Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

MH17

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Vaeltaja
    replied
    Originally posted by von Junzt View Post
    I know this will not convince anyone here of the Russophobe crowd, but any person with healthy skeptical should wonder, if the Ukrainians are innocent, they can easily prove their innocence by releasing their records. They haven't done so.
    Neither have the Russians. If you just look at the investigation report on page 38 you can clearly see that Russians only provided processed data - which due to lack of raw data can not be verified. However unlike the Ukrainians who stated (supported by evidence) that they had no primary radar data to give the Russians on the other hand had the data but refused to give it.
    The Dutch justice minister lied to Parliament. He claimed Russian radars could not detect the Buk missile in flight, but that if there weren't tracks doesn't mean that there was not something there.
    Russians refused to release the raw data from their radars so it can not be verified what Russians did or did not see. Released processed Russia radar tracks did not show BUK so the minister was not lying.
    Russian aviation agency calls that bullshit. This is not an opinion. This is technical facts. The Russian radar had enough time to complete a sweep and see the Buk missile, in the interval of time from launch to hit.
    Actually it is an opinion. There is no certainty that Russian radar would have even picked up a BUK missile even less that it would have actually been tracked. And again, since Russians refuse to release the raw radar data none of what the Russians state can be verified.
    1) There was indeed a Buk missile and Dutch gov and the US know where it came from, but they are hiding the proof because it would point towards the Ukrainians
    Problem for that argument is that we already know from where the missile was fired. That already has been established. 'Jet noise' - in reality noise from BUK launch etc. all matches up perfectly.
    No radar picture, coupled with no one seeing in a clear summer day the missile launch plume that would have been visible for tens of kms around would by default mean an air-to-air missile. Wich, perhaps, if fired at close range would have hit the Boeing before the Russian radars completed a sweep leaving no trace. Even if they had this picture of the missile, the West is dismissing the Russian radar reports on Ukrainian jets flying in the area as fabrications.
    The sky over the location was overcast so no missile track could be seen above. While there actually were photos of a missile track in the direction of the launch site where the sky was still clear. Air to air missile would have required there to have been an aircraft in the vicinity. Russia's own radar data shows that there was not.
    Now the air to air kill scenario looks a lot more plausible. A Ukrainian fighter, chases the Boeing, shoots the cabin with cannon fire to kill the crew, overtakes it and turns around to finish it off with an air-to-air missile that explodes on the portside near the fuselage. Perhaps two airplanes worked together and the missile was fired after all by a Su-25 climbing up and coming from the front.
    Except the cockpit voice recordings and all other evidence indicates that it was just a single impact. Not multiple ones and certainly not several passes. Another problem is that for the holes to have been caused by gun fire the shooter would have needed to approach the aircraft slightly from one side from the front. Which would have placed it dead center in the Russian radar - which didn't see any aircraft there. Another problems are that (i) the size of the holes does not match with aircraft guns, (ii) speed of the aircraft makes it impossible to cluster the shots in such a manner with the required approach angle. And then the old missile nonsense - Su-25 only carries heat seeking air to air missiles - they would not home on to the cockpit nor do they carry warheads of yield and type to cause such damage.
    I think that the Boeing MN17 is shot down by either MIG-29 or SU-27. Most likely it is the front-line fighter MiG-29 equipped with air target kill guns and missiles.

    I can say with certainty that Boeing was not shot down by the Buk. When the fragments of the Malaysian airliner were showed I saw a fragment of the pilot cabin left side and in the pilot cabin’s area, on portside, a fuselage damage reminiscent of a cannon shot trace. There were 4 or five holes. The pilot of the fighter clearly took aim to the cockpit. So the task was the hitting the pilot cabin. Not the engines. Because if he made a shot at the engines, the engine caught fire, the air crew would report that the engine was on fire.
    No pilot, even good old Battler Britton could have landed that many shells to such a proximity from the angle required for the holes to be round (i.e. perpendicular) at the speeds the aircraft were flying. All the while using rounds that are not of the same caliber as the guns mounted on any of the listed aircraft. So that fighter theory is just nonsensical - even more so since Russia's own radar data already disproves it. And there really is no mystery about the round holes so closely packed - it is a match for bolt holes. And then you are again forgetting that CVR recorded no such incidents - which it would likely have done had the aircraft been shot at with a cannon.
    I concede is still possible it could have been an accidental shot down by the Ukrops, but the absence of a Buk trail, both visual and radar and the damage to the airplane seem to favor the air-to-air shot down, so deliberate murder.
    Damage on the aircraft actually are in fact against air-to-air events. Lack of raw Russian radar data makes it impossible to verify the Russian claim of not detecting the BUK missile. There actually was a photo of the trail - and it matches with the sound of 'jet engine' (in reality engine of BUK missile) as reported by locals. All which were on the rebel held territory.

