Another Malaysian airliner crashed in Ukraine
- Thread starter Fingers
- Start date
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
I wonder how CR's russian and ukranian is coming along. Must be going pretty good if he's posting videos in those language and confirming the home made subtitles are correct.
2hats
Dust.
Try taking the time to go back and read what was actually written. The telephoto shot of the fading exhaust plume is in the direction of clear sky some 100+ miles away (as illustrated in the Meteosat imagery). Not the local sky which is obscured (also illustrated in the Meteosat imagery). So it's perfectly consistent with the assertions made.
You've happily swallowed the flawed reasoning in the documentary. They show library footage of a huge arcing plume in a totally clear sky with next to zero wind. The local sky was almost totally obscured by cloud as the video taken on the ground in the immediate aftermath illustrates perfectly, tallying with the Meteosat data.
The documentary commentary states the surface winds were 4 m/s that day (which they were) but they then go on to state that this is effectively no wind. Which it isn't. It's 4 m/s. That's force 3. At the surface. This increases as a power law with altitude. The skew-t plots taken from local soundings at the time:
have that wind at force 6 by the altitude of the lower cloud decks. So the plume is going to disperse quickly in the boundary layer where it can be viewed by locals.
Last edited:
goldenecitrone
post tenebras lux
Waffle and jargon are no match for the troof!
Casually Red
tomorrow belongs to me
go back and read what i wrote. its a photo supplied by the junta ...the same people who have regularly supplied other fake photographic evidence and even claimed nuclear weapons were used...which is a fake according even to your own links ..the BND press conference. its totally irrelevant what it purports to show or where . The point is youre posting not just fake but totally contradictory evidence and completely ignoring the contradictions as and when it suits. and at great length
and regardless of cloud or wind speeds at the time we also have to assume all other launches of this system were also equally silent and invisible because absolutely no eyewitness or footage exists of that either .Either we accept that highly implausible scenario or the reason no footage of any launch aftermaths exists is because the missiles never existed in the first place and have never been fired. and what the junta was claiming that very morning was actually correct...the rebels simply did not possess that system .
benedict
Well-Known Member
Looks like a potentially interesting development - satellite photos purporting to show airborne attack
2hats
Dust.
9/10 for artistic effort but 0/10 for facts. So definitely worthy of being published in the Daily Mail.
The purported satellite image has a number of problems with it which highlight it as being a fake (though one someone has clearly put a lot of effort in to creating and minimising the compression artifacts, balancing the lighting).
Quick summary:
- The passenger aircraft is a 767 (the 'airline' logo is in the wrong location and the left wingtip has been cut off in a slightly clumsy cut and paste).
- It's pictured well over 10km away from the route it actually flew.
- The scale of the aircraft clearly indicates the (original) ground imagery was taken from survey aircraft and not satellite...
- ... and in fact it is a blend of a google and yandex photos from 2012 and 2002 (the clouds, field states, crop marks, etc match up).
- The cloud cover doesn't match the local weather conditions that day (see earlier post).
Last edited:
dylanredefined
Not a house elf a tiger
Have you ever tried to film a missile being launched? Unless you know it is going to be launched and have your camera set up ready to go woosh it is gone. If it was fired from rebel territory lots of good reasons for no eye witnesses to be coming forward.
Gingerman
Is a great bunch of lads.....
Even briefer: headline is yes/no question. Answer is "no".
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Bellingcat debunked it within two minutes, watched it happen. Was beautiful.
Casually Red
tomorrow belongs to me
its vapour trail remains for about ten minutes afterwards . The trail of this system stretches for over ten miles . Nobody noticed any trails in the summer skies on any day before this much less during it ..rebel supporters would have been boasting of such capabilities and highlighting them prior to this had they been firing them. Theres simply no evidence bar proven fake photos from the regime the rebels ever possessed these systems or ever fired such missiles at any time and not just on that day . and on that very morning the Ukrainian junta were flat out denying the rebels had that capability .
the fact remains that months on the only people in Ukraine known to possess the capability to take this craft down are the highly dysfunctional splintered and flat out bonkers kiev regime . The same people who started shelling the crap out of the crash site just days afterward and continue to shell it right to this day .
