Are the Paris Match photos of the BUK fake? Here are the indications.
by 
Paris Match published two photos of a BUK system loaded on a lowloader parked in Donetsk. Bellingcat concluded based on the damage of a piece of rubbber attached on the side of the BUK that this BUK was one seen earlier in Russia.
However German Michael Kobs has a different opinion. He is certain the photos are digitally altered or even created using PhotoShop
His 75 pages report in english is a good read. It has a lot of info on routes of convoys. It has many pages explaining the PM photos are fake.
Judge for yourself if the photos are real of fakes. Use the comments to give your opinion.
[gview file=”https://whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Haunt-the-BUK-en-rev2.pdf” save=”1″]
by
The Micha Kobs paper mentions in passing the involvement of Eliot Higgins in propagandising the Ghouta sarin events in Damascus and how he was outed by Postol and Lloyd.
For the record I was a contributor to the excellent blog whoghouta.blogspot.com which examined in meticulous detail all technical data related to the event. In particular the consensus view was the missile range was about 2km based on simple physics and later on field observations. This analysis was later adopted/replicated by Postol & Lloyd and published, and used to demolish Higgins.
Prior to whoghouta Higgins had already ghost-written an HRW report (or at least given all the relevant data to them) that claimed the missiles were fired from an army base in the hills near Damascus – a range of ~ 10-12km. This was a blatant attempt to blame the Syrian Government and get US intervention similar to Libya.
Higgins was furious about the whoghouta results and commissioned an ‘expert’ report for his Brown Moses blog that claimed a range of up to 15 km to support his HRW contentions!
Along came Postol and Lloyd who replicated the whoghouta results and in the process demolished Higgins and his farcical range calculations.
The ‘expert’ report still sits on the Brown Moses blog as mute testament to Higgins’ propensity to fakery in support of political agendas.
In both instances, Ghouta and MH17, there is a great deal of uncertainty and misinformation as well as heavy propagandising on every side.
What is certain however is that Higgins is probably the least reliable source available and every product of his needs to be examined for ulterior motive.
Bellingcats and anti Bellingcats.
they are working with same source, with totally opposite results.
debunking and debunking the debunked.
one month left till DSB final report, though I have no much illusions about crystal clear evidences.
AD. Last request to stop using words like Lie! I appreciate any view but we use respect on this forum. If you do not change your way addressing others I will permanent ban you.
By the way, a personal apology to Marcel.
I assumed when I first saw material related to Marcel that he was a Bellingcat droogie (cf Clockwork Orange). I now realise he is a very rigorous independent analyst. I may not agree with his conclusions at times but I do admire his rigorous approach. (I also forgive his attachment to VMWare 🙂 )
Gone through the material 1,5 times so far. There are numerous items I can not agree with Kobs study, while some others are good observations. Most likely will be back on that document after we have DSB info on what exact warhead destroyed MH17 cockpit.
Suggestion to PDF author:
Make a “table of contents document” that links to separate studied/debunked items.
In it’ current form the document is cr*p and good mainly to fuel propaganda.
Almost as if it’s target is at bellingcat material as whole&generally, rather than finding truth about MH17.
Some things why I consider the document not yet worthwhile material as general.
Toyota Rav4? -> NOT
VW multivan -> NOT
silver-gray Toyota Rav4 -> NOT
3D model does not match the Volvo in picture. (eg. rear wheels in wrong place/wheel sizes wrong etc.
3D model is in wrong angle, distorts the suncalc timing etc.
BUK does not match the BUK+netting in picture.
To me it seems the netted BUK does not lack a missile.
To me it seems the distortions caused by the wind screen are not taken into account yet.
False conclusions, there is three flaps still in the bellingcat tilted picture, etc..
If split to better manageable/commentable sections, there might be relevant parts and then I might want to take yet another look (after DSB warhead info is known).
+bonus.
There should be a way to 3D render same distortions that we see in Paris match photo.
If that is not possible, it’s worrying vs evidence value, then one must get the camera+car+trailer+++ to reconstruct the situation.
Surely, by now, the trailer has been delivered to JIT for analysis?
+bonus2
Try to find where the trailer truly was at the time of photos, if it was not under the BUK.