    All which indicates either a deliberate or accidental firing of a BUK missile by the rebels.
    Last edited by Vaeltaja; 04 Jul 17, 02:20.

    Leave a comment:


  • von Junzt
    replied
    The revelations from Russian sources continue. Links with English translation of the reports were translated the followind day

    DISCLAIMER:

    I know this will not convince anyone here of the Russophobe crowd, but any person with healthy skeptical should wonder, if the Ukrainians are innocent, they can easily prove their innocence by releasing their records. They haven't done so.




    https://dninews.com/article/three-uk...aked-documents




    Original link:

    http://antimaydan.info/2017/06/dnr_i...at_terakt.html

    Summing it up:

    The Dutch justice minister lied to Parliament. He claimed Russian radars could not detect the Buk missile in flight, but that if there weren't tracks doesn't mean that there was not something there.


    Russian aviation agency calls that bullshit. This is not an opinion. This is technical facts. The Russian radar had enough time to complete a sweep and see the Buk missile, in the interval of time from launch to hit.


    So two possibilities:

    1) There was indeed a Buk missile and Dutch gov and the US know where it came from, but they are hiding the proof because it would point towards the Ukrainians

    2) There was no Buk missile at all, that is why the Russian radar did not detect it, and why the Russians were initially confused, they did not know what happened to the Boeing. Except for those involved, like the rebel command and the Russian intelligence, that knew their side had not done it.

    But they do not have the "smoking gun" to prove it was the Ukrainians.


    No radar picture, coupled with no one seeing in a clear summer day the missile launch plume that would have been visible for tens of kms around would by default mean an air-to-air missile. Wich, perhaps, if fired at close range would have hit the Boeing before the Russian radars completed a sweep leaving no trace. Even if they had this picture of the missile, the West is dismissing the Russian radar reports on Ukrainian jets flying in the area as fabrications. Will never accept them as proof, but conversely, the West has no proof to incriminate the rebels, because there's none!


    Now the air to air kill scenario looks a lot more plausible. A Ukrainian fighter, chases the Boeing, shoots the cabin with cannon fire to kill the crew, overtakes it and turns around to finish it off with an air-to-air missile that explodes on the portside near the fuselage. Perhaps two airplanes worked together and the missile was fired after all by a Su-25 climbing up and coming from the front.

    More

    http://antimaydan.info/2017/06/v_tot...bit_boing.html


    Here is the DONI news in English

    First news was published on 24 May

    https://dninews.com/article/leaked-d...racy-and-guilt



    This new revelation is more explicit

    https://dninews.com/article/three-uk...cuments?page=4

    Excerpt:


    "It is problematically for the SU-25 attack aircraft to catch up with the Boeing, in that case it should have been brought close to it. It would take him more time to catch up the goal. But the fighters SU-27 and MiG-29 are supersonic aircraft, they could quickly gain this height and catch up with the Boeing. These are air combat aircraft.

    I think that the Boeing MN17 is shot down by either MIG-29 or SU-27. Most likely it is the front-line fighter MiG-29 equipped with air target kill guns and missiles.

    I can say with certainty that Boeing was not shot down by the Buk. When the fragments of the Malaysian airliner were showed I saw a fragment of the pilot cabin left side and in the pilot cabin’s area, on portside, a fuselage damage reminiscent of a cannon shot trace. There were 4 or five holes. The pilot of the fighter clearly took aim to the cockpit. So the task was the hitting the pilot cabin. Not the engines. Because if he made a shot at the engines, the engine caught fire, the air crew would report that the engine was on fire.

    And he hit the place where the aircrew was for putting out of action immediately, so that they did not have time to report and say anything. This happened."


    But that was I not aware of is that in court in March this year, the Russians revealed that the Ukrops had Buk missiles deployed in the front and could have shot down the Boeing during target practice.

    http://theduran.com/mh17-russia-ukra...k-deployments/

    I concede is still possible it could have been an accidental shot down by the Ukrops, but the absence of a Buk trail, both visual and radar and the damage to the airplane seem to favor the air-to-air shot down, so deliberate murder.

    The Kiev junta had the means, motive and opportunity. After killing thousands of their own people, why stop at killing foreigners if that helps them as they were losing the war?

    Third part here

    https://dninews.com/article/ukraine-...document-leaks

    PS

    Useful entry by Chervonets. Makes a timeline of the investigation progress and the increasing nervousness of the Dutch gov as things don't add up

    http://chervonec-001.livejournal.com/1916642.html
    Last edited by von Junzt; 03 Jul 17, 16:10.

