It is extremely unlikely Ukraine Air Force did not operate near Torez in the afternoon of July 17
by 
Ukraine officials deny the Ukraine Air Force was flying on July 17, the day MH17 was shoot down by a BUK surface to air missile and 298 innocent people were killed.
However it is extremely unlikely this statement is true. Many indication show Ukraine Air Force was flying in the area. This post is not to prove MH17 was shoot down by a SU-25. In my opinion this is nonsense. But I do believe somehow there is a relation between military jets operating near Snizhne and the shoot down of MH17.
So what are the indications:
- the spokesman of the Ukraine Armed Forces stated less than an hour after MH17 was missing the Ukraine Air Force jets were operating
- Many eyewitness reported seeing one or multiple SU-25 operating in the area
- The days before July 17 many flights were operated by Ukraine SU-25s
- Primary radar of both Ukraine Air Force as well as Ukraine civil air traffic control are not available
- DSB did not talk to eyewitness on the ground
- Reports on social media about fighter aircraft in the afternoon of July 17
Statement Ukraine jets were operating at July 17
At a pressconference at July 17 at 17:00 Andrej Lysenko, The spokesman for Ukraine’s Security Councilm stated the following at around 21 minutes, during the questions round ():
[21:04] Question: On social networks, info is shared about BUK rockets, spotted near Snizhne. They are not Ukrainian ones. Can you comment on this?
Lysenko: We’ve got info, not only about this rocket system. We realize that it’s a very serious weapon and our Air Force and Intelligence will do their best to destroy these systems, so let’s wait and see. We have this information.
[21:41] Question: I would like you to clarify. So, can you confirm about this BUK, that it can hit airplanes ?
Lysenko: We’ve got information that some rockets complexes have passed into Ukraine territory, which can hit planes from high altitude. There was even a video how these BUK rockets drove through Luhansk. We know this.
[22:48] (Another question on another subject)
[23:18] Question: On social networks there is also information, that near Rozsypne, near Torez, maybe a Ukrainian plane was shot down.
Lysenko: When did this happen?
Question: The news appeared an hour ago, maybe less.
Lysenko: I can’t give an answer now, I have no information about this, but we will inform you later about the plane. All our fighter jets are operating, except yesterday’s case. Thanks for your attention.
Immediately after the downing and without anyone asking yet Ukr. officials stated they hadn’t being flying in the ATO zone.
Many eyewitness reporting on SU-25s’
At least 16 people I am aware of told on camera they saw one or more SU-25 operating in the area where MH17 crashed at the time of the crash. For an overview see this post.
The days before July 17 many flights were operated by Ukraine SU-25s
This post provides an overview of flying activities of the Ukraine Air Force in the days before July 17. It clearly shows many aircraft and helicopters were flying combat missions. It is very unlikely at July 17 there were was no flying at all.
Primary radar of both Ukraine Air Force as well as Ukraine civil air traffic control are not available
Ukraine did not provide primary raw and processed radar recordings of both military and civil air traffic control. The military radar was switched off according the Ukraine armed forces. Reason for radar switched: there were no planned flights at the 17th. Eyewitness tell a different story. The primary radar of civil air traffic control was switched off because of scheduled maintenance
DSB did not talk to eyewitness
DSB did not talk to eyewitness who were in the area of where MH17 crashed. These could have confirmed to DSB that SU-25s where in the area. This is remarkable as Annex 13 of ICAO advises to include eyewitness reports in the investigation. The comment of DSB for not talking to eyewitness is:
- anything on the groud was not our scope;
- talking to eyewitness after many months does not provide usefull information as memory fades and is influenced.
I really wonder why DSB did not approach eyewitness in the days after July 17. Could it be that Kiev did not allow the Dutch investigators to talk to people? Sydney Morning Herald has an interesting story told by an Australian police officer. He talks about not being able to do investigation in Eastern Ukraine.
Reports on social media about figher aircraft seen at July 17
There are various reports on social media which state aircraft were seen in the afternoon.
Rebel commander Alexander Khodakovsky of the so-called Vostok battalion sain in a interviewwith Reuters:
“And that day, they were intensively flying, and exactly at the moment of the shooting, at the moment the civilian plane flew overhead, they launched air strikes. Even if there was a BUK, and even if the BUK was used, Ukraine did everything to ensure that a civilian aircraft was shot down.”
by
I wonder when you are finally going to connect the pieces together:
-a dodgy detonation point
-no bow-tie holes
-no questioning witnesses on the ground
-no holes on the right side, but holes on the left engine
-extreme hesitation on collecting the wreckage
First I had some respect for the beautiful 9N314H hypothesis in the DSB-report: the explosion projected on MH17 with left and right two kinds of shrapnel. Then I was shocked because there was no roof and this elegant theory was projected on quicksand. It was easy to disconfirm 9N314M.
