AAAAAAAATNk/r42WpH-Bf-Q/s1600/missile+trail+9.jpg this lineup], which includes this spot. Right where Petros pic says "trees" is what this guy decided were the foreground trees where it was filmed. I wondered when checking but decided on the further version. And seems to be the same result either way. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::I don't think this is accurate, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BpMCtBNJig&t=2107 video at this timestamp] gives 'место пуска ракеты' (launch location) near [http://maps.yandex.ru/-/CVGgVPJN Molchalino]. I have not seen this elsewhere, I only seen the one claimed to be SE of Torez. He does not discuss filming location, but shows it on video and assumes it is in Torez near the terricon, which is close to what other sources assume. He does show the line of site on the video; it is nearly perpendicular to U@W. Lots of terricons, coalmines (so likely cableways), and power lines leading there in this area, so location now seems uncertain. As I understand, no solid evidence for either of these two being the correct geolocation (those cableways seems to be quite common) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::::I am/was confused then. I thought it showed a SW view, just from closer to the mound. Now I see at 33:45 a view from right by it, looking NE? Can't explain the other one you see in the distance in the fuller view (right ?) That's kind of towards Molchalino, but that won't explain anything I suspect. (and what a bad fake or odd coincidence to have a plume up there and a the Buk tracking imagery lead to south of Snizhne, oops!) We'll see south and west faces of buildings if looking NE, so sun will be shining from well east of south, but also quite high, like mid-day in the early AM - or maybe just earlier mid-day, like 11 am. That would be another sloppy mistake. I doubt the details will line up. BUT a couple minor things didn't quite seem to the other way, so maybe worth a try (later). --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I will send this comment also to<br />
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/01/27/is-this-the-launch-site-of-the-missile-that-shot-down-flight-mh17<br />
The US map launch location can best best and almost exactly located from the last magnified picture:<br />
https://wp4553-flywheel.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/32.jpg<br />
That location is here:<br />
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.9571993,38.7466343,488m/data=!3m1!1e3<br />
The triangulation result in the last 3 pictures of the article introduces unnecessary error and clearly does not match the magnified picture.<br />
There is a structure that looks similar to an airfield and it is just south of Chervony Zhovten (=Oktyabr), matching with a witness observation in that place ("it was flying as if from Saurivka", though not matching 2 other witnesses in the zello audio, indicating it came from government held positions further south, [2:00] "Well, it appears everybody saw where the missile has flown from." [2:04] "Well, where you are, everybody saw it, but the Ukrainian media, as usual, will say, will say that that were us.")<br />
It would be outside the range of the plume picture geolocation bounds, which may be either an error given the long distance, or, the plume picture was taken the day before from the reported grad missile launch (as well as the burned field). (The photographer gave his camera to the SBU after twittering the first picture, so later pictures and dates can not be taken for sure).<br />
http://7mei.nl/not-buk-m1-new-video-proof/--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 19:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:(1) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkCcCmYlMZc That audio], as it turns out, was posted by Torezinfo on 24 July, and updated on 1 February. Torezinfo is a favorite posting place of Khuevyi Torez(=KT), who posted a very [https://twitter.com/WowihaY/status/489914266439671808 similar location map on 17 July already]. KT mentions zello recordings on 25 July in the follow-up, so shortly after it gets on torezinfo. With all that stuff linked to this KT poster, I would not put much trust that any of that is genuine. (Or that this KT poster is not acting as a medium for SBU). (2)[http://fr1.sidcdn.net/maps/nsdc/2014/07/large/map-nsdc-2014-07-17-uk-w3000.jpg Ukrainian map] does give us some Ukrainian held area somewhere to the South, but from that map it is hard to tell where exactly opolchenie ends and UAF begins--(I would not know) (3) Actually, going from there, not likely to hit on the left side--so having it from Artemovsk (as Bezler told, indeed) seems most probable --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 21:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:: Here is another map http://liveuamap.com/e/2014/16-of-july-saurivka-is-bombarded-over-and-over-by-rus-grad?ll=47.907137219641115;38.75392913818363&zoom=8<br />
::And here is an article which says that both Marinovka and Tarany were held by National guard. http://www.interpretermag.com/ukraine-liveblog-day-149-russian-tanks-and-artillery-reach-donetsk/#3353<br />