    Leave a comment:


  • Vaeltaja
    replied
    Originally posted by von Junzt View Post
    I always believed it was shot down by the Ukrainians on purpose, using a jet and employing AA missile and gunfire. The photos of what appear to be both entry, and exit holes in the nose, slashing damage to the left wingtip and the wounds in the pilot body seemed to me as consistent with that version, but what do I know
    You clearly do not know since pattern was already matched with that of BUK. The entry angles for everything else were totally wrong keeping in mind the potential engagement angles and windows (meaning time here). You can do the math. Landing shells/bullets to a cluster is not possible on such conditions. And no evidence of AA missiles were located. And also you need to take into account the site of the explosion. Heat seeking missiles would not home there. Nor would one coming from anywhere but from front of the aircraft. Yet - ironically - Russian radar detected no aircraft there.
    I was willing to concede it was a Buk missile but after reviewing analysis done by people that attempted to plot the fragment holes and find a pattern wich would be consistent with a Buk warhead I didn't find their conclusions conclusive at all. When I started to read things about alternative explanations that the missile had rammed the airplane before exploding, or that it overcorrected , coming from the right and had ended turning and exploding on the left side , I found that fishy and attempts to twist the facts to a desired conclusion. If the missile hit the airplane on the left side that meant it came from the north, from Ukrainian held territory, wich is very inconvenient for those that want to blame Russia and their proxies.
    Wrong again. Given the missiles homing method (semi-active using proportional navigation) had the missile been fired from the north it would have hit the tail of the aircraft - not the nose. For missile of that homing system to even come close to the nose it would have need to have been fired somewhere in front arc of the aircraft.
    So far no conclusive evidence has been presented that it was a Buk missile.
    Actually - it has. That you ignore it doesn't make it go away.
    Not even Ukrainian Buk fragments wich would allow Ukraine at least claim the rebels captured one of the Ukrainian missiles and fired it, wich would make guilty Ukraine of criminal negligence in reporting it
    During a civil war? No it wouldn't. Only if a certain party gave or loaned the launcher to the rebels would there be a criminal case.
    All the points in this report are well known. What incriminates Ukraine is that given the amount of fragments, it's statistically impossible the investigators weren't able to retrieve some that after analysis could be conclusively prove what kind of missile was used.
    Contrary to your fairy tale fragments were collected. Most of them however were mostly so badly deformed that it was impossible to conclusively determine anything from them. Yet had you read the report you would have noticed that some of fragments were analysed.
    Also, if Ukraine is innocent, why all the secrecy if they don't have anything to hide?
    If Russia is innocent why is it so difficult to get Russian data for the suspected TELAR unit? If Russia is innocent why did they come up Su-25 fairy tales?

    Leave a comment:


  • von Junzt
    replied
    This will not convince the "Russia did it!" crowd, but is worth posting anyway.

    I always believed it was shot down by the Ukrainians on purpose, using a jet and employing AA missile and gunfire. The photos of what appear to be both entry, and exit holes in the nose, slashing damage to the left wingtip and the wounds in the pilot body seemed to me as consistent with that version, but what do I know

    I was willing to concede it was a Buk missile but after reviewing analysis done by people that attempted to plot the fragment holes and find a pattern wich would be consistent with a Buk warhead I didn't find their conclusions conclusive at all. When I started to read things about alternative explanations that the missile had rammed the airplane before exploding, or that it overcorrected , coming from the right and had ended turning and exploding on the left side , I found that fishy and attempts to twist the facts to a desired conclusion. If the missile hit the airplane on the left side that meant it came from the north, from Ukrainian held territory, wich is very inconvenient for those that want to blame Russia and their proxies.


    So far no conclusive evidence has been presented that it was a Buk missile.

    The fact that nothing has come out of the official investigation about the missile warhead fragments means something is amiss. There's no smoking gun to accuse Russia: no Russian Buk fragments were found.

    Not even Ukrainian Buk fragments wich would allow Ukraine at least claim the rebels captured one of the Ukrainian missiles and fired it, wich would make guilty Ukraine of criminal negligence in reporting it, but at least would allow the regime to claim they didn't do it, wether by accident or intent.

    I think nothing will come out of the official investigation, Russia will get blamed no matter what. That's why I think they are behind these leaks.

    Yeah, the documents may be forgeries, but it would be at least a reason to investigate Ukraine involvement. They had the means, the motive, and the opportunity.