Casually Red
tomorrow belongs to me
the source of the video is the BBC and its reporter and nobody else . The youtube channel this copy is on is a complete irrelevance as its owner had zero input into the reportage and only copied it from livelea...reportage which is the issue at hand and the only relevant issue to address . Not just the material itself but the fact your national broadcaster blatantly censored its own reports once they strayed off message . actual pertinent important stuff thats actully worthy of discussion and analysis.
Unless of course ones agenda is derailing demonising and misrepresenting other posters while persuing pathetic online vendettas across multiple threads for months on end lie some sad pathetic arsehole . Behavior thats seen a number of informative posters sadly driven from these threads and even this forum and discussion inhibited to the point of deliberate censorship by handful of backscratching wankers . Just as those responsible fully intended .
this is just more of the same antics and isnt any mistake either
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
No, who did the subs? That wasn't the BBC was it? It's a tampered with source. You don't know what a source actually is.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
2hats
Dust.
The quote (in the Channel One TV report, original 1TV Russian report here):
British spy satellite? The only visual/near IR spy satellite data the British government has (any sort of) access to is US spy satellite data. These operate in pairs in sun synchronous morning and evening planes. I just propagated element sets for them (the data is freely available if you know where to look) and examined the pass visibility for the Donetsk area: in short the available assets couldn't have imaged the area at the appropriate time. Same goes for for all the commercial high resolution satellites (*). There are only two potential candidates - the Keyhole USA-161 (US) and Yaogan-14 (Chinese) - and both are so far away, at such a great slant range that they wouldn't have been wasted trying to acquire imagery of that area (they would appear close to the local horizon so would just be gathering highly distorted images of cloud and haze in such pointing directions). Even if their respective operators were to handle them like bumbling amateurs, they would certainly not be capable of providing imagery from above as the geometry of the purported picture illustrates. Anyone who thinks they operate by collecting vast swathes of visual imagery on each orbit as oppose to concentrating on very localised pre-planned targets, let alone fortuitously take such an image, ought to take their tin foil hat back to Sainsburys for re-adjustment.
But let's take a step away from reality (in the spirit of some contributors to this thread) and pretend that USA-161 could have acquired the photo. These satellites operate from near circular orbits 400km (or more) up. Consequently the apparent size of any observed aircraft at 33kft (10km) is going to be (at best) only 400/390 the apparent size it would have sitting on the ground. So the airliner purported to be in the image would have to be 4.5km long (as oppose to 63.7m) and the fighter would have to be 1130m long (as oppose to 17m if it is what is claimed to be a MiG-29, or 21.9m if it's a Su-27, which is what it looks far more like, or 15.5m if it were a Su-25 which is what the Russian Ministry of Defence was last claiming shot MH17 down). Finally, bonus ball, compare the relative sizes of the fighter and airliner in the purported satellite image. If the fighter is the original (Russian Ministry of Defence claimed) Su-25 then it would have had to have been engaging at an altitude of over 55kft in order to provide the geometry (apparent angular size) viewed (far beyond its operational ceiling, no matter which source you want to take the figures from).
* One of the persons involved in providing the spysat orbital elements has produced a handy graphic of the positions of all the spy and commercial imaging sats at the time which illustrates this nicely:
PS If the depicted fighter were a MiG-29 or Su-27 then they would have had to have been at 50kft or 39kft (respectively) so easily visible approaching, engaging and then departing throughout the Russian MoD (primary) radar presentation. Which, strangely, they weren't…
PPS For completeness I thought I'd throw the Russian spy satellites in, though it would be more than strange if they had sat on images they had all this time and even had managed to take images at precisely the correct time and location of the event.
So they operate two photoreconnaissance satellites (Persona series). Or they did. The older one, Cosmos 2441, was reported to have failed after a couple of months in orbit. The remaining one, Cosmos 2486, still appears to be operational. Nevertheless I propagated the orbital data for both of them (freely available from many sources, eg data here and here). Neither was anywhere near the Ukraine at the time of the event. There is also a commercial version of the satellite, Resurs P-1, which, along with Cosmos 2486 has previously been a source of satellite images from the Russian MoD (eg those used in the previously mentioned presentation). Propagating orbital data for Resurs P-1 also reveals it had no visibility of the Ukraine at the time of the event.