::I just opened bellingcat https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/01/27/is-this-the-launch-site-of-the-missile-that-shot-down-flight-mh17 and see that large parts of the article disappeared, I think they are working on it. That location given by the US photo does not really match well with the plume direction anymore, lets see what they come up with--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 21:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::I believe Marinovka was [http://lifenews.ru/news/136715 taken by opolchenie on 16 July] (lifenews report). Tarany--do not know, perhaps still Ukraine, but not totally sure. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 21:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::: other sources say attack was repelled and forced them to retreat to Stepanivka http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_in_Shakhtarsk_Raion http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/213817.html--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 22:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::: That US photo launch location differs by an angle of about 11 (?) degrees from the brown line in the bellingcat plot (measured from the photographer's location). https://wp4553-flywheel.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/101.jpg (launch location is just visible below the letter 'p' of 'the word 'suspected'). I think this a lot and puts the 'plume' into question. But then there is only the US photo, which itself could be a production based on social media (or worse).--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 22:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Well some believed this is for real, then they got a case to answer [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/22/mh17-us-intelligence-russia-separatists-report Guardian: Photograph: US intelligence community] [https://twitter.com/barbarastarrcnn/status/491559153559932928/photo/1 @barbarastarrcnn] --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
In the following, I assume that most of the social media pieces and leaked audio tapes are correct and connect the dots in a different way:<br />
<br />
1. On July 14, an Ukrainian Antonow 26 airplane was shot down by a missile near the Russian border town of Donetsk.<br />
http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/what-weapon-was-used-to-shot-down-ukraine-air-force-antonov-26-at-july-14/<br />
The video in above link showed the missile flying for 39 seconds until it hit. Only a BUK can fly that long, a manpad or Pantsir, also claimed to have been used, not (see first comment in link).<br />
<br />
2. According to a recorded audio tape published by the Ukrainian Secret Service SBU, rebels possessed a BUK ('BUK3x2') in the Donetsk area at least since July 14 ('we already have BUK'). At that date it may have been either on Russian or already rebel held territory.<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVAOTWPmMM4<br />
<br />
3. A social media search discovered only one other system in the area, capable of shooting down AN26 - a Pantsir. However, a Pantsir can't fly for 39 seconds. Based on a max.speed of 780m/s and max range of 20km, it can only fly for about 25s.<br />
http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.co.nz/2014/11/unnoticed-video-of-26-downing-confirms.html<br />
Therefore and because of the crew's intent to engage in the civil war, it is likely that AN26 was shot down by BUK3x2. Afterwards BUK3x2 had only 3 missiles left.<br />
<br />
4. On July 16, Ukrainian and rebel statements both confirmed the shoot down of a SU-25 plane near the "Marinivka border crossing", which is only a few kilometers south-south east of Pervomaiske, the destination of BUK3x2. Ukraine's defence ministry said: "It is likely that [the hit] was carried out by air-to-air rockets from the Russian air force which were patrolling the border in a pair." <br />
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-28345039<br />
This may have been another reason to install a BUK system in this area on the next day, leaving room for an accidental Ukrainian shoot down, apart from an accidental rebel shoot down and a willful Ukrainian false flag shoot down.<br />
<br />
5. On July 16, rebels fired grad missiles from a location near Pervomaiske. The plume may have been photographed as well by an SBU informant in Torez and twittered on the next day, claiming to show the launch of the missile hitting MH17.<br />
http://7mei.nl/not-buk-m1-new-video-proof/<br />
<br />
6. On July 17, BUK3x2 was seen in rebel territory on its way to Pervomaiske, south of Torez. Ukrainian SBU knew about the arrival latest since July 14 and about its destination latest July 17 morning, allowing a false flag operation from positions held nearby.<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVAOTWPmMM4<br />
<br />
7. There was an ongoing battle in the region with "fluent" contact lines. Marinivka and Tarany, about 8 kilometers south-east and south of Pervomaiske, were controlled by Ukrainian National Guard as well as all of the border region. Marinivka would match well with the direction of the Torez plume photo.<br />
http://liveuamap.com/e/2014/16-of-july-saurivka-is-bombarded-over-and-over-by-rus-grad?ll=47.907137219641115;38.75392913818363&zoom=8<br />
http://www.interpretermag.com/ukraine-liveblog-day-149-russian-tanks-and-artillery-reach-donetsk/#3353<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_in_Shakhtarsk_Raion<br />
<br />
8. The Russian Defense ministry claimed in a news conference, that on July 17, Ukraine installed several BUK system near rebel held areas.<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bNPInuSqfs#t=1567<br />
<br />
9. In a popular 'zello' audio recording, witnesses in the area were talking about the launch of the missile hitting MH17. A witness from "Oktyabr" (Chervony Zhovten) claimed "it was flying as if from Saurivka". <br />
Two other witnesses said:<br />
[2:00] "Well, it appears everybody saw where the missile has flown from."<br />
[2:04] "Well, where you are, everybody saw it, but the Ukrainian media, as usual, will say, will say that that were us."<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkCcCmYlMZc<br />
<br />
10. A Reuter's witness also claimed that the missile was fired from Kiev held territory. Reuters, however, said, "off camera, he said that it was launched from a nearby rebel site. Asked why originally he said the opposite he said it was because he was afraid of the rebels."<br />
In a new interview this witness claims that "off camera comments were just made up by the [Reuters] journalist".<br />
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=497_1427729491<br />
<br />
11. BUK3x2 was again photographed in Lugansk with its 3 missiles, no missile fired since July 14.<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4HJmev5xg0<br />