    All the points in this report are well known. What incriminates Ukraine is that given the amount of fragments, it's statistically impossible the investigators weren't able to retrieve some that after analysis could be conclusively prove what kind of missile was used. Also, if Ukraine is innocent, why all the secrecy if they don't have anything to hide?


    https://dninews.com/article/leaked-d...racy-and-guilt

    Leave a comment:


  • Karri
    replied
    It sounds like a russian dressed up as a dutch giving the opinion of all dutch people.

    Leave a comment:


  • Snowygerry
    replied
    This is a quote by Von Junzt from a different thread, forgive for copying it here,

    but I would like to ask from comments from our Dutch members here, and it might seriously derail the other thread :



    I don't buy it - but I'm reluctant to make blanket statements in name of the Dutch and can't find any poll or questionnaire that would allow me to draw conclusions on the issue.

    Leave a comment:


  • Imperial
    replied
    Originally posted by Bwaha View Post
    Amvas many of us in the west are critical about our government and are willing to face the truth when we are exposed to it.

    Why can't you guys be honest and critical of your government? Is it that you fear reprisals?

    Come on man, be objective.
    Most Americans don't see Russia as an enemy, but many Russians see the US as an enemy. So while many Americans see no problem with accepting/embracing criticism even if it comes from Russian government mouthpieces (RT), for a Russian accepting criticism from Western mainstream media would be tantamount to accepting enemy propaganda.

    There is no room for objectivity in siege mentality.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bwaha
    replied
    Amvas many of us in the west are critical about our government and are willing to face the truth when we are exposed to it. For example I truly believe that the real reason that we are mired in Afghanistan is for the drugs. Its Air America all over again. (Nam)

    Why can't you guys be honest and critical of your government? Is it that you fear reprisals? Your really coming off as a disingenuous mouthpiece. Not being insulting, just a observation. You talk about 'true believers', yet you appear to be one.

    Come on man, be objective. The rebels were taped celebrating the shoot down till it was discovered to be a civilian flight. If you want any credibility you have to be honest.

    Just my two cents...

    Leave a comment:


  • Vaeltaja
    replied
    Originally posted by amvas View Post
    It would be better for Ukrainians to pay for relatives. First of all it was them to allow to MH17 to fly to the battle area.
    Allowing aircraft to fly over the area - especially far beyond the reach of MANPADs - was not in any way uncommon so you can not in any manner hold Ukrainians liable for that. Only party that can be held liable is the one which shot the missile. Currently that part seems to be either the Russians or the pro-Russian rebels, not any one else.

    Leave a comment:


  • Vaeltaja
    replied
    Originally posted by amvas View Post
    Rebels had no enough heavy weapons. They collected artillery and armor only after annihilation of Ukrainian pockets. It happened later.
    Yet they didn't seem to have much problem in shelling Ukrainian forces even at that time. Rather strange is it not?
    As I have told you in the other post I deny speeches like "we have know this, but we won't show you prooves"
    And as has been said that you deny them doesn't really matter at all.
    You are wrong here. Ukrainians did have reasons to do this.
    1. If they knock down a civilian jet, but blame rebels (or Russia) for this they would got large profit. It's well known style of provocations, which happened for many times in history.
    Except that they would have been quite fully aware that the countries whose people were victims would have pushed for full investigation where the that culpability would have likely been revealed. In which case Ukraine would lose everything.
    2. You forgot about possibility of fail launch. Ukrainian AA forces are famous for knocking down Russian Tu-154. Just to remind you about this.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberi...es_Flight_1812
    That time Ukrainians also denied this fact and prevented from any investigaions. Don't you think the situation looks damn similar?
    Except according to the investigators Ukrainians were not preventing investigations in this case. Russians however were. So according to your logic that makes Russians guilty.
    Again a primitive question for you.
    WHY Ukrainians allowed the civilian jet to go by the route of miiltary transport planes? there were plenty of other routes both for transport and civilian jets in the sky. That area was not full of commercial jets.
    On July 17th there were only 2 civilian jets around MH17
    Because aircraft flying beyond the reach of MANPADs were presumed to be safe. As simple as that. There was nothing strange in overflying conflict zones at the time. And the route the aircraft followed was the most direct route from central Ukraine to the SE Ukraine. It would have been strange if they had not been flying along that.
    Yes. If it would be a transport airplane.
    But routes of civilian jets are well-known. Flightradar site is available even for idiots to trace civilian jets with complete information about them.
    That you just proved that the rebels are idiots doesn't exactly help your case.
    Returning back to BUK's features.
    Imagine, if rebels asked for "Buk" long-range AA system. Why did they received (if to follow your logic) only ONE launcher? It's almost useless alone!!!
    Solitary launcher would be exactly what they would need to shoot down Ukrainian transport planes. Flying along known route, beyond the reach of MANPADs...
    One need extremely well-trained crew and much luck to hit a plane from individually operating launcher! And again to paradox, which I told you many times. If the crew was very well-trined, how do they mixed up the civilian jet with a transport one?
    Actually you don't need well trained crew or even luck. The solitary launcher is intended to be fully capable of independent action if its connection to the rest of the battery is gone. The solitary unit is jut not able to tell what exactly it is that it is shooting at.
    Buk launcher alone provides for observation such a small hole. that's why I say all the time, that of course, there were possibility of some Buk alone, but it would have very low chances to hit any plane. And see about paradox above
    Actually it is not that small hole but infact quite wide. -http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Engag...mozTocId926428

