Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Fighter jets

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


MH17 New Straits Times.jpg

Crash videos

On March 28, Ukraine news report tells about "100 fighter jets (some SU 27/ Mig 29 shown actually flying), 23 bombers, 36 (or 39 as presented) 'strurmovik' attack aircraft, 60 anti-aircraft missile systems (according to the presentation).

Early minutes after crash video. (Plane said to come crashing from the East, from the direction Sokolikha mountain, by one witness).

Another crash video, two clips.

What is that we see at 1.18-1.20 of this video?. Thought it might be planes, appears quick and straight, but after looking at more frames, those are birds most likely (wings up and down movement seen) --Resup (talk) 01:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

This point is disputed, and thus not proven to everyone's satisfaction. But it's clearly a big question: was there,.

(Russia's details for - forthcoming)

counter-arguments: Interpreter Mag offers what it claims are serious questions about Russia's fighter jet claims. They don't start out dismissing that there was a radar return the Russians followed, but question - reasonably - if it was really a jet. They latch onto the translation "hover" describing what the "jet" did for four minutes after, and note "to “hover” requires a helicopter," and "the fastest helicopter in the Ukrainian arsenal" is too slow to trail MH17, so ... in case he meant circle (obviously) the article suggests that it's all but impossible for a fighter to circle and loiter in that small area, so probably that also is a clumsy lie, which by the end they're forced to call "Moscow's Magical Mystery Jets." --Caustic Logic (talk) 09:34, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and James Miller added "A MAJOR problem with Russia's latest claim, that a Ukrainian Su-25 was tailing MH17. According to the plane's own manufacturer, who has incentive to inflate the SU-25's performance numbers, that aircraft can't even fly high enough to be 3 kilometers away as Russia claims." My response to that is ... sorry what? --Caustic Logic (talk) 09:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
On that point, I understand the SU-25 is a ground attack craft, that normally operates under 25,000 feet, while MH17 was at 33,000. Still, it might be able to go higher, and could still be 305 km away plus or including 8,000 feet or whatever. --Caustic Logic (talk) 13:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
They latch onto the translation "hover" — gosh, you have no idea how much I hate retarded Russian translators (see #Why everyone is throwing around "Su-25"? for a sample of difference between their translation and what has actually being said).
Here's the relevant quote from the video:
Russian: Ранее обнаружение данного воздушного объекта не представлялось возможным, так как контроль воздушной обстановки осуществляется радиолокационными средствами дежурного режима с возможностями по обнаружению на данной дальности на высоте полета более 5000 метров. Обнаружение стало возможным при наборе высоты.
Retarded translator: The early detection of this aircraft appeared to be quite impossible because the air situation control is usually performed by radars working in a standby mode which detection possibilities at the given distance are over 5000 m altitude.
Proper translation: The detection of the said aircraft any sooner was not quite possible, due to the fact that the monitoring of the airspace is performed by the means of stand-by mode radars, detection capabilities of which are limited, at this range, to [targets flying at] altitude above 5000 meters. The detection had become possible upon the increase of the [target's] altitude.
Russian: Дальнейшее изменение параметров полета объекта по курсу свидетельствует о том, что он барражирует в районе разрушения Боинга 777 и осуществляет контроль за развитием ситуации.
Retarded translator: The further aircraft flight properties changes on its route testified the fact that it is now flying in the area of Boeing crash and is monitoring the situation.
Proper translation: The consecutive changes in the object's flight variables, direction wise, demonstrate that it is loitering in the area of Boeing 777 breakdown and monitoring the development of the situation.
Honestly, those translators must be punished by 2-year solitary confinement with nothing but books in English, so they will have ample opportunity to fill their vocabularies. -- Ed3218 (talk) 01:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Witnesses

We discussed witnesses elsewhere. Now Zakharchenko can be added to the witness list. He says he saw it himself. "There were 2 (military) planes and there was the Boeing. Than the planes flew away. And the Boeing fell down". "DPR did not shot it down, it could not even occur to us to do such a thing, we are people, not animals. And we do not have technical means to do it." I saw in Ukrainian media detail that Zakharchenko was in Shaktersk at the time (not mentioned in this article). He also says he has 'dozens' of other witnesses who saw it.--Resup (talk) 17:09, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

strange...normally nobody notices planes going over...but I guess they were watching for them all the time there. I hope they have taped witness accounts from the first few days, as any who come forward now, especially with matching stories, will be accused of being fake. I also hope the tapes have been passed on to the right people.KatKan (talk) 14:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Air-to-air missile?

This is disproved. It's confirmed a Grad Missile was used. GRAD Missile downed aircraft :-) --Charles Wood (talk) 10:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Pilot confesses? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I started out skeptical, checked, and didn't see where they explain just what he said, to whom, etc. Our readers will need more alleged details. I'm still skeptical, obviously. --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
It's satire. Says so trilangually in bold red right there at the top. Original is here on a quite funny satire site. It's full of valid information but the premise of the piece is to show how propaganda would react and integrate such a confession into their narrative. --CE (talk) 12:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Пілоти збитого "Ан-26" кажуть, що їх підбили ракетою з винищувача An Ukrainian Antonov An-26, a military transport aircraft shot down above Lugansk near the village of Izvaryne on July 14 (just 3 days prior to Malaysian Airlines flight MH17) was, according to its bailed-out pilots, struck by an air-to-air missile (ракетою класу "повітря-повітря"). The Antonov was flying at an altitude of 6500 m at the time it was hit, far beyond the reach of most man-portable air-defence systems (MANPADS). Even before the MH17 disaster this event lead to speculation in the Western press of the east-Ukrainian rebels possessing more sophisticated anti-air weapons. accident description at ASN --Pasparal (talk) 10:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
At the time it was "known" the rebels had a BUK since late June, 25 or 26th. Air to air would have implied Russian planes; as they didn't say they saw them, to identify, this claim was never made again. This was I think the one the videos were of, circulating in the first days as being MH17. As it happened in Lugansk, I'd say it was the BUK,as it was them that had it. MH17 went down in Donetsk territory and they've been truthfully saying they never had such a weapon. True that Lugansk prime minister Borodai said so too, but a PM doesn't necessarily know what the men liberated last week.
But as I say in the TEST section below, they'd need a backup plan, as they can't afford to leave the plane able to call for help or maybe land. In that case it would not be a Russian pane of course. The An-26 pilots' belief may have given them the idea though. This may ALSO explain why witnesses say they saw another plane and why they said they HEARD TWO EXPLOSIONS ... a BUK that did almost no damage and a coup de grace from a fighter????KatKan (talk) 11:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I was not following claims on An 26, but "Igla" (9К338 «Игла-С») has a listed altitude of 6000, so shoulder-fired system hit at 6000 is not out of question. There are also old surface-to air anti-aircraft systems less powerful than Buk: Osa (SA-8 Gecko, altitude 12000), Strela 9K35 Strela-10 , listed altitude 3500). --Resup (talk) 12:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

