Many inconsistencies in the route of the BUK
Because of photos, videos and Tweets posted by Ukrainian people on social media and two photos published by Paris Match there is a picture of the route the BUK took on July 17.
The story has been published by Bellingcat. Also Ukraineatwar did a lot of work in geolocating pictures.
The story has been copied by about each and every Western media outlet.
While the photos are likely to be authentic, there is a chance the timeline of the BUK route has been invented by the Ukraine Secret Service. It likely used photos of different BUK transports and compiled it to the story we know: at July 17 a BUK was transported on a lowloader towards Snizhne.
Ukraine itself stated: ‘At 2:00, July 18, two movers each with a Buk missile launcher crossed the Russian border in Luhansk region. At 4:00, another three movers: one of them empty, other carrying a launcher with four missiles and the latter allegedly with a control unit, crossed the state border.’
However after having a more detailed investigation into the photos, Tweets and videos there are many strange circumstances. For example we do not know the name of the photographer who made the pictures of the BUK while parked in Donetsk.
Also the weather in Torez shows blue skies. In fact it was already half cloudy at the time the photo was supposed to be taken at July 17.
Also the timeline does not show a single, consistent story.
In short, it could well be the photos and videos were taken at different days. We could be seeing even two different BUKs.
Michael Kobs did a lot of research on photos, Tweets and videos. His comprehensive report titled ‘Haunt the BUK‘ is not published on a blog but as a PDF file. Kobs analyses photos and uses shadows to determine time of the photo.
One of the conclusions of the report is that the Vostok battelion never escorted the BUK enroute to Snizhne. Ukraine officials however mentioned the BUK was part of a large convoy of separatists vehicles.
He also has an analyse of the telephone taps between separatists and Russian military.
I recommend anyone interested in his investigation to have a look. It is written in German language.
Download here.
People who don´t want to wait until the English version of Micha´s report will be issued, might want to read a blogpost I wrote. In this article I used much of the evidence Micha has found regarding the debunk of the BUK transporting convoy.
https://hectorreban.wordpress.com/2015/08/01/17-july-buk-sightings-planting-evidence-in-advance/
As far as the timing of the Torez image of the BUK, there are questions to exactly when.
I would remind others to look at this page and compare the map they did and your own at SAT 24 to check the weather.
According to Bellingcat at the time it was blue skies in the direction the photo was taken.
Both links below-
http://www.sat24.com/history.aspx
https://www.bellingcat.com/resources/case-studies/2015/01/27/examining-the-mh17-launch-smoke-photographs/
Fare thee well
Sorry, was reading the BC article and meant to put two other links, not that one even though it is interesting.
Regarding weather, I would say look at this image and tell me ho many different skies you see and how it would be if you only say the small part in the Torez BUK image.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-kW_f4ZsfA7o/U9ZMKPiClRI/AAAAAAAATpE/-nIywln-E_I/s1600/Wether+focal+length+2.jpg
Which came from here.
http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com/2014/07/different-wheather-conditions-mh17.html
Fare thee well
FYI “Cloud coverage for 17 July at 12.00 hrs.”
http://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/uploads/albums/1155/thumbs/95e5b8f77366mh-17-fig03-en940x500.jpg
Very mixed up weather there, IMO.
Congratulation to this late understanding what is going on.
Does this Heureka moment mean that you want to change something in your last article?
https://whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/13-months-later-what-happened-to-flight-mh17/
You write:
I wouldn’t be as blue-eyed. If the SBU is setting up a social media story (and other proofs don’t exist) don’t you think that this institution wouldn’t be able to fabricate photoshop pictures too?
Very likely candidates in my view: the Paris Match fotos, the Torez foto and the plume foto from Aleynikov.
You write:
and link to the Russian version:
http://www.sbu.gov.ua/sbu/control/uk/publish/article?art_id=129099&cat_id=39574
There’s an English version as well that you used:
http://www.sbu.gov.ua/sbu/control/en/publish/article?art_id=129116&cat_id=128626
You should have noticed that Naida doesn’t mention the Avakov video from 4:50 north-west of Lugansk showing the Volvo with the Buk with “at least” one missile missing. How come?
Even ukraine is pedalling back from his old claim copied from SBU-asset Tymchuk that the Vostok-batallion was part of the Buk-convoy in Zuhres.
http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/russian-transport-of-buk-into-ukraine.html
His latest article (in a corrected version) from August 14, 2015 accepts that he was cheated by Tymchuk – in the first version his verdict still was:
http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2015/08/possible-truck-and-tanks-identified.html
Then someone I know told him about the Michael Kobs study: now he added one sentence and the videos that he found there, and came to another (still wrong) conclusion:
Posted by Ukraine at 3:14 PM
http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2015/08/possible-truck-and-tanks-identified.html
Kobs had shown that the Vostok convoy passed Zuhres about an hour later than the Volvo with the Buk, accompanied by two civilian vehicles.
And please don’t forget his paranoid posting against you from February 2015:
http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2015/02/is-marcelvandenber-prorussian-troll.html
So: where do you stand?
Bellingcat narrative on a russian Buk is a web of lies.
Long story short
Donestk Buk (fake)
Zuhres Buk (fake)
https://i2.wp.com/s17.postimg.org/wb43t7a6n/southernwind.jpg
Torez Buk (fake)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/malaysia-airlines-mh17-crash-was-a-russianmade-missile-really-parked-in-this-quiet-square-9622031.html
Snizhne
http://ronaldthomaswest.com/2014/07/19/black-boxes-dark-arts-geopolitics/
Lugansk Buk (fake)
https://whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/re-examining-the-luhansk-video/
>Donestk Buk (fake)
Actually, I have not yet found any reason to doubt those photos or their date.
The owner of the lowloader confirmed that rebels use it.
Your link only show that the lowloader could not be found in the commercially available satellite image (not from exact time of the photo). The lowloader could be under something that blocks the view etc.
(There should be no problem to arrange JIT to have original RAW photo material.)
>Zuhres Buk (fake)
The BUK is real and rebels look real, unless rebels were edited into picture.
Proves that rebels had BUK there.
+Not enough proof it being fake date/time. We see that there was some wind also in other photos.
(And we know that there was big differences in weather in different locations.)
+Tall/large buildings amplify the wind effect between buildings.
(original RAW photo/video might never end up to JIT)
>Torez Buk (fake)
Neither that has yet been proven to be fake. It shows BUK in Torez on a lowloader that has been in the hands of the rebels.
(original RAW photo/video might never end up to JIT)
>Snizhne
Neither those have been proven fake. Just that the timestamps might not have been thoroughly checked.
btw. the link you provided for this was 100% propaganda and 0% info.
(original RAW photo/video might never end up to JIT)
>Lugansk Buk (fake)
Not even that has been proven fake. But RU tried to fake it.