Sotilaspassi:
About your first remark, Its obviously not to blame on Michael or any other person distrusting the SBU related evidence, Bellingcat is putting itself at the forepfront of protecting this pro-Kiev strain of evidence.
About the trailer, did the JIT commissioned the rebels to hand over the BUK for investigation? And if not, why so?
A question: What do you think of the modelling performed by the side-skirt fingerprinting analysis? Do you see a perfect match?
*trailer for invesitagion
The truther saga continues 🙂
Seems lately all is fake and must be made up. Welcome to the world of Kobs an Hectors, et al. on their mission to crush Higgins and so on…
I think these 2 posts (In German) explain my skepticism quite well about this German Ex-Punk with a Diploma in film technics…
https://kosmologelei.wordpress.com/2015/06/01/ex-punk-mit-verfolgungswahn/
and
https://kosmologelei.wordpress.com/2015/06/01/spekulation-im-vakuum/
Michael Kobs, the savior for pro-russian truthers who want to remain in their simple Newton world 🙂
I mean it is valid to introduce your readers to this kind of analysis, but recently (every day) you push month old analysis of very doubtful persons.
eliot purchased a digital globe image of an area he says was the most likely area this supposed rebel buk was located and it was nowhere to be seen. this did not concern him in the least and is still adamant rebels did it which is based on the dubious PM photo. he is also adamant the 10+ eyewitnesses who saw fighter plane leaving the scene didn’t see anything yet this means little to him as far as he is concerned there is only one outcome ….the SBU official story
All such amateur investigations made by both sides are only based on some secondary evidence that allows to twist it a bit, that or the other way, less or more. So, all of them raise questions but actually don’t prove anything by themselves.
In this case, Michael Kobs tried to show the two pictures of a ‘Buk’ on a low-loader published by Paris Match were faked. However, there are other footages of a ‘Buk’ on the same low-loader on July 17, 2014 — shall we consider all of the existing evidence faked now?
Prosto Tak:
“However, there are other footages of a ‘Buk’ on the same low-loader on July 17, 2014 — shall we consider all of the existing evidence faked now?”
It has been suggested that some of the images may very well be real, but taken on another day. Micha Kobs and Hector Reban suggest the Zhures video is from July 14, because on that day in Zhures, and that day only, around noon time there was a wind from the south which seems apparent in the video. This would also place the Torez picture likely on July 14. I have pointed out this comports to social media messages from the rebel side on Twitter and vKontakte on July 14 proclaiming that on July 14, a rebel controlled BUK “rolled” from Donetsk.
It has also been suggested that the BUK in Snizhne picture may be from July 15 or July 16, because the Ukrainian aerial bombing attack on Snizhne at 6:30 am blocked the main road through town, forcing the BUK to travel on the back street it was photographed on. It is further suggested that the aerial raid on Snizhne may have been a failed hunting expedition by the Ukrainian air force trying to destroy either the BUK or its missiles at the rebel compound in Snizhne. It should be noted that if a BUK was present and in use, it would require regular trips to town for fuel and reloading of missiles as the rebels lacked basic logistical abilities of a modern army in mid-July. So when their armored vehicles needed fuel, since they lack fuel tankers, they generally drove them to the nearest gas station and requisitioned the necessary gasoline or diesel. The tracks visible in the fields south of Snizhne suggest some sort of large vehicle made several trips to and from town via the road leading to Saur Mogila. If it was the BUK it obviously didn’t reposition back and forth to town 3 times in a coupel of hours on July 17.
The Snizhne video could then have been on any of those days – July 14, 15, 16, or 17 and might be as innocuous as showing the BUK returning on a different day from reloading missiles or fueling up.
There is of course no evidence at all available to us to provide a date for when any of the pictures and videos were taken.
Lastly, it goes without saying that even if the rebels had a BUK, and a BUK shotdown MH17, it does not follow that of necessity the rebel BUK shot down MH17. It could of course have been shot down by Ukraine by accident or on purpose as a provocation. And if the rebels did shoot down MH17, it needs to be determined if it was deliberate, an accident, or a trap set for them by Ukraine, if the BUK was obtained by bribery/corruption from Ukraine, by theft or capture from Ukraine, by deceit from Ukraine as a set-up, or from Russia, and similarly how missiles and a crew were obtained for the launcher who the crew was, and who gave them orders. Many of the same considerations also apply for a launch by Ukraine. Finally, since a BUK is capable of remote control targetting/firing from the BUK Command Post, it would need to be determined if some sort of remote control was taken of either a rebel or Ukrainian BUK by hacking, spoofing, or a built-in back-door where a fake command set to fire on MH17 was given remotely to a BUK by an outside force, for example the American or Russian military/intelligence services for the purpose of creating a provocation.