After 9N314M was debunked I regressed to believe 9N314 was the cause. But panels are displaced by this report. I am not sure a BUK downed MH17 any longer. I am hesitating because my unconscious tells me we have to start this investigation again, but now from the facts. Are we on the verge of the total collapse of the DSB report?
About the investigation DSB
3.The Russian Federation stated that the operation of the so-called ‘proximity fuse’ – a sensor inside the missile – is of such a nature that a 9N314M warhead carried by a 9M38- series missile would not have detonated in the volume indicated by the Dutch Safety Board. According to the Russian Federation, the detonation location for the combination of the type of missile and warhead concerned would be about 3 to 5 metres further to the rear
Why would they say that? I think possibly because many SAM’s are homing into the center of a radar signature. What is the center of the radar signature in a plane? Did the DSB explain anything about the homing system and proximity fuse? Maybe I missed something. I think it is not far stretched to say that the point the Russian Federation wants to make is that a different proximity fuse has been used, a laser-proximity or optical imaging fuse.
‘Yan Novikov: “In the course of the experiment it became absolutely evident that if the Malaysian Boeing was downed by a BUK missile, it was done with an old BUK model which does not have double-T iron strike elements”?’
Why does the CEO of Almaz-Antey uses the phrase ‘if’ in this context?
rozem:
“Did the DSB explain anything about the homing system and proximity fuse? Maybe I missed something.”
Please see page 13 of Appendix V – Consultation A of the DSB report. The Dutch stated that the damage matching process did not include design and function of the proximity fuse but was based on the actual damage caused to the aeroplane. Almaz Antey did supply information about the operation of the detonation device, requested by the DSB, but not it’s “fusing logic”.
Have not read much details on the working of missile in the DSB report. In fact my blogpost on the BUK has far more info
https://whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/a-detailed-description-of-the-buk-sa-11-which-could-have-shot-down-mh17/
DSB stated in a public presentation they had no info on the shape of fragments used in BUK warheads. Almaz informed them about this.
In a court case it will be difficult to cinvince the judges that DSB did a proper forensic investigation.
JIT will not repeat this technical investigation.
Hence there will never be a court case.
Actually, this translation of Lysenko’s words is wrong. He didn’t say the planes were “operating” — he said the planes were “operational.” Trying to refute an allegation about a Ukrainian plane having been shot down he stated: “All our combat aircraft, as of now, are operational / in service” (Ukr.: «Всі наші бойові літаки поки що в строю»). What he meant was not that the planes were flying at the time, just that they were able to fly if required and not shot down.
Also, while Ukraine didn’t provide any primary radar data, Russia (that was directly interested to put the blame on Ukraine) could not provide anything implying a Ukrainian plane being anywhere near MH17. They only supplied a video replay of both primary and secondary data on a radar display that clearly showed the absence of Ukrainian planes there.
So, what’s the use of questioning witnesses about allegedly seeing a small jet plane at the altitude of 10 km in a cloudy weather while some of those witnesses claimed to have seen a Ukrainian plane so clearly as to even distinguish its rotating propellers 🙂
“Are we on the verge of the total collapse of the DSB report?”
no we are not,still holding solid,and simply saying 9N314M is debunked is not good enough,it passes all the questions asked while actual existence of bow-ties confirms it,You have also claimed no BuK at all now so kind of leaves you in the wilderness
How do we make a crazy scenario from real facts?
1: If Ukraine had the intention to shoot down MH17 it would not have fighter aircraft in the air at July 17. For, that would indicate their involvement. Hence Ukraine, in retrospect telling not have flown that day is very suspicious. This confirms the facts.
2: On the other hand there must be a reason to shoot down a civil airliner. So they went in the air above their own BUK’s in Donetsk making the impression of an attack on Snizhne. Then they fired a Ukrainian BUK directly on MH17 after which the fighter aircraft returned to their base. It was supposed the separatists were shooting on Ukrainian fighter aircraft but missed their goal and hit MH17. What confirms the aircraft.
3: All SU-25’s flew under the primary surveillance radar of Rostov and did not shoot at MH17, which possibly confirms the facts.
