Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17

From A Closer Look On Syria
Jump to: navigation, search

This is a talk page for discussing Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17. For sources, claims and narratives see the main page. (To see what is hot, see recent changes)



General ACLOS Investigation Thoughts

Brilliant Analysis of the Propaganda

American writer on Brilliant and funny. And sadly true. Well worth a read. KatKan (talk) 18:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

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. --Caustic Logic (talk) 23:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Considering Possibilities

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. --Caustic Logic (talk) 09:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

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)

A Buk/SA-11 (supported by some evidence, claimed by Kiev, presumed by Western powers)

  • A.1 Russian (Kiev's story - known stocks - border and logic issues)
    • A1a - accidental (intended legit/defensive downing - possible)
    • A1b - intended (not likely - Russia would stand little to gain and some to lose)
    • A1c - intent+error (SBU theory - intended to hit Aeroloft civilian flight, blame Kiev, invade - hit MH17 by mistake)
  • 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)
    • A2a - accidental (intended legit/defensive downing - not likely having snuck behind enemy lines to do it)
    • A2b - intended (most likely - going behind the lines suggests false flag intent)
    • A2c - intent+error (they aimed for the Aeroloft flight, etc. - possible)
  • A.3 Rebel (no known stocks, some evidence for, some against - rebel Buk is/was the Western presumption outside Kiev)
    • A3a - accidental (intended legit/defensive downing) (presumed by intelligent outsiders who blame them)
      • (variations: launcher supplied by Russia, seized by separatists, brought by defector - crew came with it, or not - etc.)
      • (variations: sliding scale of culpability from drunk and negligent operators with all blame, to blameless but fooled by false signals and such)
    • A3b - intended (not likely, soft implication from Kiev against the "terrorists")
    • A3c - intent + error (intent of a criminal kind still seems unlikely, so all error options probably under A3a.)

B Jet (supported by some evidence, promoted by many revisionists) (var: used air-to-air missile, used auto-cannon/other, or combination)

  • B.1 Russian (had to violate Kiev's airspace without being mentioned)
    • B1a - accidental (intended legit/defensive downing)
    • B1b - intended (not likely - Russia would stand little to gain and some to lose)
    • B1c - intent + error (triple unlikely - it's just a possibility slot)
  • B.2 Kiev (denied by Kiev)
    • B2a - accidental (intended legit/defensive downing) (of what?)
    • B2b - intended (implication of those proposing it - to make seps/Russia look bad)
    • B2c - intent + error (possible)
  • B.3 Rebel (no known jet holdings - no one proposes this)

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.

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... --Caustic Logic (talk) 23:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Questions Raised

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. I think it will be worthwhile to identify such questions (may be followed by voted answers or something of sort and some supporting arguments).

In my list, it would be questions establishing basic facts, like

  • impact coordinates
  • where blast(s) were coming from
  • confirmed evidence about launch and launchers (a.k.a " any high-resolution photos with known coordinates and times?")
  • navigation and control methods (a.k.a. " can it curl from forward right to back-left?")
  • land based or air based launch? (a.k.a "can satellite see well under the cloud?" )
  • anything to learn from radar data (publicized or otherwise)?
  • and any other relevant confirmed evidence to consider

Once all of that is in stone, will be good time for theories.

--Chingachgook (talk) 19:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

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. --Caustic Logic (talk) 23:17, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

No confirmed evidence for a Buk, or from Snizhne, yet. Knowing who runs that would be perfect. --Chingachgook (talk) 00:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
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 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 - who controls the Buks, whose got moved - what does "rebel-held" mean when someone's trucking in a anti-aircraft unit just after 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... --Caustic Logic (talk) 12:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
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).

--Chingachgook (talk) 19:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


Crash Site Memorial, 17.7.2015
MH17 Ukraine crash: Shared sadness and sunflowers for victims -BBC, TASS --Resup (talk) 02:46, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

More commemoration photos-an album


(We discuss many things on many pages but no clean time line yet; here is for a start):

See also main page timeline
  • First report (video) of Russian military claiming Ukrainian Buk launchers within striking distance and their radar and targeting activity: 18 July , 2014.

TASS: According to Our Sources

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". "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" TASS --Resup (talk) 20:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)



Overview of MH17 body recovery, autopsy and identification process -, posted on April 13, 2016 by admin --Resup (talk) 14:27, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

More Remains found

Photo journalist Graham Phillips has found a human bone on the burn site. Doesn't obviously show up on 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 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.KatKan (talk) 07:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Story from October 31 from the Dutch, confirming 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 later fighting.KatKan (talk) 02:51, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Novorossia reported on the visits, 14.10 (russvesna), about site exploration (lots of personal belongings found); 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"). --Resup (talk) 05:25, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Witness Accounts

Moved to /Witnesses

ANNA News - Crash Scene Imagery

Jet Wreckage

How did we miss this? From mid September, 50 minute video of the crash site, the burn areas substantially 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? KatKan (talk) 15:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

A shorter video, just the part with the explanation, better audio. KatKan (talk) 15:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
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 --Resup (talk) 16:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
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 English subs. KatKan (talk) 20:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Graham Phillips from the scene on October 16 in two parts. --CE (talk) 16:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
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...) --Caustic Logic (talk) 13:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
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.
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? KatKan (talk) 20:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

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). --Resup (talk) 23:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

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. KatKan (talk) 17:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

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?(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. --Resup (talk) 00:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

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. KatKan (talk) 17:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Comments in above paragraph is not about the movie, it is about leaked documented dated 2 months ago, we have it elsewhere discussing leaks --Resup (talk) 17:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
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. --Caustic Logic (talk) 22:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
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?
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? KatKan (talk) 22:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
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) --Caustic Logic (talk) 23:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

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 --Resup (talk) 00:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Leaked document is based on the photo, and apparently UAF do not have fragments

"остаточний висновок щодо належності .... можливо зробити при наявностi оригінали" means "final conclusion on the association can be done in the presence of the original."

Nalivaichenko (SBU) 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.

(Nalyvaychenko has a major in linguistics, so his "plan" sounds odd).
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. )

. --Resup (talk) 01:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

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"" 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: execute the plan...arrive and find...what we NEED Not search for. FIND. 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. I do believe Russia may be keeping an ace up their sleeve so to speak.KatKan (talk) 03:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

"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.
So... is the linguist just this sloppy? Or is he up to something dropping hints like this? --Caustic Logic (talk) 10:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
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 --CE (talk) 11:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
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.KatKan (talk) 12:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
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) --CE (talk) 19:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Short unseen early crash video emerged (no contrail can be seen)--Resup (talk) 07:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Bloodless Bodies, Photo Proof?

Two days ago ANNA News 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 what Strelkov reported his men reporting to the outrage of everyone: Smell of chemicals, many naked, no or very few blood, in decay.