That photo shows that the lowloader had uncovered BUK system that is missing one missile on the identical lowloader we have seen in other photos, around the suitable time frame (basing on the billboard, stolen lowloader etc) at rebel heldterritory.
But more inspections of the material is good ™. 😉
Good that details are examined further.
(but things like “BUK did or didn´t go with Vostok” are irrelevant, IMO)
What is more interesting is to find if there is any single evidence that rebels did not have BUK. So far everything prove they had one or several BUKs.
Also. To me it seems 100% sure that 14Jul missile (dropped AN26) came from Russian side of the border. So, IMO, we can be sure that rebels did not yet have BUK+crew at their command at Ukraine at that time.
And I would recommend everyone to ignore pretty much everything what UA or RU say about the MH17 matter. Just look at the material and think with your own brains. Wasting time on UA or RU lies takes time out of investigation (that’s what propaganda people want to achieve).
Please provide photo/video of a russian buk in Ukraine on 17 July 2014.
all of public opinion is based on social media stuff with no proof of date taken. It is actually interesting how this developed.
What will be acceptable proof of a Russian BUK on July 17?
How can there be no proof of date taken?
Someone took those photos, made those videos.
Not surprisingly the original files of the alleged russian buk were never made public. So much for the proof.
I can show you one ukrainian buk the day before the shootdown
What is the location where that BUK is filmed at?
Sotilaspassi,
This is the original video with part mentioned in igor’s post identified.
It is at about 5 minutes of the 9+ minute video if you want to go back to that portion of it.
You might find a clue of location and date filmed.
igor, in the video you post, July 16th is the upload date it is not the time it was filmed.
And you have no proof the BUK was at that location on July 16th.
That could be a video from March for all you know.
So in that it makes your post a failure at evidence.
Fare thee well
boggled:
“igor, in the video you post, July 16th is the upload date it is not the time it was filmed. And you have no proof the BUK was at that location on July 16th. That could be a video from March for all you know.”
The crops are grown in the fields, the trees are covered in leaves, the wildflowers are in bloom. Its not from March. Ukraine didn’t have an Army living in field camps in March. Given the height of what appears to be Maize or Spring Wheat in the distant field in the second image, its likely seen in July.
Andrew,
If you look at the video I posted and go back to 4.30 and watch from there while they are in a helicopter I guess, the fields have nothing growing in them and look freshly turned over.
4.38 shows some plants with less then two feet of growth.
I am guessing it is probably more from Early June then anything.
Do you agree?
I am not saying the edited BUK part of the video could not be edited and is not from July, it may be, but the earlier parts would suggest an earlier date then July for when the video was made, in my opinion.
Fare thee well
boggled:
“If you look at the video I posted and go back to 4.30 and watch from there while they are in a helicopter I guess, the fields have nothing growing in them and look freshly turned over.”
That would be winter wheat that has been harvested. The winter wheat harvest occurs in July and was underway throughout the period of fighting in the summer. In June, the winter wheat is still ripening.
“4.38 shows some plants with less then two feet of growth.”
If you pause the video, you can see they are young sunflower plants. Sunflowers cannot be that high in June given the time of planting in a climate like Ukraine.
“I am guessing it is probably more from Early June then anything. Do you agree?”
No, the images are contemporary to July and probably taken on July 14/15. Program H Hour was broadcast once or twice a day during the week and generally lagged about 24-48 hours in the cycle. For example, the Gukovo Lake Grad launch on July 16 was featured on the second program from July 17. The same program also featured the videos of the Gvozdika Self propelled mortars in Donetsk, which arrived on the afternoon July 15.
I’d say you need to provide some more compelling reasons the imagery isn’t from the days immediately before July 16.
Andrew, I will bow to your statements about the crops, they do seem close to valid, although I will point out about a third of Ukraine’s winter wheat was harvested at the end of June, and that field looked like it had been turned over as well.
I was stating that there is a possibility it is before then, but I will agree, that the beginning of June is unlikely.
HOWEVER, igor’s original comment was – ‘I can show you one ukrainian buk the day before the shootdown’
And we all can agree as to the time of upload date to you tube, it is impossible to say conclusively it was filmed the day before the shootdown.
Especially considering the time it takes to put together, get a flight on an plane with the military to their base with all the security clearances needed, then edited and written up and receive approval from the government to release it.
My guess would be early July, but regardless, for his statement to be correct and remain as truthful, he should have to prove that date.
The only thing he can prove is upload date.
Fare thee well
Evidence of a Russian buk on July 17? That should be clear. We should have some proof that it was there on July 17 rather than some other date. Photo metadata would do. We also need to see the original file to make sure it has not been altered.
Secondly we need some proof that the buk is from Russia, so we need some definite details about the buk.
Since you asked igor, here is your proof.
https://02varvara.wordpress.com/2014/03/04/more-ukrainian-units-come-over-to-the-patriotic-side-in-the-crimea/
Crimea is Ukrainian, It is not Russian until the UN and the nations of the world says so.
And you can look up online the wide selection of Russian BUK missiles that are in Crimea.
Such as this one.
http://www.ausairpower.net/USN/RIM-66-MR-SM-2-DN-SC-84-10094-1S.jpg
They were there July 17th.
And are there now illegally on Internationally recognized Ukrainian soil.
As the admin points out, it all how you interpret your question.
IF I look at it strictly speaking, I am 100 percent correct in my statements answering your comment.
If I answer it the way I know you asked it as a slanted question and how you want someone to answer or you want to attempt to prove, I would say –
‘no 100 percent provable BUKs were seen in Eastern Ukraine’s conflict areas with the exception of Crimea on July 17 2014 with the evidence we have now.’
But we know that most LIKELY Russian BUK systems were claimed and witnessed in various areas of Eastern Ukraine not including Crimea.
Ask a leading slanted question, you get a slanted response.
Fare thee well
Right, Crimea is part of Ukraine. Trying not to laugh.
Please, anyone who made the photos/videos, show us the original files of buks in Donetsk, Zuhres, Torez, Snizhne, Lugansk.
What is there to hide?
If the dutch report doesn´t address this issue then it´s a cover up.
Right, I am trying not to laugh at your begging and screaming cover up.
If there is demand enough from the media, I think the investigators would make some statement about veracity eventually.
These people are in fear of their lives, they think Polonium tea.
They do not want their names out in public media.
They do not want to be ridiculed by some they thought as friends.
They signed a confidentiality statement up until some part in the criminal trial.
Leaks happen however.
But this is the way investigations and serious crimes are handled.
Maybe you have a different method in your nation, but that is common procedure.
There was a lot of ‘news’ just after the Boston Bombing due to an active manhunt, but afterwards up until the trial, a lot of evidence stayed hidden until the trial so it could be presented there.
Nope, no cover up, that is just how it is done.