<br />
12. The US presented a very low resolution satellite photo with the track of a missile added. The launch location does not match well with the direction geolocated with the Torez plume photo, it deviates by about 11 degrees in angle, hence either or both appear to be incorrect.<br />
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/01/27/is-this-the-launch-site-of-the-missile-that-shot-down-flight-mh17/#comment-12493<br />
<br />
13. Award winning investigative journalist Robert Parry reported about leaked US intelligence "that U.S. intelligence agencies do have detailed satellite images of the likely missile battery that launched the fateful missile, but the battery appears to have been under the control of Ukrainian government troops dressed in what look like Ukrainian uniforms."<br />
https://consortiumnews.com/2014/07/20/what-did-us-spy-satellites-see-in-ukraine/<br />
And later Parry wrote: "But I’m now told that U.S. intelligence analysts ... are concentrating on the scenario of a willful Ukrainian shoot-down of the plane, albeit possibly not knowing its actual identity."<br />
https://consortiumnews.com/2014/08/03/flight-17-shoot-down-scenario-shifts/<br />
<br />
14. During the coming months BUK shrapnel may have been collected from the AN26 wreckage and planted in the MH17 wreckage.--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 00:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Photographer Statement===<br />
[http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com.au/2014/12/interview-with-eyewitness-who-made.html Reported to say] : "That day did not foretell anything special would happen. In the morning I woke up and went to my work. At four ó clock in the afternoon I arrived home. And at 16:20 we heard an explosion. The first explosion was not very heavy. 15 seconds later, something like that, there was a second explosion, which was louder and it made the windows shake."<br />
: Did not foretell --an ass, --is this lawyer-written? 'We heard". --Took till December to polish up ? --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 16:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:: Agreed. 'I did not know in advance this would happen.' Uh, who said you might? And 15 seconds must be rocket travel. Did he hear the firing from there? Could be, not that far. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Time delay consideration ===<br />
Photographer reported two sound booms td=15 seconds apart; an interpretation may be launch and impact sounds arriving to him in Torez. If P=(0,0,0) is photographer cordinates, I=(d,0, h) is impact, with d ground distance between Torez and Rozypnoe, h is the height of flight at 10 km , and L =(x,y,0) is launch location, dist(A,B) is Euclidean distance between A and B, c is peed of sound, and n (about 2.5) is missile speed in Machs, then<br />
<br />
(1). dist (P,L) = dist(L,I)/n + dist (I,P) - td*c <br />
<br />
(2). dist (P,L) >= h/n + dist (I,P) - td*c <br />
<br />
(1) is a biquadratic equation for y given x (square enough times for square root to disappear); plotting that gives a closed 'ellipse-like' curve on (x,y) plane; once on that curve, time delay is exactly td seconds (doing this involves solving quadratic equations and removing spurious solutions not satisfying (1) ) . That curve is at distance about 13 km in NW direction from photographer in Torez, and about 22 km in SE direction from him on the Southern ( Saur Mogila side). <br />
<br />
(2) gives a simple estimate that distance between photographer and launcher is greater than the known right hand side; that distance is more than something like 13 km<br />
<br />
(3) Requiring launch withing the range, --launch is not more than 20 km horizontally from the impact-- selects a NW arc of the curve described in (1) ; that arc is to the NW from Torez, and goes slightly NW from the impact point (meaning its ground projection). <br />
<br />
Conclusion, based on the above, is that launch is too far from the photographer, to match the photo. <br />
<br />
(Knowing exact time delay can tighten the argument. With what's actually known, and objection can be raised that whatever actual time delay was, it appeared to be 15 seconds to the photographer. Graphics of the curve may be supplied if needed). --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Ooh. That kind of math could really come in handy with recorded audio cues, for example. But based on '15 seconds, something like that,' from memory months later, I wouldn't put any weight on it. If that turns out correct and pretty exact, there's a good point. Otherwise, the photo and other stuff is more solid, and says it's just about where it should be, as far as I've seen anyway. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 01:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Contrail ==<br />
This is what an "impressive launch contrail" of a big missile might look like.<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3lLwP1y0w8 АТО. Запуск двух ТРК Точка-У. Артемовск.] (ATO. The launch of two TRK Tochka-U. Artemivs'k.) – August 28, 2014<br />
-- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 22:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Something happens in the sky. This is the people's reaction:<br />
* ''20/09/2014 Over many parts of the DPR and LPR were seen circles in the sky.'' [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7310 1,] [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7311 2,] [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7312 3,] [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7313 4,] [http://vk.com/wall-71845958_7314 5]<br />
-- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 03:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
Tochka U missile is single stage solid fuel, which is a mixture of ammonium perchlorate with rubber and aluminum powder (Russian [http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/tochka/9ch151.shtml "ДАП–15В" fuel] ).<br />