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. --CE (talk) 12:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

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.
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. --Caustic Logic (talk) 23:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
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, 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.
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? --CE (talk) 00:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm so not trusting this narrative - these are also people who were (kept alive?) from ... no MH370 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 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 ... --Caustic Logic (talk) 08:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
FTR here is a detailed German language article about the claims in the video, which makes them more accessible per autotranslation than the embedded subtitles. --CE (talk) 11:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

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) --Caustic Logic (talk) 08:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

What nonsense. Anyone who would go to this much trouble would surely EASILY put some more recent photos on the USB sticks.
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.
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.
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.
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.KatKan (talk) 10:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
FWIW Double plus that! Simple explanations win over conspiracy theories every time --Charles Wood (talk) 11:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
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) --CE (talk) 11:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
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.--Caustic Logic (talk) 00:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

What Can Forensics Prove?

Investigation moved to /Forensics

We're now getting organized, with List of MH17 airframe parts - a picture of how the plane was impacted will emerge. The BUK alleged (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. --Caustic Logic (talk) 12:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

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. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

DPR and Netherlands reached 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. '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. --Resup (talk) 04:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Fighter Jet?

Moved to /Fighter jets


Drone scenario proposed here, October 18, 2016.

But that seems unlikely.

  • (1) It requires that characteristic Buk fragments were inserted in the process of body recovery.
  • (2) Drone will have to stay below radar, below about 2 km at crash site, risking visual identification (or any other identification anywhere on its way)
  • (3) It will have to use Western munition, running risk that those may be identified during investigation or on the ground (and MH17 was close to make it across the border with Russia)
  • (4) That would be a false flag operation, but does not have as much propaganda effect as using a Buk and blaming another side, which might have it.
--Resup (talk) 22:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

General Discussion

Slightly informed comment on air defences

See vineyardsaker. Certainly biased, but internally reasonably consistent --Charles Wood (talk) 02:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll just add various rumours / propaganda I've heard so far.

- US Satellites tracked the missile

- Russia did it (at least morally)

- Ukraine did it (for continuing the battle)

- The plane was deliberately diverted to the location it was shot down

- There was a storm over Crimea causing the diversion

- add your rumour here

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. --Charles Wood (talk) 02:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Anton Gerashchenko: case solved in under 3 hours

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): --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The earliest I found was July 17, 6:20 PM local time from crash at about 15:19 local = 3 hours after. Auto-translated with repair attempts, he says:

Just over the Torez Putin kindly passed to terrorists anti-aircraft missile complex "Buk" that shot down civilian aircraft Kuala Lumpur-Amsterdam.
This morning local patriots detected this being moved from Thorez to Snezhnoye
He was flying at an altitude of 10 thousand meters Claimed 280 passengers and 15 crew members.
There is not limit to the cynicism of Putin and his terrorists!
Europe, the United States, Canada, the civilized world-open your eyes! Help us all than we can!
It is a war of good versus evil!
Here's a video of the crash site! Some scoundrels shouted that "beauty! Beautifully lit!"!
The Inhumans! ( Нелюди! )

In less than three hours he was only able to show 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). --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

At least two more early posts come from [ Epoch Times]

  • 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!"
  • 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. --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

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? --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

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". screenshot KatKan (talk) 12:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
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. KatKan (talk) 12:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
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.). --Resup (talk) 13:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

What's a Bellingcat?

What’s a Bellingcat Anyway? --Studied at DeepResource, and reported on 25.5.2015. --Resup (talk) 17:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

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, 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. --Caustic Logic (talk) 08:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Number of times bellingcat recently tweeted or retweeted on 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)--Resup (talk) 12:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Their latest stunt with the "faked" Russian satellite images isn't going well. Not "only" has our friend Charles Wood given it a quick treatment, but the man behind the online tool they used agrees with a devastating analysis telling them essentially to read the f... manual. --CE (talk) 18:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
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). --Caustic Logic (talk) 10:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
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 has an interview (English translation --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. --CE (talk) 14:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Was about to note the Spiegel piece but it's done. Good. So the problem is those who pushed headlines like Satellite images show clearly that Russia faked its MH17 report (Mashable)-Were MH17 'satellite images' photoshopped? Report slams new surveillance pictures released by Russian state broadcaster as a 'shoddy fake' (Daily Mail) - British experts accuse Russian Defense Ministry of forging photos of MH-17 crash --Caustic Logic (talk) 22:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
In case you wondered, "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. --CE (talk) 15:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and I already came up with a conspiracy theory about that. --CE (talk) 15:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Ruslan Leviev, -a Russian said to join bc team-discussed elsewhere.--Resup (talk) 05:13, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Buk properties

Manual, 9M38M1 . Engine run time 19.35 ...23.0 secs (page 25)

9M38 Gives flight times and final velocities (Fig 2) for this older version. --Resup (talk) 07:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

A Rebel-Held Area

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.[1] 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? --Caustic Logic (talk) 10:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

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.
P.S. – There is supposedly a video somewhere of a Buk fired. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 12:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
WSJ has a crappy map: How MH17 Came Apart Over Ukraine – Fails to show any of what the title claims. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 12:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The Defector Theory

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.
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.
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.

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, 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:

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.
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.

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? --Caustic Logic (talk) 10:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

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). 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. KatKan (talk) 03:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
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. -- Chingachgook (talk) 03:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
As I recall, somewhere on the news there was a claim that there is no US radar data (too far) --Chingachgook (talk) 03:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
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." [1] (Hope not on a fake photo)? --Chingachgook (talk) 05:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
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. --Charles Wood (talk) 05:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

False-Flag Theories

Andriy Parubiy again?

Pepe Escobar names Andriy Parubiy as a possible suspect.

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.

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

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. --Caustic Logic (talk) 10:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Robert Parry introduces Parubiiy in his July 20 article, and mentions:

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.
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.” --Caustic Logic (talk) 10:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

FTR, Andriy Parubiy resigned yesterday. Same day the following came out. --CE (talk) 11:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Valentyn Nalyvaichenko

On August 7, SBU head Valentyn Nalyvaichenko introduced a new narrative (release on SBU website / 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 has been implicated by his predecessor in the sniper killings on Maidan, together with Andriy Parubiy.--CE (talk) 11:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Human Rights Investigations, Aug. 7 - 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? --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
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?--CE (talk) 11:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
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." --Caustic Logic (talk)
FTR RT says "On Monday, reports appeared in Ukrainian media about Parubiy’s resignation. The Local 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." --Caustic Logic (talk) 23:22, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
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. --CE (talk) 16:47, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, we got it the first time already. The guy is a knucklehead. --CE (talk) 12:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Cyber Berkut leak

Main article: Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Cyber Berkut leak

SBU wiretap video

Moved to /SBU Audio Evidence

Corbett report

Petri just put this on the main page

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. KatKan (talk) 01:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

A False-Flag Defector Theory

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:

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.