"Carlos"

Okay, what the heck? This has been called a hoax (as noted even at the first link) but I'm not so sure. --Caustic Logic (talk) 23:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

  • 10:21 – 17 de jul. de 2014 Autoridades de kiev, intentan hacer que pueda parecer un ataque de los pro-rusos
    “Kiev Authorities, trying to make it look like an attack by pro-Russians”
  • 10:24 – 17 de jul. de 2014 Ojo! Que puede ser un derribo B777 Malaysia Airlines en ukraine, 280 pasajeros
    “warning! It can be a downing, Malaysia Airlines B777 in ukraine, 280 passengers”
  • 10:25 – 17 de jul. de 2014 Cuidado! Kiev tiene lo que buscaba
    “Warning! Kiev have what they wanted”
  • 10:25 – 17 de jul. de 2014 Vuelven a tomar la torre de control en Kiev
    “[Miitary] has taken control of ATC in Kiev”
  • 10:27 – 17 de jul. de 2014 El avión B777 de Malaysia Airlines desapareció del radar, no hubo comunicación de ninguna anomalia, confirmado
    “The Malaysia Airlines B777 plane disappeared from the radar, there was no communication of any anomaly, confirmed”
2. The mysterious Spanish airport controller source. A mysterious Twitter account, @spainbuca, purporting to be a Spanish air traffic controller at Kiev's international airport named Carlos tweeted out that two Ukrainian fighter jets had shadowed the Malaysian airliner and that Kiev was behind its downing. In May, the Spanish-language channel of Kremlin mouthpiece RT interviewed Carlos and blurred out his face because he claimed he was in danger for criticizing the Ukrainian government.
However, the Spanish Embassy in Kiev has no record of Carlos, reports Fox News Latino. “We have no knowledge of ‘Carlos’ having been in Ukraine. There is no record of his passing through the Consulate, and no one from the (relatively small) Spanish colony knows him,” it said. Carlos’s Twitter account no longer exists.

Questions:

  1. What was he saying in May that was newsworthy? May 8, Espanol - says he's in Madrid at the time Does he seem shady like a possible disinfo agent?
  2. Was he back in Ukraine still (allegedly) working ATC on July 17, or is his knowledge supposed to be from the community?
  3. Does he claim direct knowledge the fighters brought down the plane, or just speculate based on their presence?
  4. Does his account deletion similarity to the Graham W. Phillips case mean anything? Or is this just a fakester who called it quits as soon as questions arose?
  5. How does the embassy know if they do or don't have a record unless they know just who he is? Isn't he supposed to have been anonymous up 'til now? (deduced from Spanish + ATC? = zero? That could work)
  6. Has anyone anywhere heard from him since? --Caustic Logic (talk) 23:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I was not following 'Carlos' story and it smelled fishy (why a foreigner working there; how do we know he is not a hired troll --lots of those posting somethings). But recently looking at Russian MOD presentation, it is likely that Ukrainian traffic control is integrated (civilian and military). USSR had a habit to make things double-use, and that may not change since. So, if somebody was there, he could see both civilian and military planes on such integrated system. Russia requested ATC information, that seems to be well-justified request, as there were several witnesses reporting plane sightings shortly prior to the crash. Witness reports were presented in Western press, so reports are not fake. Witness statements appear/sound sincere; no evidence they are not. Witnesses do get honestly confused, but there is no indication they are lying or are tense in making statements --Resup (talk) 17:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Source -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Escorts?

Iranian defense expert Babak Taghvaee believes the mistake was caused by the fact the Malaysian Boeing 777 was escorted over eastern Ukraine. Taghvaee is always very well informed and an extremely reliable source. Therefore, after he provided some details about this activity of the Ukrainian Air Force on ACIG forum thread about the war in Ukraine, we contacted him for some more insight. Here’s what he wrote to us.
“When the Crimea crisis began, the Ukrainian Air Force air command center quickly forward deployed six Su-27s to the Kulbakino AB. Since beginning of the crisis and the Russia intervention, the 831st TAB has the important task to provide air defense as well as security of whole country. Six fully armed Flankers have always been in the sky especially when the other Ukrainian Air Force airplanes such as transporters and attackers like Fulcrums and Rooks were in the East of Ukraine,” explains Taghvaee.
“But when the Su-25M1 was shot down by the Russia Air Force 6969th AB’s MiG-29 on Jul. 16, the situation and condition became more critical than previous days and more Su-27 sorties were conducted to confront Russian MiG-29s. I believe those two Su-27s were not in sky just for standard practice in that day [Jul. 17], I believe they were involved in HAVCAP (High  Asset Value Combat Air Patrol) mission sortie in that day.”

Hm - an escort patrol starting just that day? Did Russians even shoot down the jet forcing that decision right then? High value asset it was, once it was shot down and blamed on Russia. This could use some further searching, but one Q is why Carlos (or his sources) would be so alarmed at the fighter jets if they were known "escorts." And also, why would Kiev decide on this and then deny it? That looks bad. --Caustic Logic (talk) 23:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Did the Jet(s) Down MH17?

I don't think so, but it's possible. I hear now the evidence is conclusive, it's proven and all debate should cease. An OSCE expert said x was "like" y. OMG x is same thing as y proved!