I could not find information on Buk with a comparable level of detail. Buk missile is single stage, solid fuel of some type, "dual-mode solid propellant (total work time - about 15 seconds)" [http://www.webcitation.org/67kZeZxeh] , [http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-9K37-Buk.html]<br />
Earlier "Куб" ("Cube") missile used [http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/kub/kub.shtml 'ballist' fuel,] [https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%85#.D0.91.D0.B0.D0.BB.D0.BB.D0.B8.D1.81.D1.82.D0.B8.D1.82.D0.BD.D1.8B.D0.B5 gunpowder] + plasticiser type (Russian "ВИК-2") at the start, followed by some sort of ramjet ("direct flow rocket engine") at final stage. It is not clear, but possible, that fuels and contrails of Tochka U and Buk are different. Here are some videos with Buk launch: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDXScnEKaP0] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EAtNpsXrgWs], and [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSXMhaFntrU a longer with stupid music version]. Those videos appear to be shot from a closer distance than Tochka U video; and a contrail on them does look quite impressive. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 10:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:The amount of smoke is highly dependant om Alumin(i)um loading. In general more aluminum is more 'oomph' and also more smoke.<br />
:On the other hand, it's common to alter the loading for other reasons. I refer to the Syrian Volcano (122mm variety) that started out as high Al-load and quite smokey but recent versions have low Al load but perhaps similar characteristics? --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 10:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Here is something that might be a BUK: Ukrainian AN-26 shot down from Russian border area on July 14th. Ukraine@war claims it as a BUK. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 10:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
* [http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.fi/2014/11/unnoticed-video-of-26-downing-confirms.html Unnoticed video of AN-26 downing confirms shot down from Russian territory] – Ukraine@war, November 27, 2014<br />
** Video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoS4kgHxPnE Ukrainian Military Aircraft Su-25 Downed After Russian Attack Near Izvarino, July 16]<br />
:::Does not look like Buk, short contrail, --not all the way to the ground like on Buk video launches. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::It was a BUK. It flew 39 seconds in the video, a Pantsyr can't do this, see also first comment in this link http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/what-weapon-was-used-to-shot-down-ukraine-air-force-antonov-26-at-july-14/. Easy maths - at Mach 3 (1020m/s) it can fly for about 42 seconds (range 42 km, bit more because initially it is slower). According to the audio tape, BUK 3x2 was in the area on that day! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVAOTWPmMM4 Ukraine@war needed 5 months to find something else in the area, but the Pantsyr can't fly that long. This is how BUK 3x2 likely lost a missile.--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 21:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::::Well, yes, it does takes 42 seconds to fly 42 km at 1000 m/s , but that does not mean what we see '''must be''' a Buk. They start discussing that plane caught fire at 0:03 on the video already. We do not see what on hell is going on until some 30 s later. This plane likely was brought down by Igla or similar modern MANPAD. Possibly two hits, at 0:03 and another at around 0:30. Or it got on fire at the start of the video and than eventually went down (It is unlikely to have SU 25 pilot bailing out after Buk strike; or particularly likely catching fire as it's not aiming at the engine; contrail is weak for a Buk, too). Pantsir claims are much later from what I have seen,--- and no need for Pantsir to shoot SU 25. ---If something is there on SBU audio and some murky photo, does not mean it's all for real, and that what we do actually see all have to be linked to all that murky SBU stuff. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 22:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::::There may be some confusion here, just a recapture<br />
::::::First video https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xTT6BDRA8_k<br />
::::::0:03-0:11 buring object <br />
::::::0:17-0:33 contrail making a half looping<br />
::::::Second video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoS4kgHxPnE<br />
::::::0:29-0:39 contrail making a half looping + detonation.<br />
::::::ukraine@war http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/11/unnoticed-video-of-26-downing-confirms.html<br />
::::::says both videos show AN26 shoot down on July 14 (second video with wrong label SU-25)<br />
::::::says 2nd video impact at 0:39, claims missile has been burning for at least 39 seconds--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 06:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::::::After reconsideration, I would say ukraine@war is right, both videos show AN26 shoot down, but wrong, people were initially watching AN26 with engine burning and a second missile was fired. That missile was seen burning about 16 seconds in first video, and time has to be added to reach that altitude/location, so likely over 20 seconds. That would exclude man-pad, Pantsir (?), likely BUK, R73 air-to-air, ...