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. --Caustic Logic (talk) 13:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

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. KatKan (talk) 14:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
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. --Caustic Logic (talk) 22:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
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 )? --Chingachgook (talk) 14:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
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. KatKan (talk) 15:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
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. --Chingachgook (talk) 19:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
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. --Caustic Logic (talk) 22:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
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.
Agreed. This happens here sometimes. Hoping it helps, I made 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. --Caustic Logic (talk) 09:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
You did indeed delete a whole bunch of stuff instead of "moving" it. Restored here. --CE (talk) 11:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
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). --Chingachgook (talk) 23:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
(Coincidently) just above I posted 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. --CE (talk) 23:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Bes in the audio (perhaps glued from pieces) does 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 --Chingachgook (talk) 00:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
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. --Chingachgook (talk) 01:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
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. KatKan (talk) 00:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Debunked topics

Moved to /Debunked topics

This link

just added to the main page under "Analysis" is FULL of items already debunked. Are the "analysis" items being added without comment? just to collect them? KatKan (talk) 16:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

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. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Warhead damage

Moved to /Forensics#Warhead damage

Radar Evidence

Moved to /Map#Radar Evidence

Cockpit Voice Recorder

Thanks for a start, Charles, will review. I was watching for that, gathering a bit of background on the CVR angle. --Caustic Logic (talk) 12:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

The cockpit voice recorder of the Malaysian airliner downed over Ukraine is in good condition, the UN civil aviation body said on Wednesday,
"The cockpit voice recorder is in good condition ... the digital flight data recorder is still under review," ICAO said in a statement.
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.
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? KatKan (talk) 15:21, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
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. July 20 video (NY Times) (indeed, looks like staged 'find") --Resup (talk) 15:43, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

AAIB Analysis

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 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. --Caustic Logic (talk) 12:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

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. KatKan (talk) 03:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

New Straits Times - CVR

THE preliminary analysis of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17’s cockpit voice recorder (CVR) revealed “nothing out of the ordinary”.

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).

“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.

This may mean that whatever happened was very sudden.

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.

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.

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.

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”.

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.

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.

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.

The FDR records essential flight data parametres at least 10 times per second and defines the aircraft’s flight path and motion.

The data also include primary information, such as position, altitude, airspeed and heading. This allows investigators to reconstruct the aircraft’s flight path.

Also recorded in the FDR are the aircraft’s aerodynamics and engine parameters, including information from the air data computer and sensors.

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.

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.

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”.

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.

This is to allow them to search for possible new information and collect material for the investigation, such as pieces of the wreckage.

The Dutch police had earlier this week received 150 photos and video clips on their server set up to piece together the mystery.

The photos were uploaded by eyewitnesses from what has been described as “the world’s biggest crime scene”.

New Straits Times CVR report --Charles Wood (talk) 12:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

ATC recordings

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:

--CE (talk) 11:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


talk moved here from accidental location on Main page KatKan (talk) 08:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Interesting list of countries involved. I wonder how Russia and Germany got on this list? from the above report
"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." KatKan (talk) 07:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
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. --Caustic Logic (talk) 08:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
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. --Chingachgook (talk) 09:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Good point there. We could use more detailed specs here too (though reliable airliner measures and hole size needs settled first anyway) --Caustic Logic (talk) 10:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
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.
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.

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 [2] --Chingachgook (talk) 01:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

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". KatKan (talk) 12:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
This story looks like for domestic consumption,
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. --Chingachgook (talk) 05:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
to make it look like the "West" is hiding something.
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, --Chingachgook (talk) 07:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
It refers to

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. KatKan (talk) 22:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

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.
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.
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.
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.
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. KatKan (talk) 07:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
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) :) --Caustic Logic (talk) 08:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
sorry, I started it there, fixed now. KatKan (talk) 08:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

November 2014

Dutch experts are back at the scene, this time collecting the wreckage. As 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. --CE (talk) 12:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Correspondents in the area say there was shelling of the wreckage area by Ukraine on 10 of November (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. --Resup (talk) 14:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

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. KatKan (talk) 14:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

December 2014

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. 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 "there are many reasons to think that those were missile fragments". Here is report, and press conference video (Ukrainian) --Resup (talk) 08:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

"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." --Caustic Logic (talk) 10:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Eliot Higgins tweets: Preview of interview with the head of the #MH17 criminal investigation ‘Geen satellietbeelden van neerschieten MH17’ --Caustic Logic (talk) 10:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

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." --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Malaysia was finally allowed into the club on or around December 8. --CE (talk) 11:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

February 2015

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.

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.

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. /Dutch Safety Board, 20.02.2015

and ...? --Resup (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
The great Alex Thomson has been there lately, finding 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. --CE (talk) 21:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

March 2015

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 --Resup (talk) 16:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

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)--Resup (talk) 16:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Now saying (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) --Resup (talk) 14:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Pro-opolchenie blog say that this is old Ukrainian fake presented now as coming from Netherlands. Have not seen Petrovskii comments on the matter. Recordings attributed to crash day were published by SBU on 18 July. --Resup (talk) 15:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
one of very few clips with him-does not sound like SBU audio another video with him, sounds a lot like the first one, and not like SBU. As for his direct comments on the issue, it is (ironic) denial of knowledge sort --Resup (talk) 09:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

April 2015

Dutch Release Hundreds Of Emails Tied To Mh17--Resup (talk) 14:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

June 2015

It is necessary to wait for the assessments of the Dutch Safety Board that leads the investigation into the Boeing 777-200 crash over the Donetsk region in eastern Ukraine in July 2014, Russian President Vladimir Putin was quoted by Associated Press as saying at a meeting with top executives of the leading global news agencies in the Russian second largest city of St. Petersburg. "Putin referred to an unofficial report alleging that the damage to the Malaysian airline could have been inflicted by a missile launched from the area held by Ukrainian forces at the time," the news agency said. Reuters, also presented at the meeting, echoed: "Putin says he’s seen evidence the missile might have penetrated the plane’s tail section with a trajectory indicating it came from Ukrainian government forces." TASS (English), quoting Western sources

"...As for Western suspicions that the separatists used a Russian missile to shoot down a civilian airliner last summer, albeit probably by accident, Putin says he's seen evidence the missile might have penetrated the plane's tail section with a trajectory indicating it came from Ukrainian government forces..." Reuters, Sat Jun 20, 2015 10:11am EDT--Resup (talk) 19:50, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