Do I need to go get my violin and play for you whilest you cry because your hero got caught with his finger in the MH17 pie, georgey porgie?
From what I’ve gathered:
-We have seen a lot of proof that rebels had a BUK
-The BUK on that lowloader was Russian a few days / weeks before.
-Someone shot BUK from rebel area at MH17
So far no reason to doubt the above (from what I have gone through) After what kremlin has been trying to do around MH17 tragedy, not anyone should have a doubt, but that’s “IMHO”.
Perhaps DSB/JIT teams can tell the exact times photos/videos were taken.
Well, if the Ukrainians and their helpers claim a BUK drove with Vostok and it is proved Vostok didn´t drive with a BUK, could that count for prove there was no BUK? (At least no one that supports the narrative of the Snizhne shooting)
That would require that rebels were edited into same photos with militants + lowloader that they stole?
FIX: “That would require that rebels were edited into same photos with BUK + lowloader that they stole?”
No, that wouldn´t.
soltipassi:
“That would require that rebels were edited into same photos with militants + lowloader that they stole?”
So explain the consistency of the following?
Donetsk 666_mancer Tweet – a truck, a BUK with no missiles
Donetsk Paris Match photo – a Rav 4, a truck, and a BUK with 4 missiles floating up into the air since its tracks and wheels don’t sit on the bed of the trailer.
Zhures video – a truck, a BUK with missiles covered, a van, and a Rav 4 (where did the UAZ go?)
Shakhtarsk spice4russia Tweet – a truck, a BUK, a KAMAZ, 3 tanks (um … no UAZ, van, or Rav 4?)
Torez picture – a truck, a BUK with 4 missiles covered, and a UAZ and a Rav 4 (where is the van?).
Torez MOR2537 Tweet – a truck, a BUK with 4 missiles, 2 vehicles (well, at least that matches the Torez photo)
Snizhne – a small vehicle and a BUK with undeterminable quantity of missiles, but possibly less than 4
Lugansk – just a truck and a BUK with 3 missiles uncovered (amazing, doens’t need any protection!)
The missing netting, or not fully applied in the Luhansk video since it appears something is on the back of the BUK that is not normally on an uncovered BUK, seems to suggest a quick load up job on the Semi.
Now why would they do that?
A rush job to get it on the semi and out of there since it has only three missiles and MH17 was just shot down would be anyone’s thoughts, why not yours?
Why take the extra half an hour or more for 2 men to stretch the large and heavy netting back over it when it needs to get out of Ukraine quick?
What protection would it need Andrew that netting supplies?
Netting would just be a protection from airplanes and satellites.
No planes flying overhead, so that is not a problem.
satellites, they might be able to avoid while moving preventing a clear image, it most likely would have been blurred.
Needs of getting out of Ukraine outweighed the risk I think.
Parts of the convoy stopping for gas, answer the phone, answer a call of nature, part of the convoy not being able to keep up due to train, stuck on power lines, getting lunch or breakfast or beer, etc. could explain away a lot of the inconsistencies Andrew.
Fare thee well
So you can supply names and proof of location and time of each member of Vostok?
That there was only ONE transfer of equipment that Vostok participated in that day?
Good luck.
Fare thee well
The above comment was meant for Hector, but I do welcome anyone that can prove either of those items conclusively.
Fare thee well
So now you pull another rabbit from your magic head. There must have been MORE Vostok convoys, hahaha!
Make light of the fact Hector all you want, but SBU intelligence cannot be everywhere and catch everything, especially right at the beginning on film.
But they did catch a lot.
YOU are the one that made the statement about if –
‘ it is proved Vostok didn´t drive with a BUK, could that count for prove there was no BUK? ‘
So begin with your proof please.
Fare thee well
I do think there was at least one BUK in the area near Snizhne. Having said that, I have my doubt if a BUK was indeed transported on July 17 to Snizhne.
I could be a day earlier, or even a couple of days.
While there are many photos of other military equipment, photos of the BUK are rare and taken from far away.
The source of the videos and photos is very suspicious. See the Michael Kobs report which I recommened to anyone interested in finding out the truth instead of trusting what is reported by the MSM and governments.
admin, I think for the proofs of witness testimony and the images we may have to wait.
There was lots of chatter and witnesses at many locations the BUK or BUKs stopped and passed through.
That is the hard thing about not having those statements and the possibility of them being deleted or confiscated by the investigators.
Like you, I am not sure of the dates conclusively.
It seemed like real time data to me at the time, but I will admit the possibility does exist for those images captured day or days before.
It is doubtful, but the possibility exists.
I will look into Kobs report and challenge it, he has had a year of working on comment boards to work up his defense of the Kremlin plus a lot of helpers, and I am just one person.
I have seen a few obvious mistakes offhand, but it will take some time to explain and give proofs of just those.
As you say, there are some suspicions about the others, but there are also suspicious items in Kobs report that I saw also.
It will take a little time but I will present it to you.
Fare thee well
Boggled you wrote that..”I will look into Kobs report and challenge it,”.
Shouldn’t you make up you mind after you see the evidence rather than before you see the evidence? What you are saying is you don’t agree with it even thoygh you haven’t even read it…..???
Tony B, by challenge it, I do not accept it at face value.
I have to do my own research.
A challenge in this context is more of a ‘peer review’
Maybe it was not the best word for me to use.
Noted and I will try and be more selective.
I have a less then perfect grasp of German, and before I make a statement I want to review it.
But from my initial viewing of it, I saw a few things I disagree with, but until I have everything in context, I want to fully understand his conclusions and proofs and comments.
Kobs report is out there to challenge SBU’s, Bellingcat’s, Correctiv and others analysis of events.
Does that mean he went into those with a level head or not?
Did he substantiate some of their findings or did he go hogwild trying to debunk as many things as he could?
IF the report was to challenge much of the available evidence and analysis, what makes him any different then Hector, Max, Gabby Wolff, the Kremlin, the lying MoD, etc?
He has a better presentation? or he actually makes sense?
He has had all those others to set the stage for him and do his prep research and offer him help.
So should I give him the benefit of the doubt when so many others have tried and failed?
Or should I go into it with the mind of ‘challenging’ his assumptions, testing them, and seeing if they hold water?
When I have a full grasp on it, I will let you know and the world know.
Fare thee well
Admin:
Sorry – try this link.
http://i58.tinypic.com/2py9jl5.jpg
Isn’t the point that those tweeters who claimed to see a buk in the convoy claimed they saw this buk at the same time.
Yet none of them managed to get any evidence at all, and the footage we do see of the convoy has no buk.
Their reports have no support from the evidence
Tony B, the footage we are so lucky to have are from a staged photoop for them to broadcast on YouTube.
No, they are not going to broadcast their secret weapon just minutes before it goes into active duty.
Although they would have broadcast something if it was an AN26 downing as reported by LieNews and all the other Kremlin sponsored media stations.