--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 06:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Actually, it is interesting to know how contrail of Buk on a long haul launch looks like. It is said that it fires engine for some 15 seconds only (and unknown will it do less, if it can do away with less). That 15 seconds need to put it at a spot where it can reach the target with little, if any, engine work and doing turns only. It is not very clear how much targeting happens in the first 15 seconds, likely it does some; and it is self-guided and doing proportional navigation later on. Knowing details here allows to find exact trajectory, short of that thinking it goes straight to the collision point is a sensible idea. In any case, heavy contrail '''raising from the ground''', perhaps higher than the target is. Contrail is white, and stays put for a while. Seriously heavier than the stuff we see on social media. There are youtube videos of Buk launches giving an idea --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:These 15 seconds are wrong. Here is a video (start at 2:00) showing a SA-11 burn fuel for 35 seconds until its too far to distinguish. It is detonating at 42 seconds. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBlU2hHYJMg (I just copied the comment from here http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/what-weapon-was-used-to-shot-down-ukraine-air-force-antonov-26-at-july-14/ )--[[User:MS|MS]] ([[User talk:MS|talk]]) 23:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::That video probably shows a modern version ('over horizon' capability was mentioned somewhere regarding modern developments; this one seems to be showing us something like that). 15 sec is coming from Russian sources [http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/buk/buk.shtml Зенитная ракета 9М38 выполнена с применением двухрежимного твердотопливного двигателя (общее время работы - около 15 секунд)]. Older versions also had shorter listed range. 22-25-35-42 km range, going through modifications. (Would be happier without 15 sec engine limit actually-easier to know trajectory) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::Actually what goes off is [https://digitalempire.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/9m38m1.jpg 9M38M1], the one supposed to have [http://pvo.guns.ru/buk/buk_02.htm 15 sec engine run], but the video lasts for 40 sec. This appears to be edited video, around 2:30 we got two tracks, than one slides right unreasonably for a natural recording. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 02:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::Since this is a point we haven't already covered around that I know of, I'll pop in for it. 42 seconds I gather is the time for the fuel to burn out and the thing to fall, like a grad rocket or the like can only do. But this is a missile with guidance, set to intercept a moving airliner. Therefore, app. 40-45 seconds is the longest, not the shortest, it can fly (or am I just confused?) But 15 seconds is plausible, depending. Still might be untrue, not trusting people saying stuff. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 09:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::::After the engine is off it is high up and and at high speed, still can fly until gravity acceleration brings it down, and is on guided flight -unlike Grad-because fins can move causing it to turn. Issues here are visuals (contrail all the way or only about 15 km in flight), and trajectory. With engine on for 40 +secs it will go straight to collision point doing proportional navigation all the way (exploding earlier if it needs to be). If it is only 15 sec, trajectory is less clear, it may for example use engine to climb high up, than do guided fall and proportional navigation to the target from a spot where engine delivered it (for low and close-by target, that may potentially end up with a hit from another side--some drawings from unclear sources were showing opposite side hits at under 1 km and direct hits at 10-15 km). Or it may use engine to end up on a ballistic trajectory hitting target (no side changing than). This is solid fuel engine so there is not much control on how quickly it burns off, that time is a set design feature. What we see on launch video is 40+ seconds of engine work-- will go direct to collision point in that case. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 12:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::::That's another clue that plume of smoke photo is not a Buk launch, that would give at least some 10-15 km worth of contrail, not a plume; with 40+seconds engine, contrail all the way to impact...(or else, launched from far away, over 40 km distance) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 12:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==About accents==<br />
<br />
[http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29109398 This report,] released one day before the preliminary official report, recycles visual imagery already discussed on this page, and attempts a new claim that a BUK crew spoke with Russian-'Muscovite' accent. The claim is made by (British-accent) actors representing 'eyewitness(es)', with a visual imagery of a car at unknown night-lighted location in the embedded video, and some text, provided in English. Regarding 'Muscovite' accent, first it is not easy to tell, for example [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBCfmlMkYMg this video] is Mr. Poroshenko speaking in Russian to a resident of Crimea, replying in Russian, and commented by a presenter, who is speaking 'Muscovite'. Although Mr. Poroshenko has a slight southern accent, there is little difference between the three speakers in practice. Moreover, actors and presenters can easily switch from Southern to Muscovite as required. <br />
<br />
Secondly, if somebody speaks 'Muscovite', this does not mean this person works for Russia or the rebels,--- he can work for any side (PS. No change of condition to the blue dumpster on Zuhres video was reported in this latest update). --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 14:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Thanks for bringing this. What a stupid report. "Three eyewitnesses, all civilians, separately told Panorama that they saw a missile-launcher in rebel-held territory a few hours before the Boeing jet was hit." Yeah, video shows the same. It was there. It probably shot down the plane. Accents, as you note, aren't the best indicator of anything, and even the reason sounds vague: the G thing, which even I know about (back to Olga/Olha). The "Russians" might even be Russian dissident mercenaries right from Moscow, for all we know. Who paid them? Their going up to the media and saying "you didn't see us" was not a good plan to stay secret. The witnesses: chosen at random? Directed to them? <br />