July 2015

On 1.7, it became known that Netherlands has completed the draft version of the final report. Russian aviation agency Rosaviation has received it. "As a result of our review we have to say: there are more questions than answers, "- said deputy head of Rosaviation Storchevoy. "Our specialists has are a number of significant comments to the document, to the arguments provided, and just the technical information," - he explained. "We hope that our comments and additions will be reflected in the final report and will be given answers to our questions." Storchevoy also pointed out that in the elaboration of the report the Russian side was not given 60 days, as it should be according to the norms of the ICAO and as stated in the press release of the Board, but only 30.--Resup (talk) 13:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

"Russia is not satisfied with the idea of setting up a tribunal to prosecute those responsible for the flight MH17 crash in eastern Ukraine, as the investigation of the incident has not been completed and there were no precedents for creating such bodies, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov said on Tuesday, commenting on the discussion of the relevant resolution at the UN Security Council at the request of TASS" (report-English).--Resup (talk) 18:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

August 2015

In cooperation with the Dutch Safety Board (DSB) the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) investigates several parts, possibly originating from a Buk surface-air-missilesystem. These parts have been secured during a previous recovery-mission in Eastern-Ukraine and are in possession of the criminal investigation team MH17 and the Dutch Safety Board.

The parts are of particular interest to the criminal investigation as they can possibly provide more information about who was involved in the crash of MH17. For that reason the JIT further investigates the origin of these parts. The JIT will internationally enlist the help of experts, among others forensic specialists and weapon-experts.

At present the conclusion cannot be drawn that there is a causal connection between the discovered parts and the crash of flight MH17.

The JIT conducts the criminal investigation and the DSB the investigation into the cause of the crash. Both investigations are conducted separately but JIT and DSB occasionally share material. In its final report the Dutch Safety Board will report on the discovered parts. Dutch safety board--Resup(talk) 13:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

December 2015

MH17 Investigators: Ukraine, Russia Refuse To Provide Radar Images , NL Times Dec. 24, 2015. Noticed in Russian media (e.g. TASS (Rus), with Russia omitted from the complaint. Russian MoD made a presentation of their data during an early press conference, hard to see why they would seriously resist now--did anybody actually ask? --Resup (talk) 17:03, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
According to the Dutch Safety Board, Russia and the Ukraine refuse to provide vital images of the MH17 disaster stating that they were “erased” or that are no images due to “maintenance”, the Telegraaf reports. Safety Board spokesperson Wim van der Weegen told the newspaper that the Ukrainian authorities informed them that the primary radar stations were not working on the day of the crash, July 14th last year, due to routine maintenance. Refusing to hand over these images may well hamper the criminal investigation into who is responsible for the downing of the Malaysia Airlines flight. According to the newspaper, defense and criminal law experts call the countries actions unbelievable and suspicious.

January, 2016

Russian Federal Aviation agency sends a letter to the Dutch safety board, pointing out new additional important considerations. Briefly, (assuming 9Н314М warhead)--unreasonable reduction of fragment mass, unreasonable hole shape , mismatch with holes seen on the plane body away from the cabin; absence of explosive deformation on 3-d compartment missile body (among 5 missile fragments allegedly found near the scene), serious deficiencies in the model used for simulations. Full leter: (Russian), (google translation) --Resup (talk) 12:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Kerry Pressed for MH-17 Evidence, Robert Parry, Consortium news, Jan.21, 2016

February, 2016

RIA, Feb 19, 2016

Leaks on draft Dutch report

Robert Parry, 'MH-17 Case Slips into Propaganda Fog', July 9, 2015 long as the U.S. government’s comprehensive intelligence information on MH-17 is kept secret, such sleights of hand can continue to work. I’m told that the Dutch report is likely to contain similar circumstantial claims, citing such things as the possible angle of the fired missile, to suggest that the ethnic Russian rebels were at fault... --Resup (talk) 07:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

CNN report Dutch accident investigators say, evidence points to pro-Russian rebels as being responsible for shooting down MH-17, according to a source who has seen the report. According to one source close to the investigation the draft report included the exact type of missile used to bring down MH17 and the trajectory of the missile. Some blame placed on airline, for flying in the area. --Resup (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Andrei Purgin , speaker of DPR parliament: we did not control that region, it was a mish-mash, only about 3 months later it became possible to talk about this side or another controlling a particular settlement. Russian federal aviation agency received the report on July 2 ; said that there are more questions than answers. --Resup (talk) 15:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Leaking blame without leaking verifiable details just have the effect of sticking blame for a while. There is no actual details on trajectory, or launch area, provided in the leaks. To accurately determine trajectory, it is crucial to know lots of technical details; fragment fly-off cones having dramatic effect on the trajectory in particular. Using generic shell knowledge won't do. Expert knowledge on fragments chemistry, not just fragment shape, is needed for missile identification. Those are not in the manuals and should come from manufacturer, but there is no sign that Almaz-Antey was a part of investigation (up to now).

Also, there is no sign that alternative to Buk versions were looked at by the investigation. Witness reports were simply ignored-official investigation did not talk to them. Even flight record logs and such sort of information was not gathered.

All that raised the question on whether the investigation is politicized. --Resup (talk) 17:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Some details on Russian response were leaked in Malaysian media. Russian investigators concluded that this was a lighter missile which exploded closer to the cockpit, in particular. --Resup (talk) 18:44, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Russian report -air to air missile

MH17 was shot down by a foreign made air to air missile . Report tries to estimate location of detonation, number of elements (their estimate is 4-15 kg total element mass) and warhead mass (estimated to be under 40 kg); concludes it can be a Python air-to air missile

Detonation point proposed in the Russian report
Python is used on SU-25 Skorpion modification; Romania nearby is one of the known users, based on wikipedia --Resup (talk) 19:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

This is said to show SU-25 Skorpion at a parade in Georgia; Python will be standard for this. (Russian report say that they do not have enough data on foreign missiles; conclusion in the report is based on estimate of mass of charge and fragment type/quantity; Russian air to air missiles are mostly rod type; they kind of say that for a foreign one, it does not have to be, and Python is a candidate based on usage considerations) --Resup (talk) 19:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Russian demands

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.
“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.
Russians are annoyed by disrespect, and by sanctions. 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.
At the time, it appeared that sanctions and MH17 are linked  ; and despite a progress towards peace, new sanctions were imposed. --Resup (talk) 12:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
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."--Resup (talk) 13:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

One Year after

--CE (talk) 13:33, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Lavrov: None of the UN recommendations were followed through ... (On investigation itself): The first thing investigators, professional investigators do is to conduct chemical analysis of those particles.... it is possible to immediately identify what is the metal and what factory in what country produced this particular thing.--Resup (talk) 20:18, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • All Countries With Information on MH17 Crash Must Make It Known Sputnik, 10.08.2015

US information

“Regarding the debate which still exists over the sharing of information from the United States: all information which is available and which is of interest for the investigation has been shared,” said Fred Westerbeke, chief investigator in the criminal investigation.
He reiterated that they expected this summer to determine the exact location where the missile which downed the Boeing 777 was fired from and the precise model used.