4: Ukraine had two conflicting hypotheses. In 1: there were no fighter aircraft at July 17 and in 2: there were. Well the first hypothesis was developed after the assault by advancing knowledge. And that explains and confirms Ukraine’s primary radar was in maintenance. And that confirms no witnesses in Donetsk are believed.
Now we developed a crazy scenario in line with the facts.
“How do we make a crazy scenario from real facts?”
at least you admit it is crazy so not much call to counter
YAWN!
Radar proves there was no military jets above clouds.
But note that when MH17 came down at Hrabove, two passenger planes were flying above.
Even if there would have been jets below clouds, they are unrelated to MH17 flying 5km+ higher.
And because all eyewitness about JETs conflict with each other, they most likely are all lies.
Just waste of time this fighterjet stuff. It only takes resources away from investigation of MH17 culprits. And that’s what RU trolls want.
Soltilspassi:
“Radar proves there was no military jets above clouds.”
If so, then why does the Russian radar show an extraneous primary mark moving around MH17 in a relatively controlled manner and with coordinate readout on the tape that places it near Pelahiivka where no debris fell? A witness in that exact area states the following (in Yandex-ian autotranslation):
“7.Directly overhead were buzzing the plane for a while, maybe not alone, because the exact location could not be determined. Like buzzing the sky. Can this rumble was before, only because of the roar of the Boeing could not hear. Tried to look but it was all in the clouds, even then was very surprised the pics and videos from different places how many gaps there. Above me was solid clouds and the only sound I realized that the plane headed West and very quickly died down.”
http://mh17.webtalk.ru/viewtopic.php?id=74&p=6
>If so, then why does the Russian radar show an extraneous primary mark moving around MH17 in a relatively controlled manner
I have analyzed the radar material very carefully. There is nothing moving around MH17.
First secondary radar paint of MH17 is shown. After transponder stopped, secondary radar display showed predicted flight for a while. Primary radar echos of real MH17 body and debris cloud is shown.
(debris cloud is large and echoes from separate rotating pieces affect the echo, otherwise there is no movement)
> and with coordinate readout on the tape that places it near Pelahiivka where no debris fell?
Debris fell also around pelahiivka + 5…10km north + 8km to east.
>A witness in that exact area states the following (in Yandex-ian autotranslation):
>“7.Directly overhead were buzzing the plane for a while, maybe not alone, because the exact location could not be determined.
There is no jet above clouds. Otherwise we would surely see it on radar.
(like wee see that helicopter on the border)
There was two passenger airliners, though. So someone might have thought one of them was a figter jet.
But I have not seen any credible f.jet eyewitness testimony, only very clear lies.
No need to believe in lies when we have the genuine radar video.
+RU hiding/deleting the data afterwards only makes it 100% sure they lied about f.jet.
f.jet nonsense is unrelated to what happened to MH17.
I would like to see more focus in finding out who operated the BUK.
I do not think the presence of fighter jets is unrelated to MH17. If that was the case Ukraine would hand over their primary radar. And DSB would have interviewed eyewitness on the ground. For some weird reason they did not. It is just too simple to ignore those many eyewitness. I collected about 16 on video but there are far more.
While there are no eyewitness who saw a BUK near Z. And interesting enough there are hardly any eyewitness who reported seeing the BUK being transported. You believe those eyewitness? Or do your believe the videos and photos which could be faked?
admin:
From evidence:
-I’m 100% sure fighter jet did not down MH17.
-fighter jet did not fly above clouds
-evidence match with BUK missile
-evidence show the missile came from ahead
Even if all videos showing buk launcher on trailer & driving to matching launch zone would be fake, it does not change the fact that BUK missile downed MH17.
Most likely none of the (original) videos are fake.
But until those persons who recorded videos (+paris match photo taker) are questioned, the videos have very little value.
More evidence is needed to catch the persons who shot MH17.
(Non-matching eyewitness stories tell me that most likely there was no (low flying) f.jet on the area when MH17 was shot down. Even if we would find a photo of fighterjet above torez on the moment MH17 exploded, it does not help catching the shooter. Shooter was on ground.)
>But I have not seen any credible f.jet eyewitness testimony, only very clear lies.
What’s your criterion to tell if a witness is “clearly lying”? I want to run the testimonies I’ve seen through this wonderful criterion.
“clear lies.”
Things like:
-one jet + two jet + three jet
-black MH17
-one jet flying beside MH17
-seeing through clouds
-“brrrt brrrrt”
-jet accelerating up through clouds
…
In general, eyewitnesses that are against facts are false.