Petri, I see in comments here your working theory:

MH17 was brought down by a frontal attack by a fighter jet. The jet fired a "machine gun" or autocannon through the left side windshield right at the captain. The direction of fire was from slightly to the left and slightly above. The bullets left perfectly round holes of about 20 mm diameter in the upper frame of the windshield. Further down the left side the holes became elongated and irregular, some with the appearance of exit holes. The smaller irregular holes on the side are most likely the result of fragmentation rounds mixed in with armor piercing bullets. Some of these may have bounced off the side and exploaded outside.

Not to be too harsh, but I just want to lay out all my questions, in the sort of aggressive way they just tend to run at such times.

  1. 20 mm rounds - others have specified a SU-25 with 30 mm cannon as most likely. What are you proposing? A different craft, I guess? Fair enough - SU-25 doesn't seem to be proven, just a good guess.
  2. Is there any radar support for a frontal attack from the E-SE (frontal)? The mentioned jet was trailing 3 or more km behind (W-NW)
  3. altitude - that was a problem for SU-25, made to work below 25,000 feet while MH17 was at 33, and was hit slightly from above. But you're thinking something else - might well answer that automatically
  4. why can't warhead shrapnel of about 20 mm explain this? Or do we know the SA-11 can only have a different size? Because round machine-gun-like holes seems to be just what they normally do.
  5. What is up with the Buk launcher moved in that direction, parked right on the flightpath, and apparently having fired a missile towards the jet that would impact it just about head-on like this theorized jet attack? Did they set that up to create the appearance, while using a fighter instead to mimic it? I'd ask where did the missile go, but I guess you could argue the field was fake burnt, the tracks just made, and the contrail photo is from another day or something,
  6. Is the jet attack theory really the best explanation for what we see or just the one that's overly tempting because it could smoking-gun pin it on Kiev?

--Caustic Logic (talk) 13:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

"The available images of the fuselage of MH17 support the conclusions of Mr Bociurkiw," he correctly notes, while mischaracterizing both. The OSCE semi-exprrt said the parts of the plane he meant were hit with a spray of small, high-velocity projectiles that "almost looks like machine gun fire," but not quite, to his untrained eye, having seen nothing like it before to compare to for sure. Why Mr. Quinn and so many others insist on pretending this proves it was a machiney-type-gun is just a mystery. Buk shrapnel should almost, but not quite, look like machine 30 mm auto-cannon fire

"Regardless of the precise way in which MH17 was brought down," even if it's by a Buk missile as the best evidence suggests, he should point out how Kiev and its psycho false-flaggers were the ones with a known capability either way and the motive to do this on purpose. Instead, he says "at this point we can draw some reasonable conclusions: a BUK missile was most likely not involved." Oh. Well, to some, it almost looks like we can. Close enough? --Caustic Logic (talk) 22:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll just point out (again), 30mm cannon shells either produce individual 30mm or larger holes on the skin if they pass through undetonated; or produce an even larger hole or crater if they detonate on contact.
The panel damage seen is way smaller than 30mm and there are no characteristic surface splash marks indicating surface detonation
I'm guessing the persistence of this rumour is a combinaton of aggressive fake propagandising by Russian spinmasters (GB I'm looking at you) together with a characteristically dumb audience who are perhaps misled into confusing 30-cal with 30mm - though they may even be dumber than that and not know what 30-cal is or even what 30mm is.
For those still confused. 30mm is around 1 1/4" diameter. 30-cal is around 3/10 of an inch --Charles Wood (talk) 23:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Most of these experts never even looked at the available images. They just parrot theories they've read. At most they'll produce the image which originally accompanied the theory. Readers now just vaguely believe whichever one they first liked. I have not seen any new data or information for 3 weeks at least. KatKan (talk) 23:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
The five (maybe even six) neatly aligned ovoid impact holes convinced me rapid cannon shelling was involved (if not 30mm shells, then maybe 23mm or even 20mm). One cannot possibly imagine how those can be produced by a fragmentation blast. At Bellingcat they obviously didn't agree. But in my opinion their arguments simply do not hold water: Buk 9M38 M1 fragments. --Pasparal (talk) 17:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

There would be no reason for Buk shrapnel to align on straight line, it will be random and, overall, evenly spread. What we see is overall random, but there is indeed something which appears neatly arranged and evenly spaced on a line, as Pasparal notes. For automatic cannon or machine gun, it can land like that. What is everything else we see, than would not be clear. We have not thought much about multiple events, for example Buk downing the plane, and than an attempt to finish it off from a plane, or other such multiple event scenarios. There needs to be more evidence to say something definite. If Bezler says his reconnaissance team spotted Buk, this is to be taken seriously. (But he did not say they saw it was used, or that they know for sure that nothing else was used). --Resup (talk) 18:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

This 20 July reference makes a early claim that Buk missed and planes finished it off, referring to some leak from UAF. I would say, trustworthiness of the source is unknown and presumed to be low. There may be earlier essentially similar claims, I do not know who made it first. --Resup (talk) 18:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
The leak is highly suspect. We've been over the holes a bit from different presumptions. I don't feel we have a firm measure on the holes so I can't say whether they are even large enough for one or small enough for the other. I've been leaning to Buk shrapnel, with roundness from their complex 3-D shapes plus edge melting (which you can see happened some on closer shots) But if the holes were consistently too big, all or largely over 30 mm, that would have to change. That photo of shrapnel sizes I've never seen (four types not 3? ... the arc looks interesting. If it's worth covering in details, best place to continue would be Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Forensics. A couple different sections might work to keep your work where it's best found. --Caustic Logic (talk) 23:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Radar Details