Zakharchenko QA session, 22 June 2016. Did DPR conduct an investigation? -'Why do we have to conduct it? We know that we did not shoot it down...' (more in Russian at 13:43 mark) --Resup (talk) 12:03, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Raw radar data

Moved to Radar data

Joint investigation team report leaks, Sept 2016

  • Flight MH17 investigators to pinpoint missile launch in rebel-held Ukraine, 27 September 2016 15.00 BST --Resup (talk) 21:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • TASS: Finland has carried out secret rocket experiments in the investigation of the crash of Malaysian Boeing, crashed in 2014 in the Donetsk region. This was confirmed on Tuesday by the Prime Minister of Finland Juha Sipilä. Earlier on Tuesday, the information was published by a Dutch newspaper Telegraaf --Resup (talk) 22:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Investigation reports, Sept 2016

  • JiT reports and Almaz-Antey response are in separate sections.
More JiT/Bellingcat sort of stuff here whathappenedtoflightmh17, September 29, 2016.
From JiT multimedia presentation --Resup (talk) 12:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
  • On 30 Sept 2016, Ukraine announces a press briefing at 15:30 to announce results of their investigation and provide some information on ATC /radar/their Buk locations (perhaps). --Resup (talk) 10:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
That was picked up by ' pro- JiT/BC social media. But later, Ukrainian National Security council said it was hacked and no press conference-Rusvesna; and says it is under a hacker attack. --Resup (talk) 12:38, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Joint investigation team report announcement, 28.9.2016

  • TASS: 'shot from the ground'. And ? --Resup (talk) 11:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

From near Snezhnoe, based on something, including USA intelligence live

and social media, BC sort, quoted --Resup (talk) 11:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

So far do not see anything really new (Paris Match movie played; OK, it exists then). US report received and materials viewed by a prosecutor, but remains classified. Russian radar evidence not received yet. Almaz tests, overwhelming other evidence cited, so basically not taken, in plain language. Why have not looked at some MH17 pieces--looked at enough. How many holes examined in electron microscopy-unable to answer. Strong expressions of confidence in conclusions made. (That would be, Snezhoe, Buk from Russia). --Resup (talk) 12:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Missile type, "9M38 series" (not more specific) --Resup (talk) 12:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

There seem to be no strengthening of argument that Mh17 was shot from Snezhnoe. If anything, a regress, as exact missile type is left open (with all the resources, how that can be?). This development is mostly a replay and marginal upgrade of the line that a Buk was present on territory controlled by opolchenie. But first it could be staged for the sake of appearance; second, it does not tell that it was that Buk which shot the plane. Even on the count of presence, the argument is weak. Some photos, videos, with lots of questions about them still pending. Audios of conversations of unknowns, after a number of previous clearly fakes. A burned field in a war zone, --makes a visual, does not make a proof. (And some USA evidence, known from day one, and never seen in public...).--Resup (talk) 16:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Phone calls

  • Intercepted call on 16 July 2014 at 19:09 hours. This does not sound like Petrovskiy/Khmuryi whose two public recordings are known. For that reason, this does not sound sensible. Who are those people?
  • Conversation 2 June 2015 at 14.02.13 uur . No idea how it helps their case. They do not seem to have any idea what happened. Zaroshenskoe controlled by separatists; so? But JiT told us, Snezhnoe? They basically say that a launch will be seen and heard by many people, but it was not. Only a dumbass or unfamiliar with spoken language can interpret this as if they are trying to conspire, as is apparently the point here (looking at translated captions now). But I have no idea why it is even there at all. --Resup (talk) 13:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Even the weaker part failed

In JiT version of events, Buk traveled from Luhansk to Donetsk via Enakievo. However it was not. Enakievo was controlled by Bezler who has stated on 28.9.2016 on his well known social media channel after watching JiT that this is totally impossible. This essentially closes down the whole thing. On a different road to Donetsk, it will be travelling through Zugres in the direction opposite to the alleged. Or it needs to be going pointlessly there and back on the same road, which is absurd. So I do not know how it is supposed to work, even as a 'remake', and as far as I am concerned their whole movie fails. There is every indication of SBU using the rest of the team for cover, but it still remains on the same level as was already seen from SBU alone.--Resup (talk) 23:21, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Tests in Finland

The international team investigating the crash of flight MH17 under Dutch leadership, Wednesday showed footage of the missile tests in Finland. The researchers used the results of these tests demonstrate that the aircraft of Malaysia Airlines was shot down by a Russian Buk missile. Niinisto said Finland helped the researchers to, but he pointed out that Finland has agreed with the manufacturer not to share some information.
The research team asked Finland in 2014 and 2015 for help because the country has a stock of missiles. The investigation led recently asked whether it could share the information with the Joint Investigation Team (JIT), but Finland rejected that request. The country now sends a delegation to the Netherlands to find out why this is now done.
--Resup (talk) 17:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


DPR Basurin: ...they are lying ... --Resup (talk) 14:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Russian FM spokeswoman Maria Zakharova: Ukraine was given an opportunity to falsify evidence --Resup (talk) 15:44, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Kremlin's Peskov on MH17 investigation 'contradictions', BBC, 28 September 2016. --Resup (talk) 00:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

DPR head Alexander Zakharchenko, video Q: (Recent investigation results...This and that not Who shot down Boeing?. ...A: Yes I watched that animation movie ... Hollywood could do it better... I believe, and believed, that we did not shot the Boeing, and responsibility is fully on Ukraine...Both for what they did, and also for not preventing the flight (as it was in their airspace)...I believe, the real investigation will be after we win. And we will prove who shot down the Boeing. And those guilty will be punished. --Resup (talk) 11:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Lavrov, BBC interview, 30 Sept 2016, from 20:00 mark --Resup (talk) 16:58, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

...based on video and photo images on social networks, and evidence received from unnamed witnesses...

Russian opposition reactions

  • "Patriotic opposition". For reference and research purpose, linking Maxim Kalashnikov livejournal post, "About Boeing, Kirby, and oil" (in Russian), September 29th, 2016
  • Pro-Western /democratic opposition. Will be similar to typical Western mass media, and can be just read there as well. Will link if something unusual spotted. --Resup (talk) 12:48, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

What's the future here?