PPPS Just in case - better not leave out the X-37B spaceplane. It was up during the period (OTV-3, though its orbital inclination wasn't particularly ideal for monitoring any activity over Ukraine). For the sake of argument let's assume it was carrying some sort of photoreconnaissance payload. Propagating the elements one can see that it also had absolutely no visibility of the area at the appropriate time.
illustrates nicely how they rely on the ignorance of the general public.
British spy satellite? The only visual/near IR spy satellite data the British government has (any sort of) access to is US spy satellite data. These operate in pairs in sun synchronous morning and evening planes. I just propagated element sets for them (the data is freely available if you know where to look) and examined the pass visibility for the Donetsk area: in short the available assets couldn't have imaged the area at the appropriate time. Same goes for for all the commercial high resolution satellites (*). There are only two potential candidates - the Keyhole USA-161 (US) and Yaogan-14 (Chinese) - and both are so far away, at such a great slant range that they wouldn't have been wasted trying to acquire imagery of that area (they would appear close to the local horizon so would just be gathering highly distorted images of cloud and haze in such pointing directions). Even if their respective operators were to handle them like bumbling amateurs, they would certainly not be capable of providing imagery from above as the geometry of the purported picture illustrates. Anyone who thinks they operate by collecting vast swathes of visual imagery on each orbit as oppose to concentrating on very localised pre-planned targets, let alone fortuitously take such an image, ought to take their tin foil hat back to Sainsburys for re-adjustment.
But let's take a step away from reality (in the spirit of some contributors to this thread) and pretend that USA-161 could have acquired the photo. These satellites operate from near circular orbits 400km (or more) up. Consequently the apparent size of any observed aircraft at 33kft (10km) is going to be (at best) only 400/390 the apparent size it would have sitting on the ground. So the airliner purported to be in the image would have to be 4.5km long (as oppose to 63.7m) and the fighter would have to be 1130m long (as oppose to 17m if it is what is claimed to be a MiG-29, or 21.9m if it's a Su-27, which is what it looks far more like, or 15.5m if it were a Su-25 which is what the Russian Ministry of Defence was last claiming shot MH17 down). Finally, bonus ball, compare the relative sizes of the fighter and airliner in the purported satellite image. If the fighter is the original (Russian Ministry of Defence claimed) Su-25 then it would have had to have been engaging at an altitude of over 55kft in order to provide the geometry (apparent angular size) viewed (far beyond its operational ceiling, no matter which source you want to take the figures from).
* One of the persons involved in providing the spysat orbital elements has produced a handy graphic of the positions of all the spy and commercial imaging sats at the time which illustrates this nicely:
PS If the depicted fighter were a MiG-29 or Su-27 then they would have had to have been at 50kft or 39kft (respectively) so easily visible approaching, engaging and then departing throughout the Russian MoD (primary) radar presentation. Which, strangely, they weren't…
PPS For completeness I thought I'd throw the Russian spy satellites in, though it would be more than strange if they had sat on images they had all this time and even had managed to take images at precisely the correct time and location of the event.
So they operate two photoreconnaissance satellites (Persona series). Or they did. The older one, Cosmos 2441, was reported to have failed after a couple of months in orbit. The remaining one, Cosmos 2486, still appears to be operational. Nevertheless I propagated the orbital data for both of them (freely available from many sources, eg data here and here). Neither was anywhere near the Ukraine at the time of the event. There is also a commercial version of the satellite, Resurs P-1, which, along with Cosmos 2486 has previously been a source of satellite images from the Russian MoD (eg those used in the previously mentioned presentation). Propagating orbital data for Resurs P-1 also reveals it had no visibility of the Ukraine at the time of the event.
PPPS Just in case - better not leave out the X-37B spaceplane. It was up during the period (OTV-3, though its orbital inclination wasn't particularly ideal for monitoring any activity over Ukraine). For the sake of argument let's assume it was carrying some sort of photoreconnaissance payload. Propagating the elements one can see that it also had absolutely no visibility of the area at the appropriate time.
Last edited:
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Russian tv: Yeah, we got caught posting fake ass stuff. How could we know it was fake ass stuff? It was on a message board and everything!
not-bono-ever
meh
bang to rights
2hats
Dust.