I know we have much of the reportage and alleged details up on the various pages, but still I think a space here is good to outline the best-supported details from Russian or other radar used to support their even being a jet. I may pull that together if no one else does, in a simple bullet list below. Locations first and last seen, direction of travel, speed of travel, any maneuvers, anything about altitude, etc. Next step is to compare what that says with fighter jets, SU-25 or other vs., say, a high-drag fragment of the airliner drifting on winds as it falls, a helicopter, dense cloud formation, etc. Maybe I missed something, but on last review, it seemed the evidence presented is just vague enough either could fit and it seemed there was no clear case in support of this jet actually being present in the air ... --Caustic Logic (talk) 14:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Russian military showed screen shots from unified traffic control in Rostov, second part of presentation. 3 RLS and some unspecified military data used. Recording we see starts at 13.19 UTC time (17.19 pm Moscow). Crash is 13:20 UTC. We see MH17 slows down from about v=1000 km/h to v=280 km/h (speed in km/h goes after # ), at about 20:56 by the video time-stamp. At this time, we see one circle representing MH17 becoming two circles (by whatever method they use to process their raw data). The second circle parameters cannot be acquired, so it is either part of MH17 without transponder, or it is a military plane which does not talk to Russians; they interpret this as a military plane. MH17 stays on screen for a bit, (which may be interpolation of earlier received data or new acquired data--unclear); than it disappears (what we see is another flight 351 only) While new circle, orange in color, moves a bit in the opposite direction (and gets stuck steady for a while in the video we see, for whatever reason. Russian military interpretation of data is that their ATC system was in a regular, sleepy mode, and it only sees what is above 5000 m in that mode. They say, military plane showed up once it acquired altitude, and was not seen before as it was lower. I do not think anybody questions the fact that this is genuine screen shot, but interpretation does not appear too convincing. There is no further information to go by, so if there is more to say, THEY have to make the case, and have experienced and knowledgeable people as judges. --Resup (talk) 00:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Rostov radar MK report, 12 Nov. 2014, is based on the same data as the Russian MoD report, and is further discussed here. --Resup (talk) 04:54, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Test Shooting to Demonstrate

They did a test, Russian fighter shooting at dead planes on the ground. Some interesting results. https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=gzw363q1N3o As usual I don't understand the audio, but the images are good. I can't make out what he shoots with, I assume cannon (?) KatKan (talk) 12:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

As he say, SU 25, with 30 mm cannon,was used, should be the standard armament. Looks interesting, indeed. But SU 25 will have trouble staying at such height (may be not able to cruise, can only leap there); and it is slow, like about the same speed as Boeing, so it cannot really catch-up. There were reports to the effect that it is not well-pressurized or have oxygen mask in default configuration. It would need truly extraordinary piloting, and realistically a plane should be a fast high altitude type. But that would show up on radars, including civilian radars... And the closest base for such a plane will be in Kiev, so it will likely show there on AVACS as well. --Resup (talk) 12:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Radar we cannot count on. ATC generally uses secondary, ie only picks up transponder squawks. Military aircraft transmit a "friend" squawk on their own frequency. They are just as invisible to civilian ATC as MH17 was to a BUK TELAR looking for a military "friend" signal. This in itself makes a lie of the "Spanish Carlo" ATC story that there were 2 Ukie planes escorting MH17....he would not have seen them.
The Russian "radar" claimed to see SU 25's or something? the radar would not say what they are, they could be assuming SU's if they didn't know Ukraine had just (about 3 weeks earlier) got two of its MIG's back into the air. MIG 29's easily handle that altitude.
Kiev denied having any planes in the air that day, although apparently that morning the had gone on TV to say they were planning 8 sorties that day. AWACS for sure would know, BUT as the story was "Russia dunnit" with separatist BUK, they're not going to say, anyway it would point the wrong way, so..... MIGs have/can use that R60 missile.
It MUST BE A MISSILE otherwise it can't be blamed on a BUK, okay? the fragments are much the same from various missiles. Some even have interchangeable heads. KatKan (talk) 19:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
That early leak I mentioned actually say that Buk "missed" (which I interpret as not done the job, really), and air-to-air missiles from planes were used to finish. As for Russian data, I only looked once, and as far as I could tell, there was no other signal before the presumed impact. Than something showed up very shortly after, and they say, stayed there for a while. Objections were raised that there was nothing to be seen before, and what is seen later could be plane starting to dis-integrate. Other, experienced people raised similar issues, as well as that there was some computer issue, like it get frozen and next update showed plane moving at unreasonable velocity. I was not following this since, as I could not say much and experienced people made their comments. --Resup (talk) 20:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
With Korean Boeing shot by USSR, it was hit possibly by 1 or two air-to air missiles, but it kept flying for quite a while after that before it crashed; so I interpret "missed" as not dropping it off air at once --Resup (talk) 20:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Smaller weaker missiles in those days. Another KAL kept flying and landed on ice or something. Both were hit above the wings, opening the fuselage a bit (and not too good result for some passengers). But the pilots alive and control surfaces and engines functioning, so really no worse off than the Aloha Airlines case in Hawaii where the roof blew off from decompression (metal fatigue). The one that crashed did have control surface damage. MH17 had the pilots killed, and all the avionics (computer control) in the bay below them, went into a flat spin that peeled off the roof, then the cockpit broke off, so.....a fair few military craft have survived missile hits, too. Proximity ones from the side, not heat-seekers which always get the engine.
So actually, if it was a terrible mistake,they were very unlucky with where it struck. But if it was deliberate, they WOULD have to have a bird up to make sure, as the investigations would be much more thorough if the pilots could call for help, and maybe sort of land and some people survived. KatKan (talk) 10:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, if it was planned, surface to air the main plan, need some planes, perhaps as a taxi to do the bookkeeping, but (mostly), just in case for plan B, if there is job started but not completed. (As I understand, civilian radar watches above 5000 m, so it is consistent with low-flying 'patrol', doing something else if needed). --Resup (talk) 13:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Civilian radar is secondary only -- strictly not even radar, they just query the transponders (that's hows MH370 "disappeared" as soon as the transponder went off). Military uses primary, actual radar that sends signals everywhere to see what bounces back. They can also listen for a "friend" squawk ("foe" they never hear as they can't ask the enemy to signal itself, so response = brother, no response = enemy oh oops civilian is also no response, oh...) Anyway point is ATC was not looking because airspace was closed to civilian traffic below 28,000 feet and they were actually only sending them over at 32,000 or 35,000 (in peace time they'd be looking at all levels because of local traffic). But now, could be a whole squadron in formation there and ATC would not know.
Russia might know, as they've been looking that way. With the curvature of the earth and radar strength, what they'd see would depend on distance and altitude, so this is an unknown to us. They do claim to think they saw something. The AWACS over Romania and Poland may have similar blind spot problems. They would be looking for the threat (Russia) not the Kiev machines, which would be on bombing missions they approved of (blocks of flats, kindergartens and so on).
brand new conspiracy theory they are practising radar aiming, but ooops, the button is not locked. Fighter with bird's eye view sees rocket coming, thinks he'll be a hero and help out if needed. Ooops. Well it's gonna crash anyway, better make a good job of it, dead men don't talk. But no, if it was BUK+plane, it was no accident. KatKan (talk) 20:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Pilot Named - Documentary