After looking at reactions and some thinking, I am not optimistic here. There are two potentially guilty major sides, 'Russia' (in whatever sense, opolchenie-DPR, rogue elements, or whatever), and 'Ukraine' (also in the broad sense, including Western help, if any, and/or pro-Western opposition in Russia -which is also strongly pro-Ukraine; with the latter specifically of seriously '5th column' sort, not whining intelligentsia and garden variety middle class of course). One of those sides is a party of the criminal investigation. The other side, tried to be a party, was rejected; tried to aid technical side of investigation--and put a serious effort into it, --which was brushed off. (Declassifying Buk information was a major step. Was is it worth it, from the Russian point of view?). In JiT version of events, perpetrators returned to Russia (or rebel territory, maybe). But there is no case against specific individuals in their own version. I do not see how a progress can be made, onward from here. Apart, maybe, from further politicization, feeding into more propaganda and threats against Russia as a state. But truth is unlikely to emerge going into that overall direction. If truth was indeed the point. --Resup (talk) 09:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Bellingcat -Petrovskii -Khmuryi opus

On Bellingcat -Petrovskii -Khmuryi opus: once again, after all the digging dirt, even if maybe mildly entertaining, the end result is irrelevant. Is his real name and look different from what's commonly assumed? Maybe, it is for those who know him personally to comment. But all of that does not establish that it is him on SBU tape, or add anything to that issue (the known genuine Petrovskii audio is still the same--and it does not sound like on SBU tape, for my ears). And most importantly, it does not provide any information at all on the main issue, who shot the Boeing.--Resup (talk) 03:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

BBC Russian service , appeared around 17:50 UTC, 16 Feb. 2017, believed to be Kmuryi response to BBC questions, provided from his publicized e-mail. --Resup (talk) 00:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Подобные "расследования"- не более чем попытка увести следствие в сторону от факта, что стрельба велась из украинского "Бука". Для человека, обладающего минимальными знаниями в географии и знающего, где на тот момент проходила линия фронта, подобные статьи ничего, кроме гомерического хохота, вызывать не могут". доклад - это "очередная попытка "натянуть сову на глобус", смесь отобранных фактов и лжи". По его мнению, в докладе не приводится никаких доказательств. "Главными факторами в данном деле являются два: 1. Кто отдал команду на поражение цели. 2. Кто стрелял. Ни к первому, ни ко второму я не имею никакого отношения"
"Such sort of "investigations" are not more than an attempt to through investigation away from the fact that shooting was from Ukrainian 'Buk'. For a person with minimal knowledge of geography and knowledgeable on where the front line was, reaction to such publications can be only Homeric laughter. The report is yet another attempt to "pull an owl onto a globe" (= colloquial expression for something ridiculous and artificial) , a mixture of selected facts and lies" . He expressed an opinion that there are no proofs in the report. "There are two main factors: 1. Who gave the order to shoot down the target 2. Who was shooting. I have nothing to do with either 1 or 2."
(Lurkmore on the 'owl' origins)

Novaya Gazeta, Pavel Kanygin, and Sergey Tiyunov: Khmuryi opus, 2

Briefly. In the past Tiyunov served in Afghanistan in the same reconnaisance platoon as Dubinskiy/Khmuryi. Thye did not know each other at that time but later met online at an internet forum and then in person, there is a photo of Tiyunov with Khmuryi, at Khmuryi birthday party, sometime before Ukrainian events. After the start of the conflict, Tiyunov was on Ukrainian side, a member of self -defence in Zaporozhie. After Ilovaisk battle (Aug. 2014) many Ukrainian soldiers were captured and Tiyunov tried to have them released. He was given a DPR phone number and when he called, he realized that he is talking with Dubinskyi. Ukrainian prisoner exchange was arranged, and they briefly met during that exchange. Conversation occurred where Dubinskiy said, we have been together and now fight on opposite sides--I do not understand why you are fighting for the hunta; and Tiyunov responded, can't be on your side, you have things to answer for, including the Boeing. According to Tiuynov, Dubinskiy took it to the hear and responded abruptly, 'You don't think it was me, do you? It was those, you know, Moscow motherfuckers (это ж эти пидорасы (version: уроды) из москвы ), gesturing --thumb pointing up. He broke the conversation quickly, have to move or Ukrainians will start shooting at us both. Tiyunov continues that he met Dubinskiy another time, also during prisoners exchange, later in November 2014, at which point Dubinskiy denied any blame of DPR and said that Boeing was shot by an Ukrainian SU plane/Ukrainian pilot. Tiyunov continues that voice recording on JIT/SBU tape has 'strong resemblance' to Dubinskiy voice and could be him; goes ahead to speculate on his role and that it was not his decision or intention. Recording of correspondent briefly taking to Dubinskiy trying to meet him in Rostov--meeting did not happen, he just used it as his voice sample in Novaya gazeta article. Two phonetic investigations sited, one by Russian team 'Versia'/Yurii Makeev (description how scared they were initially yet eventually delivering a quick opinion)--which was that main tone is very different, some resemblance in abertones,style and manner, implying that it was an attempt to imitate his voice. Dynamics, motorics, abertones, pauses and hesitation content and structure, emotional saturation of 'voices and sounds of figurants speech' (whatever that means) indicates that in telephone dialogues either memorized text was recited, or text was read from a written source. Additionally Yurii Makeev told that he is an officer himself, visited DPR, and that he is sure that nobody in DPR will use paternal name ('Nikolaich') in (phone) conversations--just impossible! Second investigation was by Sweedsih lab Voxalis (Jonas Lind, IAFPA member). Those concluded, on the scale from -4 (no way) to +4 (definitely) that matching SBU tape to Dubinskiy has score +2.

Noted: seems to me that Kanygin recording and SBU tape have voice differences; seems to me, imitation is a possibility (like some incomplete/imperfect/partial similarities, playing by the ear)
Noted: (1) Pavel Kanygin is known to be pro Ukrainian/opposing Russian official line, and some say, exhibited strange behaviour; had some troubles in Donetsk with security services (2) Novaya gazeta comments after the article are mostly against the official line
--Resup (talk) 23:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Almaz Antey Response, 28.9.2016

The point of detonation as
1) faked by DSB
2) established by forensic analysis
(discussion and links: click on the figure)

See also: Radar Data

Starts with issue which makes no sense to me. Dutch safety board investigation was best-matching one thing with another, (1) and (2) According to Almaz-Antey presentation (1) is fragmentation visualization model, constructed on the basis of Buk fragments cones in head-on approach , and making some sense comparing with actual data. And (2) , detailed model of fragments distribution, for head-on approach, with little wiggling of parameters. And miraculously, for some such wiggling, this two different versions of head-on approaches matched.