RB2:
This all is not meant personally. We all play a role in controlling the institutions. This is a criminal investigation concerning 298 victims. No one will be trusted in advance: the Russians, the separatists, Ukraine and the Dutch. From a criminal investigation nobody can be excluded on moral grounds. Hence, all scenarios have to be amoral. That’s why crazy scenarios also have to be ventilated when in line with the facts. Do I already think Ukraine is the culprit? No not yet, but they are suspects too.
The way the dutch govt are doing this investigation is truly disgusting. My heart goes out to the families of the victims of this terrible tragedy
Andrej Lysenko at [21:41] : „We’ve got information that some rockets complexes have passed into Ukraine territory, which can hit planes from high altitude. There was even a video how these BUK rockets drove through Luhansk.“
How could Lysenko talk about a BUK „ drove through Luhansk“ ?
According to the SBU the BUK in Luhansk was catched 12 hours later !
I think this confirms that the „missing missile story“ is a fake.
I read Lysenko saying there was a video showing BUK coming in, through Luhansk? Unrelated to the video of “launcher – one missile”.
> “According to the SBU the BUK in Luhansk was catched 12 hours later !”
– When going back to Russia after the shooting.
We know there were conflicting statements about one or several ‘Buks’ in the terrorists’ hands on July 17, 2014. I understand the inexperienced Ukrainian intelligence had some indications at the time which they could not immediately put together. So, Lysenko obviously spoke of some pieces of information he had no complete knowledge of (and no one had then). While he might have spoken of “a video” there was finally not a single video of a ‘Buk’ entering Ukraine through Luhansk published yet — either because such videos didn’t exist, only oral reports, or because publishing such a video would reveal its (pro-Ukrainian) source to the terrorists.
Prosto: Boggled-like ad-hoc theory without any substantiation.
“boggled-like”
Such a precise description. Although you should give credit to Prostak, his post doesn’t take 1000 words
I agree, it’s often difficult to undeniably prove that something (in this case the Ukrainian planes near MH17) didn’t exist at all. However, the absolute absence of any proofs of the conjecture that such planes did exist is much more important.
Prosto Tak:
You say there is no proof, but then I guess you ignore the social media posts above, including from pro-Ukraine posters?
What would it take to be proof in your view?
Andrew, social media posts are no proof. They are indications to look for proofs. So far, none has been found — no radar data, just nothing.
As for eyewitnesses, some of them have seen a small Ukrainian jet at a 10 km altitude in a cloudy weather so clearly as to personally watch its propellers rotating.
Others have seen Ukrainian ‘Buks’ near Zaroshchenske, with a radar with “such a big cupola” (showing something big and round with his hands). The problem is, “Cupola” (Rus. ‘Kupol’) is a code name for the ‘Buk’ radar station, and the man might have been told about that, but its antenna has no cupola-shaped radome, it’s a flat metal grid.
So, eyewitnesses who claim to have seen everything clearly and personally often tend to “see” what they want to, what they believe in — or what they have been told to “see.”
Prosto Tak:
The postings above are from July 17 before MH17 was shot down and were recorded immediately for posterity. No one says anything about 10 km. The posters are from both sides of the conflict. They very simply report what they see and hear. It’s not contaminated assertions from after the shoot down. These would be the gold standard d of eyewitness testimony in court with their verifiable timing and permanent record.
I don’t need a lost/hidden primary radar record to convince me they are reporting something real.
““And that day, they were intensively flying, and exactly at the moment of the shooting, at the moment the civilian plane flew overhead, they launched air strikes.”
Just note that according to DSB (IIRC) 161 airliners flew above donbas 17.Jul2014. So, IMO, during those days, it was not possible to do any air activity without being on air at the same time with passenger airliners.