    Operating autonomously, the 9S35 will take 4 seconds to sweep a 120° sector, with an elevation of 6° to 7°. When cued to acquire and track, with will take 2 seconds to sweep a 10° x 7° az/elev solid angle
    So how you would just stick to the facts instead of relying on strange and utterly inaccurate analogies? 120 degrees is not a small hole by any measure (third of a full circle if you are not aware)
    No. "Buk" system is very complicated one. If battery radar station ("Kupol") is absent, it's extremely hard to target the missile. Only very well trained crew can do it using own launcher facilities.
    Except the solitary units outside of battery control are designed to be able to act on their own. So it ain't that complicated nor does it require a well trained crew. Keep in mind that in any case it always has to be launcher's radar that locks on to the target. 'Kupol' radar can not be used to guide missiles to their targets - only to provide better situational awareness.
    Once more notice that I deny materials, which "are provided, but kept in secret". So, lets even don't discuss such ones. When they are published, they would be taken into account.
    There is nothing strange in having details omitted from public. Just because you can't access doesn't mean the investigators would be as inept as you are.
    Ok, and what calculations did they make to deny the Zaroshchenskoye area, which would overpass calculations of the Buk missile manufacture?
    Sorry, I can't belive to phrases like "investigation shows" without mathematical modelling. "Almaz-Antei" provided both mathematical and physical modelling of Buk missile launch. How NED experts denied this Russian investigation?
    And again, it really wouldn't hurt if you read the reports instead of posting nonsense regarding them. JIT did investigate that possibility but since there wasn't any supporting evidence they rejected it.
    Deploying of rebels AA systems looks impossible in this settlement and Ukrainian AA systems - very possible, because of protection of Ukrainian air forces actively operated in Zugres-Shakhters-Snezhnoye line during July 10-17
    Except the presence of Ukrainian air force would be actually make the presence of the Ukrainian AA units there rather unlikely while it would make the presence of the rebel AA units there very likely... You seem to be forgetting that Ukrainian AA units had nothing to shoot at or even target at. While the rebels had plenty.

    Leave a comment:


  • amvas
    replied
    Originally posted by Vaeltaja View Post
    Just read the reports. It is quite certain.


    EDIT: In fact as it stands it seems the best bet for Russians would be to negotiate in order to accept partial (be in indirect, second hand or what not) blame, pay the compensations and then handle the rest internally. Assuming the relatives of the victims would accept that. Contrary to KAL 007 this one can't be swept under the carpet.
    It would be better for Ukrainians to pay for relatives. First of all it was them to allow to MH17 to fly to the battle area.

    As for KAL 007 it could be used by SR71 American recon jet for hiding itself. Besides, Korean jet flew for several hours in Soviet zone without replying to fighter's signals.
    but further discussion is offtop here...

    Leave a comment:


  • amvas
    replied
    Originally posted by Vaeltaja View Post
    It is far from certain that it would have been Ukrainians who shelled it. Some one did.
    Just reminding ty situation at the frontline.
    Rebels had no enough heavy weapons. They collected artillery and armor only after annihilation of Ukrainian pockets. It happened later.
    For reference, her is situation on July 15-21'2014

    Moreover, there exists plenty of witness, who spoke that the fire was taken from ukrainian side.
    Also there was all possible assistance from rebels command, who cared experts to collect all possible information about this disaster.
    At the same time experts, who arrived to Kiev for several days were not allowed to go to the frontline.


    Flight control talks were released to the investigators so that part is just nonsense from you. Try actually familiarizing yourself with the wealth of information that has been provided on the topic. And presence of Ukrainian launchers along the frontline doesn't really matter since the launch location was not on the frontline but inside the rebel controlled areas.
    As I have told you in the other post I deny speeches like "we have know this, but we won't show you prooves"
    Also I already asked you about strange positions of experts, who didn't require positions of ukrainian launchers.