Although I imagine there are a few phones that have been turned over to JIT with a video of just that, before the staged video.
Their witness statements are all part of establishing a timeline to fit the various videos there are.
And I think JIT will have a few more videos from that day.
One’s never uploaded.
The videos are a bonus and pull it all together.
BUT a lot of witness statements that all corroborate the same thing in sequence and can explain once they are put in order are very supportive of a court case.
Just one link in a long chain of evidence.
These peoples witness statements are 100 times stronger because of the BUK photos then the various witnesses about a SU25 flying near MH17 which no one seems to have got a photo of.
Fare thee well
Boggled:
“a SU25 flying near MH17 which no one seems to have got a photo of”
A purported photo of a fighter plane in the sky was posted to MH17.webtalk.ru by the user Сепаратист (Separatist), who is a local resident of the area near Petropavlivka.
I downloaded it to my computer, but didn’t save the link.
Frankly, there is quite a bit of discussion on the RuNet that English speakers are missing out on.
Andrew: If that pic is on your computer, why not upload it to one of the many free picture upload sites?
Andrew, can you tell if you remember it was proven or discredited because they could not confirm the time and date?
Was it added by a FSB agent, kind of similar to what your doing, to through people of the real track and distract them?
Someone throwing out misinformation?
Your right, that is one site that has a lot of discussions going on.
I thought since I was there I would add these few links from there, if anyone including I decided to make a more thorough search for it.
Сепаратист profile with links to all his posts 1772 last count.
http://mh17.webtalk.ru/profile.php?id=18
various discussions about witnesses.
http://mh17.webtalk.ru/viewforum.php?id=16
This final one about three quarters down the page has some videos of the crash plume, and the second two go a long ways to show the variation in cloud cover, among other things.
It is the start of the above link’s link ‘video footage of eyewitnesses’ .
http://mh17.webtalk.ru/viewtopic.php?id=70
I will look further and keep an open mind Andrew, but since it has not come out through official propaganda channels even, I am guessing it was already proven false by Russian skeptics.
And I will keep looking for the image, I am interested on seeing it for myself.
But I honestly believe it probably is just misinformation, just thrown out there by a confirmed separatist who got an image from another forum who got it from another forum that got it from a July 14 2014 flight.
AND who has the reason to promote the SU25 story.
Which you and I both do not believe in.
With your comment stating ‘purported’, I take it was never proven to be factual information, and that probably quite a few people challenged it and said it is impossible for July 17 2014.
Still thank you, I have not really followed him when I went there or all the discussions.
You description enabled me to add a few eyewitness stories I have yet to see.
Fare thee well
Admin:
“If that pic is on your computer, why not upload it to one of the many free picture upload sites?”
Here you go.
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2py9jl5#.VetRRlnJt5E
Separatist circled the plane.
Andrew: the URL is not correct. I see multiple photos but not the one you uploaded.
Thank you Andrew.
I can see something there.
I can see why you said purported.
Which even says you question it, and rightly so.
Do you recall if it was said if it was a screen grab from a video or an actual photo?
Were you able to see the RAW data, etc?
Still an interesting image that someone would claim was a SU fighter on July 17th.
Fare thee well
I am glad to see it was not the image used in this video.
Fare thee well
It does look like a screen capture from this video, but I am not sure.
It shows the same bright sky.
My guess is hoax, FSB plant, or something.
I never was sure which plane this was actually declared a video of.
It looks like an IL76, but that one was done about 5 am as I recall or while it was still dark out.
Amazing though that an IGLA could take out such a big craft.
Fare thee well
Boggled:
That is a video of the shootdown of an AN-30 over Slavyansk on June 6.
Boggled:
“I can see something there.”
Yes, I can too. Too bad it is only a few pixels, but it is clear there is something against the clouds. No RAW data or anything.
“Still an interesting image that someone would claim was a SU fighter on July 17th.”
The most interesting is it is from a local resident of the area of the crash who claims he took it on July 17. Knowing how cameras are, I suspect it was clearer to his own vision than it is in the picture.
Admin:
Sorry – try this link.
http://i58.tinypic.com/2py9jl5.jpg
Boggled, Admin:
Please see picture of Separatist on this page. I was wrong, he did publish RAW data. It is from 16:34 on July 17. The part I put on TinyPic is a small part of the larger picture.
http://mh17.webtalk.ru/viewtopic.php?id=201&p=9
A search for his name and YouTube brought up some interesting debris field views that he shared.
Also interesting is how long the view is and how much wind noise there is in the camera.
Not a whole lot of trees to slow it down at ground level.
http://mh17.webtalk.ru/search.php?action=search&keywords=youtube&author=%D1%E5%EF%E0%F0%E0%F2%E8%F1%F2&forum=16&search_in=0&sort_by=0&sort_dir=DESC&show_as=posts&search=To+send
Fare thee well
Thank you for the follow up Andrew, I would have been forever and never found it by searching through the ‘witness statements’ part of it, still had 10 more pages of that to look through.
Interesting larger image, and I will not pretend to have any of the tools to analyze the harmonics and lighting characteristics to determine if there was something there or not, and what it is.
I could not tell you if it was a metallic object.
Even my zooming of the larger image does not provide the enhancement that comes from the original zoom.
Makes you wonder how a BUK targeting is able to grab and sift through the info from 30 KM + away.
The RAW does provide a little info to my untrained eye.
It is a JPG, NIKON camera, and might be able to search for sequential numbers from that RAW data for other videos or images.
Like you state, that is 16:34 if the timing is right.
A full 14 minutes after MH17 last signal was sent out or recorded.
And looking at the plume and its travelling I guess about right.
Doubtfully it was a piece of aluminum still floating up there like a kite.
Not impossible, but doubtful.
Another possibility at that time frame if I have my figures right is a Singapore flight coming in?
I think one plane was 40k feet and the another plane was 35K feet.
Still an interesting image attached to quite a few witness statements, I think around 20 listed there that say they saw some sort of ‘other’ aircraft.
Fare thee well
Boggled:
Separatist says he viewed the wreck occur from just southeast of Rozsypne.
Its well worth reading what he thinks he heard and saw.
http://mh17.webtalk.ru/viewtopic.php?id=74&p=6
He has also posted an extensive archive of photos he took on MAS17.webtalk.ru
I would not put too much effort in these matters untill there is confirmation that the “cockpit destroyer” was a BUK warhead and nothing else.