::''If correct, the Kremlin has to explain to the relatives of the 298 passengers and crew who died - including ten Britons - why Russian military personnel were allegedly seen in the area escorting a BUK shortly before MH17 was shot down.''<br />
:I think Russia could come up with a reason or two such allegations are made. Those ten Britons' tax dollars fund it. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: Hmm, this foreigner is confused by dat BBC talk: "If correct" ... doesn't that mean it ''wouldn't be'' merely "allegedly" but, well, correct? ;oP --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 23:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::It means "If {made up vague allegation) is correct....then "SHOCK HORROR CONCLUSION IS TRUE". this lets them be as wild or wide off the mark as they like and the magic "if correct" turns it true. Without any effort to check if it IS true in our understanding of that word.[[User:KatKan|KatKan]] ([[User talk:KatKan|talk]]) 03:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::Another BBC weapon in its arsenal of innuendo and dissimulation is the quotation mark. Whenever they are dealing with something of dodgy provenance, or something of good provenance they want to weaken they put it in quotation marks. e.g. - ISIS beheaded 20 Syrians. becomes ISIS 'beheaded 20 Syrians' or 'ISIS' beheaded 20 Syrians or ISIS 'beheaded' 20 'Syrians' or ISIS beheaded '20' Syrians. No need for corrections later. Any version can be retrospectively justified or otherwise. --[[User:Charles Wood|Charles Wood]] ([[User talk:Charles Wood|talk]]) 03:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== If Buk 3x2 Was in Russia ==<br />
Previously, it seemed quite likely the Buk launcher associated with the shoot-down was one of those owned and operated by the Kiev regime, simply snuck into separatist territory, maybe with some cover to make them even invite it in like a Trojan Horse. Then, I saw the November Bellingcat research on "Buk 3x2." As covered [[#Bellingcat and 3x2|above,]] this claims to match that unit with a distinct one seen three weeks earlier, driving in a military convoy well inside Russian territory. This is widely taken as clear proof the Russian military supplied the weapons, and it is strongly indicative of that. However, the general possibilities are worth laying out at this point.--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
All options below share these presumptions: <br />
* MH17 was brought down by the missing SA-11 missile AND/OR (in some cases) at least the launcher's appearance was coordinated to give that impression and is a clue to the plot <br />
* The videos and photos in question are genuine and not manipulated (my usual presumption, same here)<br />
* The Russia geolocations (many of them, making sense in context) are correct - Buk 3x2 as seen was seen in Russia, between Kurk, Stary Oskol, and a bit south of there (not verified but most likely correct) <br />
<br />
Presuming all that:<br />
* Buk 3x2 (seen in Russia) and the mystery one are not the same - this require paint job match and matching damage to the lip above the track to make a Kiev-owned unit look like that one. It's possible, but not the most compelling.<br />
* The two units are the same - it was in the convoy in Russia and also towed around Donetsk oblast July 17. <br />
<br />
If the unit is the same, there are a few possibilities for the nature of that connection, some of them silly or just there for logical fullness:<br />
* It was Kiev's unit and they snuck it over and into this convoy, and...<br />
** ... got it back later<br />
** ... the Russians kept it and used it for their own operation<br />
* It was Kiev's but some other way lost to the Russians <br />
* It was Russia's but Kiev managed to sneak over and steal it out of the convoy and then use it for the false-flag event<br />
* Same, but Donbass rebels then stole it from Kiev <br />
* It was Russian, and someone on the Russian side drove it over and then it was stolen by Kiev forces <br />
* Someone on the Russian side drove it over and it stayed in their control or handed over to their chosen parties, or transferred at the border - that is, no Kiev interference.<br />
<br />
So far, I'm inclined to call Bellingcat's reading (the last option, the widely accepted one) the single most reasonable one, though maybe outweighed by the ''combined'' alternatives. It's not fun to feel almost swayed to a view so close to Kiev's problematic narrative, but this is what I see, pretty basic. Some combined maybes go against the straightforward reading. As for other thoughts I might be missing, well, that's partly why it's here. Let me know, I'm all ears. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Starting from that reasonable if unproven last option, not one but three final types of possibility remain. If it was freely moving in convoy inside Russia, it probably belongs to Russia at the time. Presumed. However, it could be that...<br />
* '''A rogue officer''' at Kursk - maybe a closet Nazi who sympathizes with Kiev, hates Putin, or just took a bribe - provided this unit to Kiev. He would set up this convoy to anchor the thing in Russia, then send the shady unit on, with his own guys or to hand off to Kiev's, who took it from there as I've speculated. The strangely obvious manner it was displayed - on both sides of the border, with its number slowly fading away - is consistent with this motive + intelligence. <br />