Reading the actual report, seems to me that (1) visualization match (3.8.2, page 137, done by NLR) does assume head-on approach, and best detonation point is selected here. But (2) , detailed modeling by TNO, (3.8.3 and appendix Y) is kind of separate, on the face of it. Yet, it uses (1) by NLR to set initial position and azimuth of warhead (see 5.1, page 17/25). It runs detailed model of fragments according to their understanding of design. It than changes position and azimuth to achieve "best match" specified on page 18/25 in a vague language. This 'best match", by consensus of experts, pays more attention to some areas and less to others, in a way not really clear to me right now. It may be using regions identified in (1) and secretly favoring head-on approach model. Also once you start with head on initial point, the real best match may require big change and going through bad matching positions ("over top of the hill") , but they do not go there, they look for the best match nearby ("near the bottom of the pit set out in the first part").

May need a better look later on, for now, the devil seems to be in what "the best match" means, and Almaz is arguing their version is more sensible--Resup (talk) 19:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I had a peek look at the video. They are trying to do what I described on Fort Russ a year ago:
  • How to read the DSB report on MH17 - Petri Krohn, Fort Russ, October 13, 2015
    The next step in the investigation is to establish the exact point of the detonation [by stringing the fuselage]. Knowing the point of origin and all the impacts it is possible to create a (partial) shrapnel pattern. After mapping this pattern to a suitable map projection it should be compared to shrapnel patterns of known missile types. It the warhead is of a known type it is possible to establish the position and angle of the warhead at the time of detonation.
This was published before DSB released their report. As I suspected they failed to do a proper forensic investigation and failed to "string" the fuselage. As a result the point of detonation is two meters off and all the rest is a hoax. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:11, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
DSB moved the blast point by two meters in the final report (I put a note /links on the graphics file). But most important is actually to figure out the missile azimuth to track the launch site; detonation point is easier and also does not tell where it came from. Whether DSB and stringing are consistent in the final version, unsure. --Resup (talk) 01:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Fuse location and fragment cones

  • According to Almaz Antey, detonation point in at the front of the warhead (video).
  • TNO considered design I, detonation at the centre, and designs II, III, detonation at the front. Design II used geometric information but fragment cones were computed by TNO. Design III is said to use fragment cones supplied by Almaz (Appendix Y of the final DSB report, p 15), provided by Almaz on 29.7.2015
  • Almaz Antey describes data provided by them to DSB on the same date, 29.7.2015, here on video. That information was extracted from multiple official tests conducted in 70's and 80's. However they say that their information was not used. And (in any case) they did their own modeling and conducted a field experiment.
  • Almaz experiment was based on detonation point supplied in the preliminary DSB report. Subsequently DSB changed the detonation point for the final report (Almaz video presentation).
  • NLR used design with detonation point at the back, (Appendix X of the final DSB report, p 53). It is at the front for the Buk missile. --Resup (talk) 09:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Conclusions, at this point

Finding azimuth is both important, as it tells where missile came from, and difficult, as it requires running a major simulation to find fragments trajectories with sufficient accuracy under each of the model assumptions, and matching modeling results to observed damage, with good or bad matching only vaguely defined.

Small changes in modeling assumptions or fitting methods may lead to dramatically different conclusions: Dutch results, Snezhnoe; Almaz results, Zaroshenskoe, almost 90 degrees azimuth difference.

For that reason, small details are very important, and every effort had to be made to get them right.

Density of holes is not a modeling parameter to fiddle with. It can be measured, and once measured, it cannot change.

Detonation volume can be found more precisely by forensic methods (stringing) than by modeling. This is evidenced by detonation point moved by 2 meters between preliminary and final reports. Forensic method is more accurate. For that reason, it needs to be determined forensically. After all technical issues are looked at, it needs to be made as tight as possible, and thereafter fixed and not used as a fitting parameter outside that tight region.

Experiments provide more accurate ways of measuring cones than modeling. Modeling producing incorrect fragment cones, or using incorrect fuse locations, need to be rejected outright.

Fitting method or range of methods needs to be made quantitative, not descriptive. Otherwise, it is subjective. Fitting method need to compare with observed data in a way that cannot use, explicitly or implicitly, an assumption on where missile was fired from. This is, at best, delusional. Density and direction of hits needs to be taken into account, not just areas affected by fragments.

Only after that, modeling and tests, finding (if Buk remains a possibility) best fitting missile angle, exploring broad range of those, and by doing so, telling where missile came from. Search of best fit should allow angles far away from initial guess, not just fine-tune it for a particular scenario.

(PS At this point, providing incorrect detonation point and other inaccurate information to Almaz, their costly field experiment was all but wasted, instead of being used to help to understand what really happened).

--Resup (talk) 15:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Germany Decides Rebels Dunnit

German Intelligence has decided for definite that the first story was correct - MH17 was downed by a BUK operated by separatists after all. 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. KatKan (talk) 04:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

We also covered this elsewhere 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. --Resup (talk) 04:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

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. --Caustic Logic (talk) 23:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
There's nothing for you to take a look at. This "presentation" was towards a fig leaf secret service control instance, and even 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 "no own insights" went into that "leaked" statement. --CE (talk) 23:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Chief MH17 Investigator on German Claims: 'We Will Need Evidence' --Resup (talk) 18:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

US position

John Tefft interview to Moscow Komsomolets newspaper, 8.7.15

- Why even before the beginning of the international investigation into the crash of Malaysian "Boeing, " it was claimed in America that the plane was shot down either by Russians themselves or pro-Russian rebels?

- We know. We just know that. I can not talk about the details. But we do know who shot down the plane. We are all very clear. And I think that most of the world also knows who shot down the plane. But now we are waiting for the end of the investigation, in which every aspect of this tragedy is being carefully studied. Let's see what the results will be.

- So we just have to take your word?

- There should not. The investigation carried out by the Dutch side - very methodically and carefully. I know that Malaysia, Australia and Russia received requests for information. Later this year, a report should be published. Let's wait for the results of this investigation. I still say only the following: on the basis of information that the US government has, we are sure that we know who is responsible for the loss of the aircraft.