If it was a BUK we can be sure that it could have come only from rebel territory. If it was some other surface-to-air missile, longer range missile, things become truly “interesting”. (like: what is the echo in the radar in the russian side of the border, on MH17 flight path)
Answering sotilaspassi comment (August 21, 2015 at 6:44 am)
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-M4iG5ag-qOQ/VWIG5GBzVyI/AAAAAAAAAec/Fg8MqHKaiYw/s400/a.png
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-F7eMl-EsbWo/VWHwJFaAmEI/AAAAAAAAAd8/F2QGcBXGKis/s400/1.png
I will answer your comment (August 21, 2015 at 7:43 am)in the next days.(likely Monday)
To be clear; your two photos suggest that this video showing an Ukraine BUK was filmed here
Seeing the distance of over 100km to the last position reported by the FDR it is impossible a BUK missile was launched from this position.
48°58’7.57″N 37°28’56.20″O
Where did you get those photos from? And how did geolocate the BUK there?
I’m not claiming that particular buk system filmed north Slavyansk was responsible for the shooting down of mh17. I’m just reporting what some western media seems to ignore all the time – Ukraine had buk systems deployed in eastern Ukraine by the time of mh17.
Photos were taken from this website. Lots of valuable information about mh17
http://baz2000.blogspot.co.uk/
Who said a buk missile was launched from north Slavyansk?
I’m just reporting what the western media ignores all the time – Ukraine had buks deployed in eastern ukraine by the time of mh17.
Just a reminder this is connected to my statements above regarding time frame this was filmed on another comment of igor’s.
It may have been published or uploaded July 16th, but indications of the video would suggest probably videoed in the early June if not before time frame.
Fare thee well
I am not sure if this image is quoted anywhere in your site admin, but it is one of the BUK loader launchers reportedly left at a base that the Separatists troops captured and might have repaired.
http://www.wio.ru/anti/10/9a39.jpg
From – http://www.wio.ru/anti/10-3.htm
I am sure there are others, I have seen a few, but thought I would share in particular a loader launcher image as opposed to the standard launcher vehicle we feel is the MH17 culprit.
Fare thee well
http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/214197.html
“Ukrainian prosecutor general says militants did not seize Ukrainian air defense launchers
Members of illegal armed units have not seized air defense launchers of the Ukrainian Armed Forces in Donetsk, Ukrainian Prosecutor General Vitaliy Yarema said.
“The military told the president after the passenger plane had been shot down [in the Donetsk region] that the terrorists did not possess our Buk and S-300 missile systems. Such had not been seized,” the prosecutor general told the Ukrainska Pravda online edition after the Thursday meeting of the Ukrainian National Security and Defense Council.”
So igor, please tell me why exactly an Attorney General or Prosecutor General in Kyiv would know what is happening in military bases in Eastern Ukraine??
And why is he qualified to make a statement about them?
And why that should be held as a credible statement?
Shouldn’t the NSDC spokesperson be making that statement?
Fare thee well
If Yarema statement is not good enough for you how about the words from the minister of foreign affairs of Ukraine?
http://mfa.gov.ua/en/press-center/interviews-and-articles/2771-the-guardian-ukraine-denies-its-missiles-were-involved
““We are absolutely sure and we checked yesterday that no missiles have been taken from the Ukrainian army,” said Klimkin.”
Well,if no missiles were taken from ukrainian army and the Pentagon has no evidence of an SA 11 crossing the border into Ukraine
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/19/us-ukraine-crisis-airplane-intelligence-idUSKBN0FO00B20140719
“There was no U.S. intelligence showing an SA-11 crossing the border into Ukraine, the Pentagon said.”
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/us-present-intelligence-data-plane-crash-0
“the U.S. had no direct evidence that the missile used to shoot down the passenger jet came from Russia.”
the only logical scenario is ukraine involvement in the shootdown of mh17 by buk missiles and/or military aircraft.
Ukraine had the means,motive and opportunity.
I simplify my hobby study by ignoring 99% of UA, RU and USA material.
But my summary about captured BUK systems:
-UA said none of the left behind BUK systems were in working order (in June2014. + we have seen some evidence of this) +no missiles were left behind IIRC, rebels have loose BUK warheads ETC, though.
-After MH17, UA said NO BUK systems were captured (lied)
-Rebels said they got BUK launcher from UA. They could not show pictures of it. (because it was a broken unit)
-A (half credible) RU man said “engineers” have been sent to fix the BUK. There was some info leak that it was unrepairable. (+-0)
-UA or novorussia lists of captured HW did not list any BUK systems.(+-0)
-RU has lied a lot about BUK systems. (no need to lie if innocent)
-Pictured BUK seems to have half visible russian BUK numbering (not UA letter size)
-some rebels have said they had several TELARs around 17Jul + some rebels say they do not have capability shoot above 5km == they lie (+-0)
-UA reported they detected several TELAR + RADAR units coming into country 16Jul-17Jul and going out of the country 17Jul-18Jul. Then they reported they did not know rebels had BUK systems. They lie and then they lie. (+-0)
My thoughts:
-we know 100% that rebels had BUK
-If a working BUK had been captured before MH17, we would have seen a lot of photos of it before and after the event.
-If rebels had a working BUK, RU would not have needed to shoot down AN26 14Jul from their side of the border.
http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/11/unnoticed-video-of-26-downing-confirms.html
http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/likely-area-determined-of-russian-sam.html
-working BUK system came to rebel territory later than 14Jul
Let’s see what the fragments reveal. (if it’s BUK M1 warhead, I’m 100%sure it came from rebel area)
Example of rebel info on BUK:
Mr Basurin acknowledged that the separatists had captured Buk systems when they overran a Ukrainian base near Donetsk airport in June, but that they turned out to be “only good for scrap.”
From:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11732678/One-year-on-MH17-evidence-against-separatists-appears-overwhelming.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
“OK” article, IMO. Hopefully witness testimonials (Varya Kovalyenko, Petr Fedotov, “former rebel fighter”) will be thoroughly processed by JIT etc.
“only good for scrap.”
What is the part you dont understand?
sotilaspossi, your comment –
‘-If a working BUK had been captured before MH17, we would have seen a lot of photos of it before and after the event.’
Says a lot to me and I agree.
They would have had Russian Orthodox Church priests doing all kinds of things, they would be screaming to the hills of a working BUK that actually shot down any of Ukrainian military planes.
A – ‘we have this, do not mess with us.’ Statement would have been made.
Just the same way they claimed other equipment and ammo captured.
However, in the back of my mind, I imagine they would have tried to keep from making the BUK an active target of Ukraine’s military and sabotage forces if they had only one.
Leave some doubt in SBU’s mind.
I am not sure this is valid considering the Strelkov’s boastfulness.
Another thing I think about, if UA military aircraft were flooding the skies, some of the SBU briefings should have mentioned the planes getting painted with SAM radar or that a SAM radar was active and they were working on the type.
There wasn’t.
So I imagine that the BUK came into Ukraine sometime after July 14th like you.
It probably did not activate its radar though until July 17th and go into active duty.
And its first and last target was MH17.
Thanks for your synopsis.