As you can see, there are really very many unanswered questions.
Many of us here are unconvinced by the Bellingcat/SBU theories of events and claims of evidence and are using our reasoning and intuition to try to develop an alternative timeline of events. The Admin has posted numerous threads concerning different parts of these theoretical doubts inviting people like you to reconsider the evidence.
Andrew, as far as winds from the South.
Let me ask you, where did the low pressure system originate and which way do winds around a low pressure system generally blow, clock wise or counter clockwise?
Winds were variable that day with the front moving through.
They flowed from the Southwest to from the NorthEast.
Preliminary DSB report makes note of that.
I remember watching CNN and the report actually showed the storm system radar moving in in motion, I saw it also on a YouTube video, but I cannot remember the right one.
This next link is not perfect, the closest I see for collected weather data is Mariupol.
If you scan back to July 17 2014, It does show at noon the winds were primarily from the South East during the noon hour, but it also recorded some blowing straight up from the South in that period.
Darker blue blocks behind the ‘average’ direction for that hour.
If you cannot see it, click on the button on the right that is called ‘graphs’ and put a check mark next to all the wind terms.
A few other interesting observations noted there are cloud cover and cloud height.
The LINK – https://weatherspark.com/#!dashboard;ws=33802
Unfortunately it does not have radar, but I imagine a enterprising computer literate person could either find that CNN video or take snap shots of the SAT24 images and create a GIF to put it in plain English how the storm was moving that day.
Yes, wind speeds changed at elevations as noted by DSB.
They also changed dramatically as the front moved through.
And YES, there were winds blowing from the South around noon on July 17 2014.
AS far as the rest, let me remind you the admin booted me for long comments, just a reminder.
Fare thee well
Admin, you’ve banned AD for the statements that other people “lie” — but Hector Reban still feels very comfortable here with the same statements of “lying through one’s teeth” about people who are not present in this discussion and cannot answer him.
Prosto Tak: I banned AD because I requested him at least three times to stop using words like lier. He did not comply and showed disrespectfull behaviour. So he will not be able anymore to comment here now and in the future. As simple as that.
I read Hector his comment as addressed to the state of Ukraine. Not to a person commenting on this forum.
Last but not least: Please do not tell me how to comment. That is my responsibility.
All such amateur investigations made by both sides have a big problem: they are only based on some secondary evidence that allows to twist it a bit, that or the other way, less or more. So, all of them raise questions but actually don’t prove anything by themselves.
In this case, Michael Kobs tried to show the two pictures of a ‘Buk’ on a low-loader published by Paris Match were faked. However, there are other footages of a ‘Buk’ on the same low-loader on July 17, 2014 — shall we consider all of the existing evidence faked now?
Prosto Tak:
“However, there are other footages of a ‘Buk’ on the same low-loader on July 17, 2014 — shall we consider all of the existing evidence faked now?”
It has been suggested that some of the images may very well be real, but taken on another day. Micha Kobs and Hector Reban suggest the Zhures video is from July 14, because on that day in Zhures, and that day only, around noon time there was a wind from the south which seems apparent in the video. This would also place the Torez picture likely on July 14. I have pointed out this comports to social media messages from the rebel side on Twitter and vKontakte on July 14 proclaiming that on July 14, a rebel controlled BUK “rolled” from Donetsk.
It has also been suggested that the BUK in Snizhne picture may be from July 15 or July 16, because the Ukrainian aerial bombing attack on Snizhne at 6:30 am blocked the main road through town, forcing the BUK to travel on the back street it was photographed on. It is further suggested that the aerial raid on Snizhne may have been a failed hunting expedition by the Ukrainian air force trying to destroy either the BUK or its missiles at the rebel compound in Snizhne. It should be noted that if a BUK was present and in use, it would require regular trips to town for fuel and reloading of missiles as the rebels lacked basic logistical abilities of a modern army in mid-July. So when their armored vehicles needed fuel, since they lack fuel tankers, they generally drove them to the nearest gas station and requisitioned the necessary gasoline or diesel. The tracks visible in the fields south of Snizhne suggest some sort of large vehicle made several trips to and from town via the road leading to Saur Mogila. If it was the BUK it obviously didn’t reposition back and forth to town 3 times in a coupel of hours on July 17.