Documentary maker Andrei Karaulov just releasing "How the Boeing Died" which will be sown first on Russian TV. "In the picture the first time is named the 299th Squadron Air Force of Ukraine, Su-25, hull numbers 06,07,08 and 38, which, contrary to the statement of the General Staff of Ukraine, were indeed in the airspace of the country on 17 July 2014. Malaysian "Boeing", according to our data, was shot by Su-25, hull number 08, which was piloted by Lt. Col. Ukrainian Air Force Dmytro Yakatsuts who from July 18 to this day is in the UAE. Malaysian "Boeing" was led by the Kiev center manager Anna Petrenko, who in the morning on July 18, suddenly went on vacation, from which has not returned. The film includes a miraculously obtained admission from the first mate of the current Minister of Defense of Ukraine that the Ukrainian Air Force shot down "Boeing". So says the teaser while the full version of the film will be available after the broadcast of Channel Five program Moment of Truth from 24.11.2014 also on Youtube KatKan (talk) 13:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

(essentially identical translation here) (Rather controversial in the past) journalist Andrei Karaulov is promising to show his new documentary "How Boeing died", in 24.11 broadcast of his regular talk show Moment of Truth, and later on youtube. Akrady Mamontov independent investigation claims that 299 Air Wing of UAF, hull numbers 06,07,08,09, 38 were in Ukraine airspace on 17 July 2014. Authors claim that their data show that Boeing was shot by "SU-25 piloted by Lieutenant Colonel of UAF Dmytro Yakatsuts that from July 18 to this day is in the UAE. Malaysian "Boeing" was routed by the Kiev ATC manager Anna Petrenko, who in the morning on July 18 unexpectedly went on vacation, out of which did not come back until now." "Numerous other evidence" is presented in the film "including an interview, obtained by a miracle, with first mate of the current Minister of Defense of Ukraine, that "Boeing" was shot down by the Ukrainian Air Force. --Resup (talk) 14:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Video with all that is private, may become public after the broadcast. Not sure what to make of it; looks like evidence is that those guys disappeared shortly after, and there is something being said in the 'miracle interview'. Apart from vacation details, first mate is Rusnak Ivan Stepanovich, and his background is Air Defense. He may, or should, know but what did he actually say? Karaulov appears to be 'investigations' talk show man. Now he has this movie , where actual investigation appears to be done by a journalist (and off-air talk show man himself) Arkadii Mamontov. --Resup (talk) 14:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC) --Resup (talk) 14:18, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

This is a 'propaganda movie', they put together all those things we heard before, and than some more. Video is here . Regarding first mate, at 39:56 author says: I could not reach Defense Minister, but somehow manage to reach first mate "a Russian guy, Ivan Vladimirovich, did not reveeal his last name" (it's on the web! Perhaps he mixed up middle name, or else it's a different guy. Author: "we will show our movie worldwide," so (in preparation to attempted mng with defence minister himself), "is it possible that there is some other leak that your SU 25 jets, 299 air wing, have been in the air" Answer of unseen man said to be "Ivan Vladimirovich": "I (some noise ? do not ?) exclude such possibility" Author: " So please inform the minister this will be the topic of conversation". Ivan Vladimiroich "OK, I understand." From further discussion I think the answer was assumed to be "I exclude such possibility (so just noise, no 'do not') . This is not much information either way, he just did not say much. --Resup (talk) 22:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

14:59 witness Vladimir, Rassypnoe: There was a bang, with plane in the clouds. Than out of clouds, and he saw the plane "without cabin" . Than "wing fell off" , and plane started to spin. Hmm, interesting. But could he actually see all that? --Resup (talk) 22:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

1:30 Iosif Diskin, member of the Civic Chamber of Russia, tells us that "it was established that one of the engine stopped, and only after 1.5 minutes all the other systems went out" (has anybody heard such a thing? I believe preliminary report shows everything out at once?)--Resup (talk) 23:16, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

On top of saying that journos know about the planes somehow, the author in passing mentions an earlier link "by NATO guys," which since "disappeared from the internet". Indeed there is something on internet liveleak with Rammstein music accompaniment. But this seems to be about Yatseniuk visit to this well-trained air wing. It does show some of those numbers on hulls, including number 8. So it is plausible that numbers were gleaned from unrelated report about Yatseniuk visit? Or they got it elsewhere? --Resup (talk) 04:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Dmytro Yakatsuts photo, more squadron photos , and flight training video at Kulbakino Airbase, Nikolaev (2013)--Resup (talk) 02:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Radio Intercept?