From the Dutch Safety Board - the recovery of wreckage from MH17 has begun (OVV):
See also - MH17 flight wreckage removal begins in Ukraine (BBC):
See also - MH17 flight wreckage removal begins in Ukraine (BBC):
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
This is reminding me of Jazzz vs the architect 
Idris2002
cavalcade of hubris
Casually Red - why not just admit you got it wrong, and led yourself up the garden path?
DownwardDog
Riding a Brompton with a power meter.
Really, the air-to-air theory has zero credibility from just this assertation alone. Getting a high PK solution on a B777 with the Su-25/Aphid combination would require the God of all Frogfoot Ops in the seat, massive amounts of blind luck and a temporary suspension of the laws of physics over Novorossiya/Casuallystan. Also the Aphid has a mighty 3kg warhead so it's hard to imagine a one shot kill against a B777.
2hats
Dust.
Indeed, extremely unlikely. In 1988 an Angolan MiG-23 tried to take down a BAe-125 (far, far smaller than a 777) with two Aphid/R-60's. The first knocked an engine off and the second hit that falling engine. The crew flew it on to a successful emergency landing on an airstrip.
In 1978 a Soviet Su-15 tried to down a Korean Airlines 707 from ~35kft which had wandered into their airspace due to a navigation FUBAR. First R-60 missed, second took a few metres off the end of the left wing and punctured the fuselage killing two passengers. The KAL crew executed an emergency descent to around 5kft (which, probably unintentionally, meant they lost the pursuing fighters in the dense lower cloud decks), flew on for another half an hour and eventually set the aircraft down on a frozen lake.
Even in the KAL 007 shootdown, with a much larger R-8 missile (40kg warhead) on a Su-15 at 35kft, the Korean 747 crew, with some limited degree of authority, performed an emergency descent and continued to fly the aircraft for over ten more minutes before finally losing control.
Given the damage and altitude we are looking at, highly likely it was a medium range SAM (60-70kg ballpark warhead). BUK being the prime suspect, though SA-3 or SA-6 could be contenders. Metallurgical analysis of fragments found in the victims and aircraft debris, plus chemical analysis of the aircraft skin will point the way.
2hats
Dust.
Three days before MH17 was shot down a Ukraine Air Force An-26 military transport plane was shot down with a SAM near the Russian border. Several sources report that this was a Buk, including the pro-Kremlin paper взгляд (Vzglyad) here:
Here's a (high quality) video of the shoot down published on 14Jul2014 (also by several pro-separatist outlets at the same time, eg here). It's been geolocated and found consistent with the reported location of the shootdown and debris field.
(You can hear various persons around the camera speculating that it's a Buk).
Here we have clear skies (unlike the heavily cloud obscured skies of 17Jul2014) and wide area views of the missile in flight. Not much of a exhaust smoke trail evident and indeed certainly not hanging around for any number of minutes; it's not apparent to ground observers for much more than 10 seconds or so in a clear sky. There's been a push to reduce the visible solid motor exhaust signature of such missiles over the last decade or two - to reduce the likelihood of detection/evasion/interception. So I wouldn't get too excited about cold war era training/marketing demos in ideal conditions (which are engineered to look spectacular, get your attention and impress prospective purchasers, senior politicians, bean counters and small children).
The AN-26 was at 21kft (6400m), well out of the reach of MANPADs.
Here's a (high quality) video of the shoot down published on 14Jul2014 (also by several pro-separatist outlets at the same time, eg here). It's been geolocated and found consistent with the reported location of the shootdown and debris field.
(You can hear various persons around the camera speculating that it's a Buk).
Here we have clear skies (unlike the heavily cloud obscured skies of 17Jul2014) and wide area views of the missile in flight. Not much of a exhaust smoke trail evident and indeed certainly not hanging around for any number of minutes; it's not apparent to ground observers for much more than 10 seconds or so in a clear sky. There's been a push to reduce the visible solid motor exhaust signature of such missiles over the last decade or two - to reduce the likelihood of detection/evasion/interception. So I wouldn't get too excited about cold war era training/marketing demos in ideal conditions (which are engineered to look spectacular, get your attention and impress prospective purchasers, senior politicians, bean counters and small children).
Casually Red
tomorrow belongs to me
You been at the colloidal nano-silver in pentawater, again?
Similar threads