Fare thee well
Answering sotilaspassi comment (August 21, 2015 at 7:43 am)
further indications of foul play
Donestk Buk (fake)
http://fakemh17photo.blogspot.co.uk/
Zuhres Buk (fake)
Torez Buk (fake)
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-y8wC721g2LM/VV6jlQr5rvI/AAAAAAAAAaY/mqSahDcENdA/s640/1.png
Snizhne (fake)
http://baz2000.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/sbu-pack-of-lies-exposed-snizhne-buk.html
Lugansk Buk (fake)
http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/maximk26/71727580/269/269_900.png
There is no evidence the buks photos/videos were taken on the day Kiev claims other than wishful thinking. Absence of evidence is not evidence.
>Donestk Buk (fake)
Not convincing.
For half credible study they should find out the car model from which the photo is taken from and camera model.
Then one could simulate what kind of distortion of view really happened there.
“i found a less cropped image”
WOW! LOL! Someone did some “wheels painting”?
But if true, surely the material was sent to DSB, JIT and Bellingcat as well?
>Zuhres Buk (fake)
??
Does not prove that video is not real. Shows rebels with a BUK.
>Torez Buk (fake)
Not fake. But it might prove the date is fake.
(JIT must go through those matters)
Shows BUK in rebel’s area.
>Snizhne (fake)
Not fake. But it might prove the date is fake.
(JIT must go through those matters)
Shows BUK in rebel’s area.
>Lugansk Buk (fake)
Not even RU MOD considered the photo to be fake.
Shows a BUK in rebel area on the trailer rebels were actively using.
(JIT must go through those “time” matters)
>Kiev claims
Not anyone should care what Kiev claims because they are highly incompetent!
(same for USA and RU, even if they might be 1% more competent than Kiev)
>Absence of evidence is not evidence.
There is plenty of evidence that rebels had one or more BUK units.
JIT will go through the material.
And they welcome more material and more evidence.
The next big thing is to see the analysis of the fragments of the used warhead. Then we can be 100% sure of the launch location, if it was a BUK & then continue from there.
btw. any info where Igor Bezler is nowdays?
IIRC, he might have been in air defence command chain because of his previous experience.
>Donestk Buk (fake)
Not convincing.
For half credible study they should find out the car model from which the photo is taken from and camera model.
Then one could simulate what kind of distortion of view really happened there.
No name of the photographer, no proof the photo is from 17 July 2014 and the buk didnt appear on the satellite image when and where it should be. The picture must be real then 🙂
>Zuhres Buk (fake)
??
Does not prove that video is not real. Shows rebels with a BUK.
Not so fast. Why do you say “shows rebels”? Also I have seen no proof the video is from 17 July last year nor a link between that buk and mh17.
>Torez Buk (fake)
Not fake. But it might prove the date is fake.
(JIT must go through those matters)
Shows BUK in rebel’s area.
Both. Date wrong and fake buk.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/german-intelligence-blames-pro-russian-separatists-for-mh17-downing-a-997972.html
“BND’s Schindler says his agency has come up with unambiguous findings. One is that Ukrainian photos have been manipulated and that there are details indicating this.”
https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/upload_2014-12-9_13-42-28-png.10573/
>Snizhne (fake)
Not fake. But it might prove the date is fake.
(JIT must go through those matters)
Shows BUK in rebel’s area.
If the date is fake how do you know it is in rebels area ? Again no proof the video is from 17 July 2014. As far I´m concerned it could be from 2013,2012…
>Lugansk Buk (fake)
Not even RU MOD considered the photo to be fake.
Shows a BUK in rebel area on the trailer rebels were actively using.
(JIT must go through those “time” matters)
We know about Lugansk video. Avakov lied about location and date. SBU even had to remove it from their website.
https://web.archive.org/web/20140721205539/http://www.sbu.gov.ua/sbu/control/uk/publish/article?art_id=129099&cat_id=39574
https://web.archive.org/web/20140728045816/http://www.sbu.gov.ua/sbu/control/uk/publish/article?art_id=129099&cat_id=39574
Conclusion- No proof the buks seen on photos/videos is from the dates Kiev claims nor are they related to mh17.
admin said “One of the conclusions of the report is that the Vostok battelion never escorted the BUK enroute to Snizhne. Ukraine officials however mentioned the BUK was part of a large convoy of separatists vehicles.”
and “I recommend anyone interested in his investigation to have a look. It is written in German language.”
Although my German is a bit rusty, I could very well follow the evidence Michael presents.
And I must say that he did an outstanding job.
Many pieces of evidence (videos of the Vostok convoy on the 17th) that I had not seen before.
There are some inaccuracies (such as the shadow analysis of the ParisMatch photo) that may or may not affect to conclusion, but overall, Great work, and compliments to Michael !
Yet, I fail to see the “Many inconsistencies in the route of the BUK” that you appear to deduce from this report.
Could you give an example that we can discuss ?
Sorry, regarding the remark “One of the conclusions of the report is that the Vostok battelion never escorted the BUK enroute to Snizhne. Ukraine officials however mentioned the BUK was part of a large convoy of separatists vehicles.”
There is not really that much of a mystery.
The BUK left Donetsk an hour after the Vostok tanks (as Michael also asserts), yet the BUK arrived in Torez an hour (40 min according to Michael) BEFORE the Vostok tanks.
This suggests the Vostok tanks were held-up along the way, and likely at Shaktars’k, where they shot their Vostok PR movie.
For an outside observer, this “take-over” may look like the BUK and the Vostok tanks moved in one convoy, while in reality they were moving separately, where the Vostok tanks got the PR, while the BUK just moved along H21 following the Bellingcat scenario.
I don’t see the “inconsistencies in the route” with that…
Rob: I will create a comprehensive overview of the BUK route as presented in social media very soon. One of the inconsistencies is the timeline. Another one is the BUK missing in the sat photo Bellingcat purchased. And there are some more.
Thanks admin,
Before you do so, please consider this :
“One of the inconsistencies is the timeline. ”
I pointed out above that there is no inconsistency in the timeline.
“Another one is the BUK missing in the sat photo Bellingcat purchased. ”
For the BUK to be missing in the 11:08 Bellingcat satellite pictures (which went to Makiivka) the BUK would have to have left the ParisMatch Donetsk spot no later than 10:45.
Which is entirely consistent with the shadows cast perpendicular over the road, which suggest 10:15 (or 10:30, or maybe even 10:45) as the timing of the ParisMatch picture.
Michael’s shadow analysis uses a boxed 3D model Volvo, while in fact it is rounded.
Please keep a skeptical eye out in your analyses.
Thanks !
And that counts not just for the analysis of the evidence that has been standing for a year now (such as the Bellingcat analysis) but also to the analysis of the evidence against that.
You have to be honest: Bellingcat did just do the collection of social media photos and geolocating. I have yet to read a critical analyse of the photos/video. Who made those etc. Michael Kobs is one of the few who did a deep analyse of the evidence presented.