The Snizhne video could then have been on any of those days – July 14, 15, 16, or 17 and might be as innocuous as showing the BUK returning on a different day from reloading missiles or fueling up.
There is of course no evidence at all available to us to provide a date for when any of the pictures and videos were taken.
Lastly, it goes without saying that even if the rebels had a BUK, and a BUK shotdown MH17, it does not follow that of necessity the rebel BUK shot down MH17. It could of course have been shot down by Ukraine by accident or on purpose as a provocation. And if the rebels did shoot down MH17, it needs to be determined if it was deliberate, an accident, or a trap set for them by Ukraine, if the BUK was obtained by bribery/corruption from Ukraine, by theft or capture from Ukraine, by deceit from Ukraine as a set-up, or from Russia, and similarly how missiles and a crew were obtained for the launcher who the crew was, and who gave them orders. Many of the same considerations also apply for a launch by Ukraine. Finally, since a BUK is capable of remote control targetting/firing from the BUK Command Post, it would need to be determined if some sort of remote control was taken of either a rebel or Ukrainian BUK by hacking, spoofing, or a built-in back-door where a fake command set to fire on MH17 was given remotely to a BUK by an outside force, for example the American or Russian military/intelligence services for the purpose of creating a provocation.
As you can see, there are really very many unanswered questions.
Many of us here are unconvinced by the Bellingcat/SBU theories of events and claims of evidence and are using our reasoning and intuition to try to develop an alternative timeline of events. The Admin has posted numerous threads concerning different parts of these theoretical doubts inviting people like you to reconsider the evidence.
Admin:
Is there some reason my comments are not showing up or going to spam?
I have no idea why. Most comments end up in spam folder since a few days.
Prosto tak…we don’t any photos of the low loader that can be shown to be from July 17. Can you explain why you believe we have any photos that occurred on that date?
Thanks
We have no photos that can be shown to be from July 17
I think no-one on this site has the original photos that would at least have EXIF data present.
To my understanding all “rebel BUK” images so far are from 14Jul … 18Jul. And they have been released 16Jul or later.
From that, I conclude they indicate that there was BUK in rebel area.
But so far no 100% proof yet of exact date&time of any of the photos or videos.
And no proof that the exact BUK was used vs Mh17.
Also, no explanation yet why the buk moved near Luhansk was missing one missile.
It might help if commercial satellite image providers would release freely all the images taken in July 2014 above donbas.
But money is more important to them than good PR. 🙁
“commercial satellite image”
Well, of course they aren’t really “commercial”, are they? Both the American and Russian commercial firms are really fronts for government intelligence operations, with only the government having access to the highest resolution imagery. So what is released is what we are permitted to see.
So the Digital Globe satellite that took pictures of Doentsk and Lugansk on July 17 also passed over Zaroshchenske, but we don’t have a picture for sale of that area, do we?
A collection of many satellite photos can be found in this thread http://mh17.webtalk.ru/viewtopic.php?id=323&p=4
Look at this one http://kcgms.ru/unimas/Satellite/17/
Can you explain what evidence led you to date any buk photos? Thanks
1) They have not been in public before 16Jul.
2) No indication that the same lowloader+truck has been used for BUK transport before July 2014. (or is there)
But, IMO JIT needs to dig up more evidence before photos can be timed properly and find out the relevance.
But I would not spend much more time until shrapnel + explosive residue + missile part analysis is released.
Has the owner of the trailer been questioned about:
-has he had his company number “sticker” on the sides of the trailer front
-has he been transporting BUK with his trailer before 16Jul2014
-does he find unrealistic things vs the truck/trailer he had & photos we see
-did he have several similar lowloaders
Someone should properly simulate. This at least matched with Lego block +lamp simulation. Bright sun on trailer, continuous shadow on road.