(also in the interview: separatists may shoot their children themselves; Maidan did not lead to a coup in Ukraine; Russian annexation of Crimea and involvement in the East Ukraine is the cause of current crisis,...)
This is like Russia saying that we know that Ukraine is responsible as it happened in Ukraine;- and we cannot talk about details... --Resup (talk) 16:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Joost Bosman photos

This one is interesting. Also this. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:14, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Bloggers MH17 analysis

Half-way decent analysis of the known facts on MH17 in Q & A format. Use Bing translator as google gives up half way through.--Charles Wood (talk) 01:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

11.7.2016 Zhurnalistkaya pravda media investigation claims that historic google Earth photos show (1) a plane near crash side, on 17 July 2014 which can be a SU-25 in 'digital' whitish camouflage (or I guess can be a commercial plane, needs size estimate). According to this and earlier article , date is 16.7.2014 in USA (PST?) which can be morning of 17.7.2014 local, while no Ukrainian military planes were there officially (2) Shows a rectangular object near Zaroshenskoe on the day (presumably), which disappears later and tracks in the field appears. Possibly Buk as predicted by Almaz-Antei investigation. Main pitch of the article is that more evidence can be available on US spy satellite photos. Cannot look more into this at the moment (too busy with something else) --Resup (talk) 06:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Google Earth Jet 16-7.png
:The location given, 47°57'04”N 38°49'45”E, is a ways south of Snizhne, headed away from the scene of the crime. Model unclear to me, but what luck it happened to be zipping by at the moment this commercial satellite was passing over. Someone said it was deleted, then restored? (saw that somewhere). I didn't believe it, but have GE pulled up and hey, there it is. The date on my end (Pacific) says July 15, maybe given in local time, so maybe the time is variable, so someone else gets the 16th. Time of day is mid-morning, azimuth about 130 degrees or less. NOAA solcalc puts 130 at about 11:40 AM (if GMT+3 and DST on), so that time or earlier. Night of the 15th here = mid-day the 16th there, and not on the 17th. It looks like a military fighter jet with oversized engines packed close into stubby wings, I guess some kind of Mig, no expert. Cool rainbow patch of exhaust. Might be a buzzing that helped encourage people to want some air defense. --Caustic Logic (talk) 09:46, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


three claims mentioned (1) "Lord" (British) (2) Russian speaker (3) a middle-aged European who have very well-spoken German, aka a man on folding bike.
Resch does not know details or the amount paid. --Resup (talk) 18:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. As it is, it's just a story. Resch/his company seem to have a good reputation, though. Although it's curious that all parts of that saga were covered "exclusively" by Capital. Wonder if there is a not-mentioned relationship between the two. Anyway, even if the basic story is true, this could have been a honey pot to identify (and neutralize) possible whistleblowers, as he wonders himself. Or it could be the real deal. Some speculate that Malaysia is behind this because they offered a new identity, which non-state-actors will have problems to provide. In any case interesting, and let's hope something comes out of it. --CE (talk) 20:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

R-27 long-range air-to-air missile?

Work in progress, please leave alone for a an hour. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:56, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

(Finally writing this after 11 months.)

Ukraine claimed on the morning of July 17th that one of the two Su-25s shot down on July 16th was destroyed by a Russian R-27 long-range air-to-air missile shot from a Russian airspace. This incident, or the belief it happened, might explain why Ukrainian Su-25s where flying with air-to-air missiles on July 17th.

It is possible that the situation was repeated on July 17th. A Russian fighter targeted an Ukrainian Su-25. The Su-25 noticed that it was targeted by radar and escaped by ascending and hiding behind MH17. The R-27 missile would then hit MH17. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Range 110 km and over 10 km vertically. Heat seeking or radar homing. Warhead: fragmentation or rod, 39 kg. Produced by a Ukrainian company 'Artem' . Promo video. --Resup (talk) 14:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Ukraine would have claimed it again the next day and the US and others would have had evidence. We would've known about it not only by now but by the time the "Putin's missile" headlines were printed. No BUK story would have had to be constructed by SBU, Brown Noses and cohorts. --CE (talk) 19:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
R-27 could be launched from another plane in Ukraine (e.g. Ukrainian Mig); it can also could be fitted on SU-25 ('any SU', promotional video tells us). -It is not standard armament for it and they would need to install controls, not just mount it; still likely doable with a locally produced missile. The thing is that it may be not heat seeking and not rod, and so better fit to damage we see. R60 default setting is heat seeker and rod warhead. Witness mechanic said Voloshin plane had R 60; maybe he is mistaken or unsure here; or the plane -if there was one-was not Voloshin's . --Resup (talk) 03:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


Basic info. Infrared-homing, proximity fuse (radar or optical); range 8 km, altitude 20 km Photo (but rods not shown--dummy warhead). 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.

It is thought that R 60 rod damage will look similar to sidewinder, but straight cut, not L shape --Resup (talk) 23:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC) --Resup (talk) 23:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Here's what R-60 warhead allegedly 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). -- Ed3218 (talk) 17:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
But other sources call it anti aircraft shell (artillery) , WW2 times---and it does look like (artillery) shell. is a source of the photo (typed on the photo)--, but I could not find that photo there--Resup (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
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 --Resup (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Looks like you are correct. -- Ed3218 (talk) 23:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


Chris Harrison on Facebook:

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'.

Radar jamming and spoofing?

Main article: File:MH17 Flightradar24 database.png
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.
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.

The Russian civilian radar data however shows that the MH17 transponder was not jammed. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 05:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

A notam issued Sept. 1 announced that, beginning Sept. 2, both ADS-B surveillance and TCAS may be unreliable in Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida, as well as in airspace extending approximately 200 nautical miles off shore. The situation is expected to last through Oct. 1 as a result of military exercises in the area.
But similar military exercises in the past have caused no interference with civilian ADS-B or TCAS, and AOPA is asking the FAA to explain both why the notam was issued so late and what has changed to raise these new concerns.

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 08:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Cause of death?

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 "bloodless bodies".

Dutch Foreign Minister Frans Timmermans now says that at least one passenger was found with an oxygen mask on.

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.
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.
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.

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Russia Blames Buk, Secret Info

"CyberLeaks" on russvesna claims 9H314 warhead of 9M38 missile, Buk M1 system. --Resup (talk) 15:11, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

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.
A document, posted on the website, 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.
... CyberBerkut claimed that the documents are evidence that the MH17 crash investigation commission and the Ukraine Defense Ministry have “special relations.” --Caustic Logic (talk) 23:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
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.
“It will be Russian servicemen who used the Buk-M missile” to take down the passenger jet, he said.

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."

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.
And a couple weeks later:
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.
“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.”

--Caustic Logic (talk) 23:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

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) --Resup (talk) 13:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

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. --Caustic Logic (talk) 14:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Investigation of Buk producer Almaz-Antay

Moved to /Almaz-Antay investigation

'Unauthorized launch?'

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".

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) --Resup (talk) 14:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

10.10.2014, 14:05 "Rossiiskaia Gazeta" (official publisher of documents of the Russian Government) 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. "

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. --Resup (talk) 23:48, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Bezler Account

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. --Resup (talk) 05:35, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

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. KatKan (talk) 21:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, what he says needs to be taken very seriously --Resup (talk) 22:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

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? 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. --Caustic Logic (talk) 00:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

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.--Resup (talk) 01:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

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.
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??)
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. KatKan (talk) 07:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
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. --Caustic Logic (talk) 08:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

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 during an interview with Ukrainian news channel 1+1, starting 2:10:00 of the last, long video on 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)

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
--Resup (talk) 04:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


  1. 10 more questions Russian military pose to Ukraine, US over MH17 crash RT. July 21, 2014