Rob, oh Rob why fixing the intel around the policy?
The buk should have been there on the satellite image.
“David Clinch
Jul 29, 2014
btw Paris Match did get back to us and says: there appears to have been a problem with the caption on our photo. It was indeed taken on the outskirts of Donetsk, on the road towards Snijne.
Other than that : yes, it’s taken at about 11 am on the morning of july 17th.”
http://www.shoutwiki.com/w/images/acloserlookonsyria/thumb/0/0d/MH17_Paris_Match_elev.png/220px-MH17_Paris_Match_elev.png
igor said that David Clinch said that ParisMatch said that “it’s taken at about 11 am on the morning of july 17th.”.
And what if it was in reality (as the shadows suggest) taken at 10:30 or 10:45 ?
Exactly WHO is “fixing the intel around the policy”, igor ?
Rob: to be honest: Paris Match publishes a photo made by a freelance photographer. First the description of the photo mentioned the wrong location. The photo was made at 11 am in the morning. And now the time mention by Paris Match is also not correct.
A couple of weeks after publication of the first photo all of a sudden a second photo shows up. Not in Paris Match magazine but in a German newspaper.
We still do not have the original video. Nor the name of the photographer.
To me this looks suspicious.
admin said “To me this looks suspicious.”.
Yes, it is odd that ParisMatch does not seem to know much about this picture.
Since by now THREE slightly different versions have shown up, some argue that it not a picture at all, but actually a screenshot from a video. I think that argument has merit.
So my guess is that ParisMatch is NOT the source for this picture/video of the BUK in Donetsk. Somebody else gave it to them.
Who ? We don’t know.
And my guess is that it is unlikely that we will ever find out.
After all, these images revealed that the BUK standing in Donetsk is from the 53rd BUK brigade in Kursk, Russia.
And NOBODY has been able to disprove that.
If real, the person who recorded this has to be at the top of Russia’s most-wanted list.
After all, Russia spend a fortune trying to deny their involvement in MH17 and even went through the trouble of having their top military lie through their teeth to blame Ukraine for this epic crime.
Given that we thus probably never will know who took these images, can you be a bit more specific with your “To me this looks suspicious.” statement ?
Do you think the image is taken at another date ?
Do you think the image is taken at another time ?
Do you think the image is taken at another place ?
Do you think the image is “photoshopped” ? And if so, exactly WHICH part is photoshopped ?
Any other specific “suspicion” other than the source of the images, which you probably never will know ?
I know of TWO photos of the BUK at Donetsk. What is pic number 3?
Do you think the image is taken at another date ? -> yes
Do you think the image is taken at another time ? -> no
Do you think the image is taken at another place ? -> no
Do you think the image is “photoshopped” ? And if so, exactly WHICH part is photoshopped ? -> Could be. Some inconsistencies in truck and position of the BUK
Three pictures of the BUK in Donetsk :
1) Released by ParisMatch July 25 :
http://www.parismatch.com/Actu/International/EXCLU-MATCH-Un-camion-vole-pour-transporter-le-systeme-lance-missiles-577289
2) Released by ParisMatch Jan 2015 :
https://wp4553-flywheel.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/PM2-BUK-Snijne17072014.jpeg
3) Image without the ParisMatch logo, as it appeared in a printed version of Der Spiegel :
Come to think of it, you may be right : Image 2) and 3) may by identical, apart from the ParisMatch logo…
So there may be only 2 images released, although the second one is released in two forms : one with and one without the ParisMatch logo.
admin said : “Do you think the image is taken at another date ? -> yes”
If it was taken at a different date, which date would that be ? Earlier or later than July 17 ?
>>admin said : “Do you think the image is taken at another date ? -> yes”
Rob said: “If it was taken at a different date, which date would that be ? Earlier or later than July 17 ?”
If this photo is real, it is probably made on an earlier date. I have my doubt if this picture is indeed real.
admin, thank you for your response.
Seems that you are OK with the time, and the place, where the ParisMatch BUK images were taken, but
“Do you think the image is taken at another date ? -> yes”
There are two other videos and two other pictures that place this same Volvo with this same BUK on the same road from Donetsk to Snizhne on the morning of the 17th. And you even agree about the time.
So are these other images also taken on that different date that you propose ?
Or only the ParisMatch images ?
Rob:
The BUK on the Paris Match picture is floating off the truck. Its wheels don’t line up with the bed of the low-loader trailer, but are at an angle of about 20 degrees, with the rear wheels well off the trailer
Please explain. Is it attached to helium balloons?
Also, why does the second missile in from the left side of the BUK appear in one picture and disappear in the next.
My position: the BUK is a manipulated insertion into the photo.
Rob:
There is one video (Zhures) and two still photos (Zhures and Torez) of a truck and a BUK. There is absolutely nothing which allows us to assign a date to them other than they were July 17 or earlier I’m not sure what other video of a BUK on a truck you refer to.
I think it was Michael Kobs’ article that notes the Zhures video seems to show a south wind. The only time there was a south wind in the area around that time was on July 14. The wind on July 17 was from the west. If he is correct, that matches with rebel social media accounts in Twitter and vKontakte proclaiming on July 14 “from Donetsk rolled” a repaired BUK captured from Ukraine. That would then also put the Torez photo on July 14 which would match Toterman posting it to the forum Holywars.ru on July 16 as noted by Hector Reban. If it arrived in Snizhne on July 14, that might explain Ukraine’s aerial bombing of the city on July 15, and also explain the BUK using the back street in Snizhne to transit out of the city where it was captured on a still photo instead of the main road, because after July 15, the street was blocked from the rescue effort at the demolished apartments.
All of which would of course make the July 17 bread-crumb trail a bunch of rubbish and the SBU a pack of liars. And none of which shows that BUK shooting down MH17 any more than Ukraine posting videos of their BUK’s in the ATO zone means they did it.
Not sure if Lenin street was indeed blocked after a house was bombed. This is the location of the house
Latitude 48°1′9″N (48.019283)
Longitude 38°45′26″E (38.75731)
I believe the reason for the BUK to not take Lenin street but Karapetiana Street was that in this street the HQ of the separatists was located
https://whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/a-buk-was-seen-next-to-headquarters-of-separatists/
Thank you for your Gish Gallop, Andrew.
Amazing what you seem to deduct from the statement “I think it was Michael Kobs’ article that notes the Zhures video seems to show a south wind.”.
Can you please address that statement first, before you extrapolate that to yet another fairy tale ?
You know, things like : What makes you believe that the Zuhres video shows wind from the south, and what makes you believe that video was taken on the 14th ?