“I do not think the presence of fighter jets is unrelated to MH17”
quite clearly unrelated to the downing of MH17 as they are at vastly different FL even if present which is a big if going by the varied accounts which are often contradictory and likely self serving to the “rebel” cause
Russia’s erasing off its raw radar data that was supposedly “proof” of UA aircraft in the area would strongly hint at a bluff being called
If you have a theory how UA planes below 2000m was a rational cause off a BuK strike on MH17 at 10000m would like to hear it
On 24 December, 2014 Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) responded to the story published one day before by the Russian newspaper Komsomolskaya Pravda. It was the story told by a defector from the Ukrainian army who used to serve as a technician on a Ukraine Air Force base near Dnepropetrovsk. Now the defector’s story is well-known: three Su-25 flew from the airbase in the afternoon of 17 July; of those three only one jet returned; its pilot was Captain Vladislav Voloshin. Response by SBU was presented by adviser to SBU chairman Markian Lubkivsky. At a briefing on 24 December, Lubkivsky said that Ukraine Air Force was not operating on 17 July. A report on the briefing may be seen here
http://fakty.ictv.ua/ru/index/read-news/id/1537839
“That was due to a rescue operation to help the crews of AN-26 and Su-24 on 14 and 16 July”, – said Lubkivsky [apparently, he meant the planes which were downed on 14 and 16 July]. “Absence of Ukrainian combat planes in the area of the Boeing crash is confirmed with the data of objective monitoring by the system for collection and processing of radar information at the Dnepropetrovsk radio controlling center of Ukraerorukh [Украэрорух – Ukraine’s air traffic agency] for 17 July, 2014”, – said Lubkivsky [radar information?]. As of Captain Voloshin, Lubkivsky said that “…according to the command of Ukraine Armed Forces and of the unit A4465, this serviceman did not make flights that day and his plane was under repairs because it had been damaged during a crash-landing on 16 July”.
In August, 2015 Captain Voloshin was interviewed, as a war hero, by the newspaper Ukrainskaya Pravda. See:
http://life.pravda.com.ua/person/2015/08/27/199147/
In the large interview published 27 August, 2015, Voloshin said that on 17 July, 2014 they did not fly because of the bad weather. Voloshin: “It was raining then, complete cloudiness, 10, the sky was fully clouded. We were not able to fly”. Also, it is clear from the interview that on 16 July it was not Voloshin’s plane which was damaged, but his comrade’s plane. Voloshin and another pilot flew on mission on 16 July and the other pilot’s plane was hit by separatists’ fire. Voloshin led his comrade until the latter managed to land. According to the interview, for that he was decorated with an order on 19 July, 2014.
– Posted on November 21, 2015 by admin
> See this article which states that Ukraine radar was at full power with a range of 400 km.
— There’s not a single word in the article dated 30 Sep 2015 about what the Ukrainian radars were doing on 17 Jul 2014. Contrary to what you claim, the article does NOT state that any Ukrainian radar was at full power with a range of 400 km that day.
> As Ukriane does not provide radar recordings it has something to hide.
Technically, it’s possible to think so.
However, while Ukraine, contrary to what you claim, DID provide some radar data, Russia provided absolutely nothing except for a video replay.
So, as Russia did not provide radar recordings it has something to hide!
> This post has information from social media indicating people living in Torez heard the air-raid siren.
— Contrary to what you claim, this post has information from social media indicating people living in Torez DID NOT hear any air-raid siren that had been announced as a test and were wondering why.
The link you give has absolutely nothing to do with MH17 events; it is a discussion of a planned air raid siren test that was pre-announced and supposed to take place at 3 pm but no one heard it; some people also discussed a plane they claimed to hear or see several minutes before the planned test, and whether it might have been a military plane or a civilian one (and don’t forget MH17 whas not a single passenger plane high in the skies in the region that day).
– abcd // November 23, 2015 at 10:14 pm
> if the investigation of the MH17 tragedy were not so charged politically, Ukraine Armed Forces would have been one of the suspects
— And they WERE one of the suspects, and in several different ways (shooting MH17 down with a ground attack plane, with its own ‘Buk’ placed at the very edge of the enemy-controlled territory, etc.). However, the investigation dismissed such versions.
– Liane Theuer // November 24, 2015 at 11:43 pm
> Some more information about Ruvins background :
Master forger in Ukraine
http://www.segodnia.ru/content/166033
Use GoogleTranslate for this (too many accusations to translate)
— Segodnia.ru is a staunchly anti-Ukrainian media outlet from Russia that would be very much interested to discredit a leading Ukrainian expert now. However, the claims they quote now (07 Sep 2015) were actually announced back on 28 Feb 2012, and they did not mention Ruvin himself when telling about a pressure on other experts, contrary to the lies of Segodnia.ru: http://www.unian.net/politics/615187-ekspert-sudebnaya-ekspertiza-po-delu-timoshenko-provodilas-pod-davleniem.html (Rus.).
The other texts denouncing Ruvin you give links to actually all have the same author, a single person, or are based on his texts; an interesting thing is that those (and many other web publications of such anti-Ruvin texts) have no reader comments while generally such publications about top figures generate lots of comments, both pro and contra. For me, it looks more like someone’s personal — and extremely marginal — “war” against Ruvin for some unknown reason that had no success.
To Admin: sorry, I’ve posted it in the wrong topic, please delete it!