As my comments of serious flaws of the 3D model got ignored by kreml-trolls on this site and elsewhere, I myself dug out how the model should look like.
“direct sunlight…without corresponding contour”
I did the simulation I mentioned elsewhere, by using lego building blocks.
The sunlight-shadow effect could be perfectly created with true shape of BUK launcher + some netting.
Until:
– the 3D model is updated to contain everything
+ video rendered, so that everything between camera lens and the true 3D model of the photo target is taken into account
+ mpeg compression added
I recommend people to ignore the 3D work done and advertised here by apparent trolls/truthers.
Point of order and for the record:
Its very telling the pro-Kiev side has stepped up their smearing and namecalling again, trying to oust people from discussion fora, following dissenters in a irritating way, trying to discredit them in person. Look at twitter how Eliot Higgins is degrading himself by using designations like idiots, truthers, trolls, clowns without giving the slightest back-up.
Mayeb Sotilaspassi should write his own work instead of playing dirty?
>“direct sunlight…without corresponding contour”
I did the simulation I mentioned elsewhere, by using lego building blocks.
No Lego or whatever models needed here, just basic reasoning. What is illuminated of the goose neck actually is its edge:
http://i.imgur.com/q4eWohb.png
The lower border of a shadow that is cast onto the road surface by any object above the goose neck (e.g. missiles, netting) would have to coincide exactly with the shape and spatial location of the goose neck itself, otherwise the shadow would be visible on the goose neck or part of the direct sunlight would be visible on the road. None of that is the case.
This is not the only problem the image has, among others are:
– the reflection of “black light” from the ventilation outlets concealing the brighter red goose neck.
– the vertical and horizontal misalignment of the BUK on the trailer
– the change in shape of the ventilation outlet reflections between the two images
– the change of the dirt on the wind shield
– the misaligned numbers on the yellow board
– the timing that doesn’t fit with the SBU narrative
– the failure to identify the BUK on the Digital Globe images
– the constant change in the narrative of the photo’s origin and the place and time where it was shot
– its still unknown origin
– the absence of the original video
Nevertheless Bcat and its followers (among them Langley sponsored media) have no problem to take this as central evidence for their case of a BUK from Kursk that was used to shoot down MH17, and still have no problem to label anyone who dares to express doubt as troll/truther.
Just curious Ole, what do you think the possibility is that a bit of sunlight that passes through the gaps in the two missiles of the BUK at that end, just happens to allow sunlight through, but that patch of sunlight is not allowed to pass to the ground because the edge of the trailer goose neck stops it.
We all can see the top of the box where the spare tires are stored that has a vertical rise to it about a foot higher then the box is shown on the ground shadow.
And that is very near the angled piece of the goose neck.
I am not sure exactly where what should be, but these are all possible reasons of why I question your reasoning on that little piece.
Fare thee well
>Just curious Ole, what do you think the possibility is that a bit of sunlight that passes through the gaps in the two missiles of the BUK at that end …
IMHO that possibility is nil:
http://rusvesna.su/sites/default/files/styles/orign_wm/public/w_56252ac7.jpg
Azimuth is higher but note the shadow.
Very curious you note that shadow and present that image.
Where is the big box that the antenna is connected to in the shadow??
We see the antenna clearly, we see the back of the BUK missiles (with no gaps, thank you for showing me that) in the shadows, but no shadow of the box the antenna is connected to.
IT is clearly getting sunshine on it.
Yet it is not seen on the ground clearly identified as big as it is and as much as it juts out.
Why do you think that is?
A photoshopped BUK and doctored shadows?
Fare thee well
>We see the antenna clearly, we see the back of the BUK missiles (with no gaps, thank you for showing me that) in the shadows, but no shadow of the box the antenna is connected to.
I don’t see the problem, the shadow of that box is clearly there, to the left of the shadows the missile’s rear ends cast, maybe smaller than you expect, but that is due to the high azimuth.
But where is the shadow of that box on the PM photo?
Ole, I would say that antenna is folded down for transport and covered by the netting with the box being nestled up in there in the PM photos.
A high azimuth of the sun would show it more distinctly in the shadow.
A lower one would hide it in the shadow with it being lower elevation then the missiles.
IT is a high azimuth and sunshine clearly hits the whole box.
It should be jutting out in the shadow.
It is not.