This video is said to be a record of a fighter plane pilot, 17 July, sometime from 16.16 to 16.22 local, 136.000 (MHz) radio frequency. Hard to understand what he says; what I could get is сброс (discharge/reset)333 на первом (first) ком... 333 контрольная (control) командир (commander)... (than quickly,indistinctly, something ).... 33 контрольная (control) 3 на боевом (active/armed/ready for action) контрольная (control). Don't know what to make of it; but looks like pilot discharged something (missile or bomb), than activated something (perhaps the thing he discharged); and also that he is a commandeering pilot. Video is uploaded by Sharii. A commentator interprets a fragment as "633-й на 3-ем ТБ 1500-т, контрольная" hull 633 third Bombing point Altitude 1500 meters...so this is mostly likely bombing, not missile. Another commentator claims that it was produced on 16 July. OK, unlikely to be of help, looks like it is intercept from bombing raid. --Resup (talk) 20:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Lev Alexandrovich

Interviewed at 7mei.nl . He says he saw 3 'sturmovik' (SU 25) planes on the day, one of those 'forsaging' (using engines thrust to go up) in the direction of the Boeing. Than he heard 'bah-bah' 'bah'--three bangs. Can't say for sure what the 'bahs' were, missile or gun. Did not see or hear a Buk launch. Had pieces of the plane falling nearby. --Resup (talk) 14:03, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Describes loud "soulbreaking" engine turbines roar after the plane was hit (consistent with engine sucking up broken blades; --we know that happened- spotted by Kat Kan)--Resup (talk) 15:40, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
People say they saw his interview in early days, and some say it was vanished by BBC. I am seeing this guy for the first time here. When he describes sounds, bah-bah bah, roaring engine, this sounds strong and vivid, as something he remembers with great confidence. Also goes with smells, he mentioned what smells as cologne/ deodorant (he said 'like Channel no 5', --does not have to be, he is a miner, not cologne tester ) Other things, e.g. how fast it happened, he could not really tell. With other two planes, it sounded as something a bit more distant or more tentative, not by much -FWIW --Resup (talk) 19:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

"Captain Voloshin"

Main article: Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Vladislav Voloshin‎

A guy came to Komsomol Pravda newspaper office o tell a story. translated He says that he was in Ukraine, in an airport in small town Aviatorskoe, near Dnepropetrovsk. (This is Dnepropetrovsk International Airport site.)

  • (from video testimony) Three SU 25 flew on a mission about 1 hour from MH 17 crash. He claims that he witnessed departure himself, and saw air-to air missiles on one of the planes. He was located on-site of the airport at the time. Only one plane, piloted by Voloshin, returned back, with air-to-air missiles now missing.
  • He says he know the pilot (a bit), and thought he is a guy who could panic. After return, pilot was talking about "a plane in a wrong place at a wrong time".
  • 3.6.15: Identified: Evgeny Agapov, an aviation armaments mechanic in the Ukrainian Air Force. The man is currently under Russian state protection. voluntarily crossed the state border of the Russian Federation and expressed a desire to cooperate with the Russian investigation.” Agapov has testified that on July 17, 2014, a Ukrainian Sukhoi Su-25 jet aircraft piloted by one Captain Voloshin “set out for a military task,” Markin said.--Resup (talk) 14:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Video of official questioning released. Confirms details in KP interview: 3 planes went out on 17 July, only one with Voloshin returned. Later on 17 July, while plane was serviced on the return to the airport, Agapov heard a phrase "not the right plane" said by Voloshin. Later in the day, Agapov learned that Boeing was shot down. Later in the evening, at around 11 pm, Agapov overheard a conversation of Voloshin with a group of other pilots. Diakev (another pilot) asked Voloshin, "what's (happened) with the plane?" Voloshin answer was, the plane was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Voloshin plane was equipped with R60 (heat seeking) air to air missiles. There were two planes equipped with R60 missiles, but Voloshin plane was the only such plane in the air on 17 July (and taking off that airport in Dnepropetrovsk). The other R60 equipped plane on some different occasions was accompanying and protecting other planes on bombing missions. Agapov was an air mechanic called for military duty. He objected punishing operation by Ukraine on moral grounds, and left because of that. He had no ill feelings to accuse the pilots without basis. He has nothing of substance to add. Komsomolskaia pravda now published full transcript with their comments, reporters say this guy at some point got scared, and kind of 'froze', needed questions repeated etc, but they did not feel he was lying --Resup (talk) 14:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
The new witness you linked to elsewhere is totally corroborating the story, with the two shot-down planes being very close to the ones recognized on July 23, in the right spots (near Shakhtersk). It just totally makes no sense (why would one of the three pilots suddenly decide to climb up to hit that plane he barely could have been aware of?) --CE (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Don't know why, the issue for now are they telling the truth, -I do not spot obvious lies but I have no experience interrogating any people :) --Resup (talk) 19:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Text in the newspaper closely follows testimony. Witness have some professional knowledge, is not nervous. Can be military, or intelligence guy (better/clearer spoken than a typical mechanic; and slower than a salesperson. Boss of mechanics? Maybe. Says he has friends in Novorossia and is against ATO ). Newspaper says they done some (unspecified) checks and did not detect an obvious fake. Not sure what to make of this; not much verifiable details. Just linking the story. Voice is altered, but what we do hear sounds like lower-frequency "Russian Russian", no accent, nothing Southern-sounding

So, it appears that at least one, possibly both of those planes said to be shot on 16 July indeed went down on 16, not 17 of July, as our witness claims. That raises some caution as to whether witness report is accurate.
If I am to speculate, the investigating commission at this point already should know whether a plane was involved, from shrapnel in pilot bodies. Most likely planes were involved (Buk is just too big to do alone such fine job we seem to see, making downing by single Buk not too likely). So now the question is, was it intentional or accidental. Our witness is there to tell us it was accidental. And prior to that, he was sitting in bushes in Dnepropetrovsk, right on his Novorossian friendship. Don't we have some horns visible there?
--Resup (talk) 01:56, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Definitely relevant accusations and worth considering. And good job with the context fill-in. However, if the story is like you related it, I'm calling probably bullshit. Suspicious omniscience, he saw everything needed to know just what happened - and it's a possibility with clear political implications and not clearly backed up as "what we know happened" - traditionally not an indicator of truthfulness. --Caustic Logic (talk) 09:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

An audio interview given by KP correspondents emerged (posted by Cassad). Audio provides some explanation of why the witness ("Alexander") was silent before, saying that he and his family stayed in Ukraine, and only now were able to all move to safety (in Russia, presumably). KP correspondent also relayed that witness was very nervous and fearful, insisting that his voice is changed, etc. (Well, this does not tell a lot, actually). Also, that he explained why there were some powerful aerial explosions, that's because volume blast munitions, "Fuel-Air Explosion Aircraft Bomb" (designed in Afganistan war times and likely banned thereafter) were used. Reporter also said it was kind of difficult to pull words out of witness mouth; and that his role was 'technical services", no further details provided. It was said that missile launches should be recorded in the paperwork and so a record confirming witness story are supposed to be on the books somewhere.