* '''It happened as reported''' (one way or another) Putin's military signed off on the loan, apparently with a sent crew or maybe given to local handlers, who for their own purposes did fire that shot. The strangely obvious manner it was displayed is consistent with this + stupidity/sloppiness, providing proof that probably wasn't even needed, just helpful, to start the punishment. At that point, it would be a real problem about as trumpeted, and still I would suggest we consider what the real crime is under the circumstances, if the solutions pursued are fair, or if this is all just geo-politics and warfare by other means cloaked in a cynical disguise of concern for justice. ^ <br />
* '''Koo-koo (?):''' "as reported plus" - a mega conspiracy theory: it goes all the way to the top, and Putin is that rogue general selling the nation out, to demonize himself and Russia and be sure to get caught, in an elaborate staged play - Putin (or whoever's running things presumed to be run by HIM) is somehow controlled, his opposition scripted and ultimately geared towards provoking and achieving an expansion of "The West" into "The North." (I've always considered this possible, and one that's occurred to me more lately, and seems worth listing ... but I don't buy it. I'm going with "rogue officer" with a second bet on one of the other divergence points listed before that - unspecified. Third choice is "as reported.")--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::^ Not to apologize for egregious behavior if it really is that, but let's please compare this to the shoot-down of Iran Air 655 by the USS Vincennes in 1988. A US Naval ship illegally in Iranian waters shot down an Iranian passenger plane with 290 people aboard, despite all the safeguards and sensors working correctly (the consistent clues the ship's computers gave them saying "do not shoot" can only be overridden so totally by choice). But it was deemed by the US to be no crime, just accident and Iran's fault for being provocative, and useful in the effort to compel them to quit the war with Iraq they were just starting to win. In Ukraine, repeated Air Force attacks on rebel-held cities, often hiding their jets behind civilian airliners, might both justify arming the rebels with such defensive weaponry, and invite an honest mistake from a team running this machine in stand-alone mode. The SBU version however overrides this all: it was an accident, but the Russians' intent was never defensive, always planning to kill an airliner, just meaning it to be a different one. That would clearly be criminal in all regards, and it's a sub-set of "as reported" - not a very good one. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 10:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Sorry, I can't help you here as I don't share your presumptions. I consider it a waste of time and energy to connect dots that are laid out by "sources" like the SBU and Brown Noses - proven liars and at least in case of the former producers of fraud "evidence" - and therefore I didn't even read your logical chains based on them. Just saying to not make it appear that I agree. ;o) --[[User:CE|CE]] ([[User talk:CE|talk]]) 10:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:Poking at specific presumptions could be helpful, but it all could go on and on and remain inconclusive anyway. And I take back what I say about leaning this way or that - I keep leaning different ways and on balance I'm feeling sort of weightless here. I think that comes through in the text... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I don't see the numbers matching, getting close is not good enough, and I quit it there. Yes, it is weird that they are close, and that this murky business is covered by Spiegel, but can't really help with any of that. There is lots of murky weird stuff going on all the time, can't change the whole world to stop it. (Also: the Russian Government would be fully capable of doing a painting job properly if deciding to starting painting at all, their food trucks are all nicely painted, etc; just too sloppy for them to be behind) --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 15:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:The paint being what it is, between that and the bend and light patch below all lining up, I think we're down to the same unit, or faked to match, and the possibilities branching off those two. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::As discussed earlier, the dot is shifted off the middle, more on Russian video than in PM photo; in Russian video, number 2 has well-curved semi-circle; in PM, it is almost straight segment. Bad photos for comparison but it's off, as far as it's possible to tell. As for the skirt bend, too blurry and distorted on PM to tell; Russian video, I think it is actually dirt, not a bend. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Also, looks like two squares , a bit darker than background, over first digit in PM photo. Unclear is it paint or digital camera effect. Any sane person hiding something will paint over everything, not paint just specifically over the first digit. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 01:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::I think I got everything linesd up - it has to be de-skewed the same, and all ines up. You might be scraping bottom on this one. The curve is there, at its elongated part, at an angle. The dent/dirt looks the same, same place, relative to the light patch and all else. It's too much for coincidence by a couple of degrees. BUT I just shifted back to option ... should have numbered them. ... the middle starting option - image authenticity. I hardly ever call digital image fakery, and not calling it here, but... I still haven't checked the new (to us) June videos, so I'll stay presuming it might be okay - video's harder to fake than a photo. But on the other end, it all comes down to the one photo. That I noticed, no other views are close enough to say if these matching clues are present. (the bend, maybe). The squares you noticed, maybe a paint clue or just artifacting. It may too pixelly. I cannot really analyze the technicals properly to say. It looks okay, but possibly fishy too. Maybe the dirty windshield helps hid the painted in pixels to make this thing - just once - or maybe again in other images - look like that Russian 3x2 unit, exaggerated and going into rebel hands... Some kind of coincidences setting that up to work, but it's possible, and an expert should look closer at this picture. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC) <br />