Believe what you want about the PM image, but your image there (which is from 2010 if I remember right) shows exactly the problem you have with the goose neck.
You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink.
Fare thee well
Good job on building the model.
A real item can be more convincing then the computer simulation that is modified by the programmers.
Did you get the link as far as seismic anomalies?
http://www.avia.org.ua/en/information-about-company
One of the red flags for me about the truther’s report is the page about Syria, it has little if any relevance to the rest of the piece.
If your a scientist making a proof, you do not dedicate a full page to a subject outside of what your wanting to challenge.
They are the one’s engaging in repeated name calling by putting that in.
I am guessing that is financier Syria truther Charles Wood’s demand and contribution.
There are other things I find wrong, as well as some other facts and images that I had not seen before.
The fact that Hector, Kobs et al removed the 3332 mm height that was in Ukraine at War’s article, and then proclaimed it was a 3500 mm.
Did you notice in the report the difference in fonts for the measurement 3490 mm???
I have seen on various Volvo sites that the sleeper cab version can be specially modified to be under 3200 mm specifically for mining operations and travelling under bridges and overpasses.
I am not sure of which version it is, they list some here –
http://www.volvotrucks.com/trucks/uk-market/en-gb/trucks/volvo-fh-series/specifications/Pages/cab-specifications.aspx
I also imagine a 32 ton BUK would drop the height some.
The truck also has its own air shocks for leveling and balance a load and adjust for road clearance.
mining modifications mentioned here pdf 19 MB page 26 –
http://www.volvotrucks.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/VTC/Market/Trucks/volvo-fh-series/pdf/Volvo-FH-Series_UK.pdf
I am not sure where U at W got his 3332 or Kob’s got his 3490.
I suppose some modification can be done, but the literature I see doesn’t have either number.
They could be on this page but I have not gone through them for 6×4
http://www.volvotrucks.com/trucks/uk-market/en-gb/trucks/volvo-fh-series/specifications/Pages/data.aspx
I imagine they used the tallest number they could to make their predetermined report conclusions work.
The vehicle in the Snizhne image is a Toyota Auris, not a Rav4.
Kob’s put a question mark next to it.
You know my opinion of the floating BUK as well, so I won’t restate it.
Andrew mentioned something about the Zuhres video and winds, if you watch the video, they are right along side the Apartment building, but the winds are a lot more silent around the rest of the open areas.
Anyone that has been to a beach knows that winds are stronger near a building and can have some deceiving vectors to determine where they come from.
As far as the owner of the Truck Rental place having other loaders, look to page 8 of Kobs report above.
I am not sure if he owns them or not.
I had seen the coordinates somewhere before for his depot, but I do not see them in Kob’s report so you could check with Google Earth or another service.
To Hector, since you have your own site, and Twitter feed (jetgodi, or something like that) maybe you should stick to those instead of self promotion on here and flooding here.
Maybe you have no traffic on your site and the admin feels pity for you, so allows it, don’t know and do not really care.
For the record of course.
All for now
Fare thee well
It is absolutely boggling why you’d suggest that Hector shouldn’t be flooding and “self promoting” here. First off, you’re really not the right person to lecture others about “flooding” the comments section, second, Hector only takes part in the discussion with highly limited mention of his own pages, third, unlike you he is mostly concise and to the point in his posts. And I would say it is none of your business to speculate in whether the admin “feels pity”.
“What is illuminated of the goose neck actually is its edge”
Actually that is not true.
The edge is behind BUK front wheel & tracks.
“would have to coincide exactly with the shape”
Well, sh*t happens, coincidentally.
+Actually that is not true. There is shadow. Most likely the right side standing support etc. The goose neck edge is not straight.
etc.
I have found other “issues” with the photo. But I have wasted already too much time. Bye for now.
“I have found other “issues” with the photo. But I have wasted already too much time. Bye for now.”
That’s quite a peculiar way of addressing the numerous issues mentioned by Ole. So, what we have is supposedly a still video frame from a dashcam, and we don’t know whose dashcam, nor why we haven’t been shown the original video, nor when exactly it was taken, nor why PM originally mentioned the wrong location. Also, Digital Globe images haven’t helped in verifying if the BUK was actually at that spot at the time that is claimed by Bcat and others. And none of this seems fishy at all, really?