Cassad also linked videos of some flights of the only SU 25 Novorossia had. First military sortie was on September 3; but there was an earlier report that it made it to the air, making one flight over Luhansk on 13 of July . This plane initially was crash-landed by an Ukrainian pilot at Luhansk airport. That came about from a discussion on what other plane Voloshin reportedly talked about (as he said "wrong plane") ; this Novorossian SU 25 suggested as an alternative to (outlandish) Putin's plane suggestions.--Resup (talk) 01:56, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
According to this RT article, a Vladimir Markin, spokesman for an "Investigative Committee", says they have interviewed the man, tested him with a polygraph and consider his statements to be truthful. --CE (talk) 11:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, there is something about this guy, his KP interview also sounded super-steady. --Resup (talk) 15:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Missile?

According to reporter audio, it is R60. But R 60 is listed as rod-type with infrared homing, and a proximity fuse (radar or optical); does not seem to be rods damage, looks more like fragmentation warhead. (Reporter said that there are two types of R60. For now, can see details on only one). Witness did not say R60, just some air-to air missile. He also discussed some air-to air missile which shoots some buckshot-like charge, before the main explosion (he was trying to explain pilot cabin damage). Not sure what missile that would be. R60 has high explosives fragmentation-type charge surrounded by rods; do not see details like there is a smaller charge elsewhere on R60 warhead. --Resup (talk) 15:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. I find it likely that MH17 was hit with a R 60 or something similar. There are at least these four things that point to a rod warhead.
  1. The left engine was hit, pointing to infrared homing.
  2. The damage on the upper surface of the left wing was described as likely caused be a rod warhead. I agree.
    can be anything fast-flying, does not seem to be a rod to me --Resup (talk) 17:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. I would be impossible to see the rod damage in the MH17 airframe parts. The rods would shred the airframe to pieces. The rod damage would be the separation or two sections. One would need to microscopically study edges of the parts to see if they were torn or spliced.
    It may be that we do not see rod damage because it shredded some portion to pieces, but it would most likely cause catastrophic disintegration, it would split it into two parts. But it was kind of still flying for a while with stuff coming off (as I understand)--Resup (talk) 17:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. The bullet hole type holes in the cockpit do not alone explain what brought down the plane. (Killing the pilots would help in the long run.) Even less do they explain the catastrophic breakup of the fuselage. My hypothesis is that rod damage separated the cockpit from the rest of the fuselage. This separation might explain why there was nothing on the flight data recorders.
    should be further towards center, damage on pilot cabin are not rods--Resup (talk) 17:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
-- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

If we look at the Figure on page 22 of Dutch preliminary report, hypothetical rods should go into a portion shown in white (and cut in a cross-section though there, fully or almost fully; rods are often tied by the ends, and they fly off radially, away from cylindrical missile axes, all designed to cut through plane bodies). So than they have to go almost in the middle of business class in front (or in the rear, which is unlikely). If it through the middle of business class, I guess it will be known by now, from rods lodged in bodies, and as we will expect to have rather large chunk of forward section landing on the ground in one piece. In fact, stuff may come of just because there were holes opened up, while the plane went into spin (from engine and wing damage); no need for rods to bring plane down. It could have disintegrated because of the spin, eventually. --Resup (talk) 19:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Full presentation by Almaz-Antey ( Buk-m2 manufacturer ) about the incident [1]. Still only in Russian. Unfortunately even in Russian somebody the diagrams are not self-explanatory. But main arguments are clear. It includes calculations of the attack angle of the rocket in order to cause such damage.

Vanished ATC dispatcher

Anna (Anechka) Petrenko, dispatcher from Dnepropetrovsk ATC said to be routing MH17, was said to be questioned for 2 hours by SBU, than took a vacation and did not return . Born 16 December 1987. Gradauted from Kirovograd Aviation Academy. This post also gives those details, photos, and a link to deleted VK account and some friend account. --Resup (talk) 17:16, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Vanished dispatcher seems more serious than a vanished military pilot. Military pilot does not have a high salary, even in Ukraine switching to civilian aviation increases salary 10 fold, working for a foreign civilian or private employer may be even more profitable. So there is finance reason to quit military and go 'on vacation'. But for a civilian dispatcher, no such reason. Nobody will hire her abroad. --Resup (talk) 04:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Why everyone is throwing around "Su-25"?

One thing that keeps getting me extremely mad about this is WHY everybody on the internet KEEPS INSISTING that it was Su-25 and not something else???

How about we look back at the the source? I've got a convenient transcript for you:

Russian General: Кроме того, российскими средствами контроля воздушной обстановки зафиксирован набор высоты самолетом украинских ВВС, предположительно Су-25, в направлении малазийского Boeing 777.
Translator (who's experience, to be honest, seems to be limited to thumbing through English dictionary, rather than actually speaking English on a daily basis): Besides, Russian means of air traffic control fixed Ukrainian aircraft climbing to the direction of Malaysian Boeing-seven-seven. It is supposed that it was Su-25.
Proper translation: Additionally, Russian airspace monitoring system has recorded the climbing of a Ukrainian Air Force airplane, supposedly Su-25, in the direction of Malaysian Boeing-777.