::::I, --at the very start of discussion,-- zoomed picture on screen (by a lot), and measured length ratios (to the dot/ total panel length), parallel to the 2 sides of the panel, using ruler (millimeters one) over screen. I ended up with ratios in horizontal side of panel directions were off, by more than blurring; in vertical, could not tell-within blurring. This is not sensitive to skewing or zooming. So I don't think it's the same. May double-check measurement when have time; or somebody else can. Did not have time to try doing digital version of the same/similar method. Did not look carefully at comparison the 2 after de-skewing , but have an impression this is different; not that much skewing there; it looks essentially straight line on PM, skewing will not make circle into a line. May look at 2's some other time. --[[User:Resup|Resup]] ([[User talk:Resup|talk]]) 13:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::::Finally took a closer look and PM was still off a bit on rotation and vertical-to-horizontal - in line with your observations. Still working out the adjusted graphic. The white is shifted a bit left of lining up perfectly... I think it's still close enough it's the same or is supposed to be, and not far enough off I'd call a bad fake - probably just pixel shift. Will see tonight. --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 00:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Okay, I don't have a comprehensible graphic handy yet, but Maybe Resup is seeing what I am now. I was having a hard time aligning it all, so focused just one the one rectangle panel with the number. Still, on the PM photo I trace apparent edges, best line of dark pixels ... it lines up, proportion-wise, with the white spots on or a hair to apparent left. But when the whole image is placed by lining up that center, the rest of it doesn't line up - both sides seem shifted right, or the middle shifted left. (also the track areas appear far to the left, but they stick out a bit, and from the back angle flattened like this, that's why. Each difference in relief from "true flat" plane of the side will cause this... maybe I'm just not correlating it right, and maybe it's a clue the photo is messed with. possible offsets in both white patches as well, but maybe too in the natural fuzz zone. ?? --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 12:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
If the launcher was driven over the Russian border, fired once then driven back again after it had carried out its mission, the part of the story that doesn't make sense is the sighting on a stolen flatbed truck outside Donetsk. If the Russians were prepared to supply a launcher but not a truck, the stolen truck would have had to be driven to the border to be loaded and there'd be no reason to risk a journey back to Donetsk. The west to east journey is more consistent with CL's original suggestion of a launcher from the Ukrainian base north of Donetsk. If this was a false flag, there would have had to be a paint job to give it Russian markings (maybe to match one in a recent video). Otherwise the videos would point to separatists with a captured Ukrainian BUK, leaving the Ukrainian government liable for failing to close its airspace when it knew that a BUK had gone missing. [[User:Pmr9|Pmr9]] ([[User talk:Pmr9|talk]]) 16:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
:Now this sounds engaged, thanks P. Yes, why drive it to Donetsk? (Other than to be seen in the smoking-gun rebel capitol, before getting seen in Lugansk too) And I never thought of that why it had to be Russian. Indeed, for liability reasons, it had to be a snuck-in surprise, not captured (unless they could come up with a reason why they didn't learn about it, and I suppose they could). The suggestion has problems and was slow to gain adherents, but maybe this kind of thought has swayed people to realize Kiev "must be right" about that... --[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 23:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Sunday Times story: original is behind paywall but reprint [http://malaysiandigest.com/news/531506-ukraine-ignored-warning-to-close-malaysia-airlines-flight-mh17-airspace-before-tragedy.html here]. Eurocontrol's experts "spoke privately to their Ukrainian counterparts" about their concerns but Ukraine refused to close its airspace. "Ukraine intelligence sources said they had been made aware that several anti-aircraft systems had crossed from Russia into Ukraine at least a week before the MH17 incident. But they claimed the intelligence was not “100 per cent reliable” and could not have been used as grounds for 'drastic moves' such as shutting airspace". [[User:Pmr9|Pmr9]] ([[User talk:Pmr9|talk]])<br />
:::Okay, well there's a train headed this way then. Several units? The whole June convoy? We do have this alleged maybe-Buk launch just before on July 14, an associated loader seen later, etc. And Ukie intel somehow did point to this number "312" you can't see on the unit they tracked so quickly. Did they already have that obscure Russian video everyone missed until now? And more yet showing the "1" still there? That early on? (that's all very speculative, but interesting). It has to be snuck in, maybe, but then it helps that you can vouch for it - so they fudge and average this aspect. Main point then seems to be, whatever failures they mumble out on their own end, it has to implicate both Russia (provided weapon) and the rebels (held the space needing demonized).--[[User:Caustic Logic|Caustic Logic]] ([[User talk:Caustic Logic|talk]]) 11:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references /></div>Antidyatel