Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Archive

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

Greetings and acknowledgements

I would just like to point you towards Petri Krohn's website. This might give some insight into what you are dealing with here. [1]

How did this get debunked? :P --Caustic Logic (talk) 23:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Moving to archive :-) Petri Krohn (talk) 23:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


I recommend this time we (eventually) clean-up the random sections below, working everything into an organized system. --Caustic Logic (talk) 00:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

But this is the talk page, isn't it? Still a good idea but whatever. --Caustic Logic (talk) 22:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Here's a to-do ... there are so many aspects to this, even identifying a line of inquiry to follow is of some value. If you think of a section that should exist, feel free to start, with or without anything really to start it. You probably have a decent though, so that could work as a starter. --Caustic Logic (talk) 10:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Might I suggest a quicker and more accurate approach is not so much to open new lines of enquiries, but to eliminate wrong ones until what remains is considered sound, and if still lacking can be a basis for new investigations.
An obvious set of enquiries are what was the disruptive event that caused the crash. I.e. missile, bomb, strafeing, if missile, what type of missile etc? A resolution here will eliminate many of the secondary theories that cloud the investigation
So questions: Was it a bomb? Was it a SAM? Was it A2A? Was it cannon fire? Was it an an unrelated mishap? Are easy to set as sections and can, with luck, all be eliminated bar one.
FYI I find that PPRUNE has plenty of objective and often professional comment together with a ruthless moderation policy to weed out idle speculation.

--Charles Wood (talk) 10:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

"eliminate wrong ones"I say we do that too. But that's more a second thing you do after first bringing up and considering the options to find out which ones go or stay (and of course to show the process). --Caustic Logic (talk) 10:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)