    They had more possibilities but they also had no reason to fire any missiles since the rebels didn't have anything in the air for them to shoot at.
    You are wrong here. Ukrainians did have reasons to do this.
    1. If they knock down a civilian jet, but blame rebels (or Russia) for this they would got large profit. It's well known style of provocations, which happened for many times in history.
    Rebels couldn't get the same profit if they would hit that jet.
    2. You forgot about possibility of fail launch. Ukrainian AA forces are famous for knocking down Russian Tu-154. Just to remind you about this.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberi...es_Flight_1812
    That time Ukrainians also denied this fact and prevented from any investigaions. Don't you think the situation looks damn similar?

    At that time at very least. MH17 flew roughly on the same route as what the Ukrainian transport planes supplying troops in the south had done.
    Again a primitive question for you.
    WHY Ukrainians allowed the civilian jet to go by the route of miiltary transport planes? there were plenty of other routes both for transport and civilian jets in the sky. That area was not full of commercial jets.
    On July 17th there were only 2 civilian jets around MH17

    And the rebels had quite a few reasons to target those.
    Yes. If it would be a transport airplane.
    But routes of civilian jets are well-known. Flightradar site is available even for idiots to trace civilian jets with complete information about them.

    Like the captured transcripts make clear the Rebels were well aware of the lack of vertical range of their missile systems and specifically asked for BUKs.
    Returning back to BUK's features.
    Imagine, if rebels asked for "Buk" long-range AA system. Why did they received (if to follow your logic) only ONE launcher? It's almost useless alone!!!
    One need extremely well-trained crew and much luck to hit a plane from individually operating launcher! And again to paradox, which I told you many times. If the crew was very well-trined, how do they mixed up the civilian jet with a transport one?

    Also lack of surveillance radar doesn't really affect the direction from which BUK can be fired since that surveillance radar doesn't have anything to do after the targeting is switched over to the launch unit.
    It doesn't affect on missile flight. But it much affect on detection of the target. Imagine, you look at the small hole in the roof. You have a powerful long-range rifle, but can see only a small piece of the sky. What chances do you have to hit a target, which you see at this hole?
    Buk launcher alone provides for observation such a small hole. that's why I say all the time, that of course, there were possibility of some Buk alone, but it would have very low chances to hit any plane. And see about paradox above.

    Quality of the crew doesn't matter if only TELAR unit was in use. That unit is perfectly capable of targeting with radar and then launching missiles at the target but it is also fully incapable of figuring out what exactly it had been targeting. Quality of the training has really no part in that.
    No. "Buk" system is very complicated one. If battery radar station ("Kupol") is absent, it's extremely hard to target the missile. Only very well trained crew can do it using own launcher facilities.

    Had you read the investigation report (JIT one) you might have noticed that USA did provide information to them. They however are not for public release nor are they required to make them public.
    Once more notice that I deny materials, which "are provided, but kept in secret". So, lets even don't discuss such ones. When they are published, they would be taken into account.

    Had you bothered to actually read the presentation the JIT provided you might have noticed that you are more than a bit in error. Russians sources were considered but they were not considered to be trumping over other sources - example from the presentation:
    I read extractions from the report. Sorry, I'm not able to spend much time for this of course interesting, but time consuming subject.

    The JIT investigated several possible launch locations, including two locations in the vicinity of the town of Zaroschenke or Zaroshchenskoye. Among other locations, this area was indicated by the Russian Ministry of Defence as being the launch site. It was also mentioned that this area was allegedly controlled by Ukraine. However, the investigation showed that this was not the launch location. And besides this, it appeared that this area was not being controlled by Ukraine, but by pro-Russian fighters. To illustrate this there is the following intercepted telephone conversation between two pro-Russian fighters:
    Ok, and what calculations did they make to deny the Zaroshchenskoye area, which would overpass calculations of the Buk missile manufacture?
    Sorry, I can't belive to phrases like "investigation shows" without mathematical modelling. "Almaz-Antei" provided both mathematical and physical modelling of Buk missile launch. How NED experts denied this Russian investigation? Again sorry, I see here only loud phrases masking absense of arguments.
    As for the control of Zaroshchenskoye area situation was the next
    (link http://voicesevas.ru/news/yugo-vosto...vlyaetsya.html)

    Kot-Ivanov, author of the most detailed schemes for those fights writes the next http://www.novayagazeta.ru/inquests/68846.html:


    Translation:
    "This confirms the initial proposion that rebels occupied defensive positions along the road Donetsk-Shakhtersk-Snezhnoye. The defense was focal, not solid, so convoys of UA forces moved enough freely around the settlements and could relatively easy cross by fields all the area controlled by rebels from the north to the south. Just that happened on July 27 when the assault of Shakhtersk town. Zaroshchenskoye village was a valuable strognpoint neither for rebels nor for Ukrainian army. It is not mentioned in any reports and was situated in the area, which was regularily crossed by Ukrainian convoys. Deploying of rebels AA systems looks impossible in this settlement and Ukrainian AA systems - very possible, because of protection of Ukrainian air forces actively operated in Zugres-Shakhters-Snezhnoye line during July 10-17"


    Problem for that story is that for missile to be able to hit the aircraft to the location it did it had to be have been launched from somewhere in from of it within rather limited range. And potential launch locations in those areas were in rebel hands...
    Above I told you about "areas in rebels hands".
    I myself also remember the situation of those days.
    It was some kind "porridge". Ukrainian armored columns suddenly penetrated deeply in rebels controlled areas.

    Leave a comment:


  • Vaeltaja
    replied
    Originally posted by amvas View Post
    Dear Vaeltaja, if you would study how many fantasies were made by Ukrainians not only around this situation, but in the course of all the latest history of this country, you would consider Russian theories about Su-25 as working ones.
    Except the Russian fantasy tale regarding Su-25 has since been proven to have been just hogwash. And the more Russia supported that theory the worse off they ended up being.
    In every crash investigation usually exists several theories. And it's a task for experts to prove or disapprove them. Su-25's one was not fantasy. It was based on the radar data about presence of some object near the MH17. During investigation of primary (raw) radar signals it was found that this signal was occurred from a piece of Boeing, but not from some another jet.
    You follow my thought? It was not Russian fantasy. It was not fabricated fake. It was one of theories, which was studied.
    If they detected a piece of debris from MH17 then they ought to have said so. If they couldn't identify it then they ought to have said so. Nothing in either of those would have been wrong or in any way surprising. What they should never have done is to start fabricating fantasy tales of Su-25s. That was the lie.
    No, they had not. Please, send me link to text of those talks and raw radar data from the Ukrainian side.
    Read the accident report. It is in there.
    Anyway I neither saw any data from Ukrainian objective control means for the last minutes of MH17 flight.
    Again, read the accident report. And i mean read it instead of glance through it.
    "... They have no obligation to relase those in public"
    You makes me laugh here
    There is nothing to laugh about that. They were required and obligated to release that information to the investigation to the accident as well as to the criminal investigation. There is nothing that obligates them to make that data public. It only needed to be released to the investigators. And it was according to the reports.
    Ok, than a question to your common sense - Why so experienced NED experts didn't require for those positions of Ukrainan AA batteries? It would be much easier to study possible missile routes if they would knew positions of ALL possible launchers. Agree?
    Disagreed. Given the missile impact location and the limited range of BUK system there is very limited range of possibilities as to the launch site. There is simply no need for that information. Besides the Russian satellite images of the Ukrainian BUKs seem to have been also fabrications - both with altered images and false timestamps.
    Because they expected to hunt only after "Russian Buk" ignoring all the other versions?
    They were not hunting for 'Russian BUK' but whomever shot down the aircraft. You are rather deluded if you imagine that Dutch, Australian or Indonesian investigators would have given rats ass if it was Ukrainian or Russian as long as they could prove it.
    I guess manufacturers know details of their radars much better than you, or me. It was said, that radar was able to see "Orlan" drone, which is twice smaller than Buk missile (but it flew closer to radar). Again, it was said, that if Buk missile would be launched from the east of the MH17 route, radar would detect it. Technical features didn't allow it to detect objects like Buk missle at areas south and west from the disaster area.
    Except the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Simply because the Russian radar didn't detect something doesn't mean it wasn't there. It is especially dubious information from Russia since it took well over two years for Russians to locate it.
    I think if they had technical possibility to detect Ukrainian missile they could definetly declare about those raw data.
    Technical possibility is a far cry from absolute detection. As long as that doesn't exist then the whole recent Russian radar claim is just worthless.
    I suppose thepoint of the disaster was somewhat near the limits of radar station to detect small objects. So, I can only say that the raw data didn't detect any missile. But as manufacturers say, it could detect such missile if it was more close to radar, i.e. from the easter (rebels controlled) area.
    Except radar's claimed inability to detect something doesn't mean it wasn't there. Radar is not all-seeing. Yet again - the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

    Leave a comment:


  • amvas
    replied
    Originally posted by Vaeltaja View Post
    Given how absolute Russia's stance about Su-25 fantasy tale was it was far beyond a mistake. If they had no idea what happened then they ought to have said so instead of fabricating a false story.
    Dear Vaeltaja, if you would study how many fantasies were made by Ukrainians not only around this situation, but in the course of all the latest history of this country, you would consider Russian theories about Su-25 as working ones.
    In every crash investigation usually exists several theories. And it's a task for experts to prove or disapprove them. Su-25's one was not fantasy. It was based on the radar data about presence of some object near the MH17. During investigation of primary (raw) radar signals it was found that this signal was occurred from a piece of Boeing, but not from some another jet.
    You follow my thought? It was not Russian fantasy. It was not fabricated fake. It was one of theories, which was studied.