Excuse me, what part of "supposedly" you do not understand? Nobody ever officially claimed it was Su-25. What they claim is that "the radar signature of that plane looked a lot like Su-25", but that is true of a whole lot of planes! -- Ed3218 (talk) 19:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I guess we are here perfectly fine with a different plane, but what is the evidence that there was a plane? Witnesses, yes. This Russian MoD presentation, no. It shows something else which does not move much at all. Could be a blip in data or a plane splitting into two-that would not give active response as well as a military jet. If Russian MoD has more to say on this, they need to make a better case, so far it does not really establish the second plane. --Resup (talk) 19:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
My personal opinion of that blip is that it's a big radio-reflective part that fell off Boeing after the hit (whatever the hit was), but that's just that: opinion. What I'm trying to say is that the argument "Su-25 cannot climb that high, therefore there was no plane!!!111" is invalid and should be taken off the board whenever it surfaces. (Whereas "the blip was too slow for a plane" is a valid claim.) -- Ed3218 (talk) 20:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
In other words, the claim "Witnesses, through the heavy snowfall, saw a man fleeing the crime scene riding a four-legged animal, which looked like a zebra" cannot be dismissed by saying "zebras cannot tolerate extreme cold, therefore the witnesses are lieing"; they could have mistaken a horse (possibly in disguise) for a zebra. There still may be other reasons to not believe the witnesses, but "zebra argument" is not one of them. -- Ed3218 (talk) 20:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
We are not dismissing a plane possibility, including an interceptor plane. But what would be a theory, and what is supporting evidence? --At this point, the official investigation likely knows is it air-to-air or surface to air; so proposing a theory with no/little evidence is not very attractive. Comments focusing on SU 25 are from old times when it was not known Ukraine got interceptor planes actually flying (not just listed), and to discuss theories by others. --Resup (talk) 23:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I do not have anything to add to the plane theory that hasn't been said yet. I'm just pointing out a logical fallacy in the "plane deniers" arguments to make sure our minds are open to all theories. As Sherlock Holmes said, "...when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" The only thing I'm saying here is that the "Su-25 can't fly that high" argument doesn't alone make the plane theory impossible, because a) nobody claimed it was specifically Su-25 (could be anything else) and b) Su-25, in fact, can fly quite high (video proof of Su-25 flying at 8700 m just fine). Once again, some rock solid facts disproving plane theory may eventually surface, but the "zebra claim" is not one of them. -- Ed3218 (talk) 23:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Interestingly, this video has witness claiming they saw a plane. --Petri Krohn (talk) 22:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC) ~~\}\}øþþþ¨22:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)~
Indeed. But while eyewitness accounts are valid evidence, they are always subject to greater scrutiny than material evidence (of which we have very little). Once again, I'm neither saying "it was a plane", nor "it wasn't a plane", I'm honestly saying "I don't know". -- Ed3218 (talk) 00:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I totally agree that SU-25 is silly to get so official. It was deduced from being the most common Ukie jet, I think. I don't believe it was a jet, despite what the anti-Kiev witnesses trying to blame Kiev said. Could be, but I doubt it. But to be fair to jet theories, somewhere on the page here (or maybe a sub-page?) I skipped SU-25 and called the maybe jet an unknown but capable model. Any radar track with speed, etc. could help narrow it down but that's been really vague. But... it's also not part of the plane. Measured it once, eassily too far away. Unknown blip with no clear sign of real movement. A mystery. --Caustic Logic (talk) 00:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree that Russian MOD didn't make a conclusion that it was SU-25 on the radar. They only gave one of the possible explanations. More to this, in their statement they didn't even say that this plane shot MH17. They don't know and didn't see it. What they say is that plane was there. But I would like to add here something. Claim that SU-25 can't reach 10km is false. In 2012 Ukrs declared themselves that they upgraded their SU-25 TO SU-25 M1. That was the selling point at 8th International Aviation and Space Salon AVIASVIT-XXI, Ukraine, Kyiv 2012 -- Antidyatel (talk) 01:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Tin Foil (Hat) theory of Military Chaff falling in crash video

Video shows man explaing that long streamers in crash video are actually military chaff from a Ukranian fighter shadowing MH17

Military Chaff Theory

Simple debunk. The stuff must have been a metre or more wide and hundreds of metres long to be visible at that range. No such military chaff system has that sizing, least of all one that can be carried by a fighter jet.

The only foil in this video is on the guy's head.

--Charles Wood (talk) 00:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't even know what "military chaff" is, but I saw someone mention the streamers, connected to the plane having a cargo including textiles. --Caustic Logic (talk) 22:19, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
No, It seems to me the chaff is falling in the foreground while the smoke cloud is kilometers away. A lucky shot just got them both in the same picture. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
just to belatedly clarify - chaff would be emitted by the plane before being shot down, in the hope of causing the missile to home onto the chaff ather than the plane itself. This is the purpose of chaff. So the chaff could be many kilometres behind the plane. The images in that video most likely WERE chaff, because that video has since been proven to be NOT MH17 but a Ukrainian military plane that was downed 2 days earlier. KatKan (talk) 19:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

In his video witnesses claim they saw a plane firing flares and chaff falling from the sky. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Woman witness in the above video claim that her friend saw a military plane releasing shining metallic reflectors; but the friend is not on the video; while the woman herself talks about plane on "fire" (and smoke trail) ; but smoke started only when it hit the ground. A different earlier plane was on fire, though. So it seems that she may be confused.--Resup (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Vanished BBC video witnesses appear to be trustworthy and describe the correct event; but they did not identify the other plane --Resup (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Ukrainian Falcons

Mig 29 equipped Ukrainian Falcons aerobatic demonstration team of the Ukrainian Air Force: Youtube (2009) apparently re-posted on youtube (July 16, 2014). Than used by president Poroshenko in his 1 August 2015 facebook post (Слава Повітряним Силам України! -Glory to Ukrainian Air Force). According to Ukrainian wikipedia, disbanded in 2002. Spotted by A Sharii --Resup (talk) 13:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


Media

Preview, Mike Rudin, BBC, 25 April 2016
Is this a Bellingcat commercial or what ? (E.g. this stupid jet photo was debunked on Russian sites and not ever believed here, all on own wits with no need for any Bellingcat, or whoever else, 'leadership' ...). Otherwise, does not solve anything or adds anything not heard long ago, what's the point of all this really, BBC? --Resup (talk) 13:37, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Apparently previous experience includes fighting 911 'truthers', by some youtube videos, maybe similar objective now --Resup (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
What seems curious is that they give yet another version of the plume photo (? it supposed to be rescuero-Aleynikov-photo, not one of 2015 June 7 by Yana Yerlashova, right? )-On top of that one seen before (and which might be fake, according to Krawetz and Max van der Werff --Resup (talk) 18:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
--Resup (talk) 16:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)