For a starter, could anyone explain just WHY this infamous picture would be lying around for days after the downing and not be shown to the world, until it suddenly appeared in PM? Who provided it to PM exactly, and why to them? Why so late? There would be plenty of room to manipulate a picture with such a time-frame…
And let’s assume this BUK was indeed parked next to that road for a while, on open display. Why has it only been captured by ONE dashcam, and why haven’t we seen any online talk about a BUK on open display on a road with normal amount of traffic?
I’ve understood PM photos so that they are stills from a dash cam.
Most likely PM reporter was using some local driver & car.
After MH17 came down they contacted the driver and asked for material from the dashcam.
Perhaps the driver sent them processed still image for some amount of money.
Then another.
Most likely PM does not have the original data.
+It could be that PM reporter saw nothing, someone just sent them those still images and PM took all the credit?
There was several mentions of people seeing the BUK at Donetsk (mentions in zello / social media), beside those PM people.
(I just hope JIT has managed to get to (some/all of) them and interview them properly. But I’m afraid JIT does not dare to lay their foot at Donetsk untill Putin is off the planet…)
To me it seems so many things match with other images of the trailer+buk combination, that PM released images most likely are authentic, just very distorted. Clearly SBU is too amateurish to be able to manufacture all of the material. And Ukraine too poor to be able to hire hollywood for it. 😉
It is fishy that we so far have not managed to find the BUK on the lowloader from satellite images.
(It could be that RU keeps rebels well informed of when an imaging satellite fly above them, but I doubt it. We should find the guilty BUK on the move there somewhere.)
> SBU is too amateurish to be able to manufacture all of the material. And Ukraine too poor to be able to hire hollywood for it.
But a special service of a wealthy country, interested in a MH17 cover-up, could have manufactured the Buk-near-Donetsk pic and pressured PM to publish it (see Udo Ulfkotte, a German journalist, who disclosed the influence of special services on media publications.) Remember, PM knew neither the place nor the time of where and when the pic had been taken.
> Clearly SBU is too amateurish to be able to manufacture all of the material. And Ukraine too poor to be able to hire hollywood for it.
A whole floor of the SBU headwaters building is allocated exclusively to CIA. They even have the US flag waving on the building. So, even if the SBU are so hopelessly stupid, they have someone else to help them with the job.
http://t.politforums.net/eng/ukraine/1396468592.html
Micha, concerning GIF you made.
https://pbs.twimg.com/tweet_video/CQJMLsAWUAEfvfQ.mp4
and the placement of the BUK on the trailer, I think you better redo your calculations again and look at this image when you do it.
http://forum.keypublishing.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=230696&d=1406732412
The BUK missiles are located less then half the distance of the size of of the sign from the sign, considerably.
You have the missile’s location placed exactly half the size of the sign away.
And on top of that you have the antenna that juts out the back, bringing the antenna’s shadow even closer to the sign’s shadow, placement of the rear of the antenna box is probably right at the back of the trailer sign.
You should also consider these images.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BsxhdE5CcAEeglE.jpg:small
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-N-PKx5tmQLU/VQrGnSs-XdI/AAAAAAAAa8k/aQVP5-BZ6p0/s1600/BUK%2B3.JPG
The distance to the back of the antenna box from the rear of the missiles is just almost one half the length if the fins, you have it as one quarter the size.
Fare thee well
Micha:
And if scale is fudged to make your conclusion works in the GIF, or in error, that puts the probability high that there are many other ‘errors’ in your conclusions as well.
Fare thee well
Have I missed this mentioned already? The low-loader on the Paris Match picture is missing the folded ramps. You can see them, for example, on the Luhansk video: http://savepic.ru/8907588.png
I cannot believe that such an easy flaw has been overlooked after the image was scrutinized so much. I must be missing something.
Found by someone on mh17.webtalk.ru (bit.ly/1OWregO)
No, there are several people who have mentioned this months ago. I myself tried to point to this feature again in a recent tweet:
Micha Kobs took it on in his Haunt the BUK report by showing the pic should have been very very deformed in a curcular way to cut off the left ramp.
For your enjoyment
Kemet tried to put a Buk onto a low loader. He may even got the the source right. mas17.webtalk.ru/viewtopic.php?id=159