    According to the investigators, they have. They have no obligation to relase those in public. Besides you can read the transcripts from the incident report released last year.
    No, they had not. Please, send me link to text of those talks and raw radar data from the Ukrainian side. Moreover, after I wrote my post Ukrainians loudly declared that they WOULD publish those talks and radar data.
    http://rusvesna.su/news/1475236112
    LOL, but later, the Ukrainian side said the site was hacked and this news was faked.

    Anyway I neither saw any data from Ukrainian objective control means for the last minutes of MH17 flight.

    "... They have no obligation to relase those in public"
    You makes me laugh here
    It looks very much like Mr. Powell with "proove" of Iraqi's chemical weapons.
    "We know that they have. But this data are secret, so we can't provide them"... I know lots of similar cases when western (in particular American) officials (pst, we won't call Mrs. Psaki here) loudly blaming somebody for awful crimes without ANY evidences.
    Oh, I forgot that they used social networks, which of course are the most believable sources of information

    They were not required to do that.
    Ok, than a question to your common sense - Why so experienced NED experts didn't require for those positions of Ukrainan AA batteries? It would be much easier to study possible missile routes if they would knew positions of ALL possible launchers. Agree?
    But they, as you said yourself didn't explore this fact. Why, damn it?!!!
    Because they expected to hunt only after "Russian Buk" ignoring all the other versions?

    Indeed. And it seems Russian radars were incapable of detecting BUK missiles despite of their manufacturer's claims. As has been said several times (it was even in the report) the absence of evidence (i.e. that the Russian radar didn't pick up BUK) is not the evidence of absence (i.e. that BUK was not launched). Radars have never been all-seeing.
    I guess manufacturers know details of their radars much better than you, or me. It was said, that radar was able to see "Orlan" drone, which is twice smaller than Buk missile (but it flew closer to radar). Again, it was said, that if Buk missile would be launched from the east of the MH17 route, radar would detect it. Technical features didn't allow it to detect objects like Buk missle at areas south and west from the disaster area.
    I think if they had technical possibility to detect Ukrainian missile they could definetly declare about those raw data.

    That statement actually casts even more doubt to the Russian story given how limited BUK missile's range is and how distant the locations to the incident location were from Russia it is beyond any reasonable belief to assume that there would be a mysterious detection cut off point conveniently on the edge of the rebel controlled area.
    I suppose thepoint of the disaster was somewhat near the limits of radar station to detect small objects. So, I can only say that the raw data didn't detect any missile. But as manufacturers say, it could detect such missile if it was more close to radar, i.e. from the easter (rebels controlled) area.

    Leave a comment:


  • Vaeltaja
    replied
    Originally posted by Bwaha View Post
    Here's a interesting twist to this tale.

    HELSINKI (AP) — Finland's president says the Netherlands had asked the Nordic country to keep secret some tests it made with Russian-built missiles similar to the one believed to have downed a Malaysian passenger jet over Ukraine in 2014.
    President Sauli Niinisto said Friday that Finland decided to confirm it made tests in late 2015 after the Dutch went public with Finland's role in an international probe investigating the downing that killed all 298 people aboard the plane.
    Niinisto stopped short of giving details about the tests.

    Finland began operating Buk missile systems in 1996 as part of an old bilateral trade deal with its Russian neighbor.
    Dutch-led criminal investigators say they have solid evidence that the Malaysian jet was shot down by a Buk missile moved into eastern Ukraine from Russia.

    http://bigstory.ap.org/article/d4c87...le-test-secret
    Well, decision to keep the matter secret was made by the Dutch. They made the request for assistance and therefore all the information and/or decisions to keep it secret was theirs. As was noted by the Finnish authorities that only the party which makes the request can choose to release the information, the party responding to the request however can not.

    In addition to blowing up a BUK missile and then giving the fragments over to the Dutch the Dutch have request Finns for several other details regarding the BUK missiles and their performance but so far - due to the trade agreements made when the system was acquired - those have not been released.

    http://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/fi...rities/9203401

    IIRC the agreements forbid Finland from disclosing direct technical details of the system - so while blowing up one and then giving fragments and fragment patterns over to the Dutch for analysis is fine (or at very least giving the results of those analysis is fine) giving direct details of the system may not be.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X