Andrew said “The BUK on the Paris Match picture is floating off the truck. Its wheels don’t line up with the bed of the low-loader trailer, but are at an angle of about 20 degrees, with the rear wheels well off the trailer”
Indeed the wheels don’t line up with the truck bed. In fact, if you draw a line along the bottom of the yellow phone number board, it cuts through the center of the rear wheels.
Just like it does on the Torez picture.
Remarkable resemblance, which suggests that this BUK was not loaded properly, but loaded improperly in THE SAME WAY in the ParisMatch pictures and the Torez picture.
Which suggests it is the same BUK on the same loader, on the same day.
admin said “If this photo is real, it is probably made on an earlier date. I have my doubt if this picture is indeed real.”
Why do you believe that this photo was made on an earlier date and/or doubt that this picture is real ?
Why is this publicly available evidence of this BUK moving from Donetsk to Snizhne on the morning of the 17th seem “suspicious” to you ?
Your “suspicion” does not make any sense to me, especially not since you do not present ANY evidence that ANY of the videos and pictures that document this BUK cannot be from the 17th or are not real.
Rob: so why do you think/are you sure the photos were made at July 17?? Because Bellingcat says so? Because these were posted on July 17?
We can only use evidence as evidence when it has clearly established as genuine. Not because these were not debunked.
As said, there are many doubts by me about these photos. I will explain those in a future post. But you can imagine yourself: we do not know the name of any of the maker of the photo or video. We had to establish the time taken by shadow calculations. The account the photos/videos were posted were quickly deleted. And I could go on for a while.
Rob:
In the Paris Match photos look at the following.
In the photo showing 3/4ths of the BUK:
The bed of the low loader trailer is visible over the windshield wiper of the car. A line can be extended along this bed to represent the rest of the trailer.
The bottom of the wheels of the BUK are obvious and can be placed on a line drawn beneath them which would represent the crawler tracks.
These lines do not touch and are at different angles – i.e. the wheels of the BUK closer to the right edge of the photo do not sit on the trailer.
In the Paris Match photo showing the entire BUK:
The wheels of the BUK follow a line of the reflection of the vents of the car’s windshield defroster system. The line of the trailer is visible beneath this reflection.
Again, the two lines are at different angles, meaning the wheels of the BUK to the right side of the image don’t rest on the trailer.
“this BUK was not loaded properly”
That is a silly excuse. This trailer is absolutely flat and the BUK must sit flat on the trailer since it has a flat caterpillar trackbase when not going over a bump. The Torz and Zhures photos clearly show a BUK sitting flat on the trailer. Obviously you have never helped load construction machinery like a bulldozer onto a trailer. You cannot misload the tracks to make them float.
Here is a video of BUK’s on low loader trailers viewed out of the passenger side of the car. The difference from Paris Match pictures in terms of the pitch of the entire BUK unit and its fit to the trailer could not be clearer. The same goes for the level of blurriness of the BUK vs. crystal clarity for the truck cab in the Paris Match photo. The photo just screams manipulation.
Andrew, I hope you then can explain all these images and why they are not lined up and appear floating.
Even more so if you had a glare of sunshine on a curved windshield that keeps a curved camera lens from giving a clear picture due to refraction etc.
First a properly loaded BUK – http://eureferendum.com/images/000a%20BUK-022%20FB2.jpg
Second a rear floating military vehicle on the same loader, LOOK IT FLOATS – https://wp4553-flywheel.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Separatist-and-low-loader.jpg
Now a couple of the BUKL on the loader, and look, the skirt and axle wheels do not line up with the bed OR the sign.
https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaMirrorCache/58f787c0ec7d49904525fb14684c94fc.jpg
https://www.metabunk.org/sk/961dee17e5feed3f5b40e33c24f1a907__255_RGB8_2014-07-21_15-03-56_2014-07-21_15-04-00.jpg
And to all your arguments for the Paris Match photo being photoshopped are just dust in the wind.
Fare thee well
Andrew said “The BUK on the Paris Match picture is floating off the truck.”
Yet when you run your video, and freeze frame it at, say, 0:13 or 0:23, it looks like that BUK is floating off the truck as well.
Obviously you have never helped load construction machinery like a bulldozer onto a trailer. You cannot misload the tracks to make them float like that.
In fact, since the top of rear wheels of the loader are clearly above the BUK’s wheels, that screenshot on your video just screams manipulation !
Why don’t you address the issues I posted before you :
“Amazing what you seem to deduct from the statement “I think it was Michael Kobs’ article that notes the Zhures video seems to show a south wind.”.
Can you please address that statement first, before you extrapolate that to yet another fairy tale ?”
And : “if you draw a line along the bottom of the yellow phone number board, it cuts through the center of the rear wheels.
Just like it does on the Torez picture.”
admin said :
“Rob: so why do you think/are you sure the photos were made at July 17?? Because Bellingcat says so? Because these were posted on July 17?
We can only use evidence as evidence when it has clearly established as genuine. Not because these were not debunked.
As said, there are many doubts by me about these photos. I will explain those in a future post. But you can imagine yourself: we do not know the name of any of the maker of the photo or video. We had to establish the time taken by shadow calculations. The account the photos/videos were posted were quickly deleted. And I could go on for a while.”
That is a Gish Gallop, admin.
Let’s take the first sentence (about this transport of the BUK from Donetsk to Snizhne) :
“why do you think/are you sure the photos were made at July 17?? ”
Because all these ParisMatch pictures match with the other evidence we have :
1) They match with the upload time of the 2 videos and other 2 pictures of this BUK movement from Donetsk to Snizhne on the 17th.
2) They match with the weather.
3) They match the eye witness accounts of locals and international journalists alike
4) They match with the launch plume picture, geolocated south of Snizhne.
5) They match with audio tapes of phone conversations between separatists (well, to be honest: Russian FSB officers).
6) They match with the Pentagon statement of a launch from Snizhne.
7) They match with the Vostok tank convoy moving along the same route.
Should I go on for a while ?
But the most important issue is this :
If these videos and pictures and and eye witness accounts and official statements are misdated, then WHICH date were they taken ?
For example : Say that the ParisMatch picture was taken on July 16. Were all other videos and pictures of that BUK convoy also taken on the 16th ?
And if so, why are clouds showing up in the Zuhres and Snizhne videos ?
And if not, then were there TWO convoys of TWO BUKs (on the 16th and the 17th) on the same Volvo and the same trailer and the same route ?
THAT is the kind of reasoning and exploration and logic I would expect from the manager of the “whathappenedtoflightmh17.com” web site.
A Gish Gallop that includes things like ” there are many doubts by me about these photos. I will explain those in a future post. But you can imagine yourself: we do not know the name of any of the maker of the photo or video.”
is just DEEPLY unsatisfying and TRULY disappointing.
Rob: Your opinion is clear. Russia did it without any doubt. That is fine with me but my character is more: trust is okay, confirm is better. Or: evidence is genuine when it is confirmed.
My goal is certainly not to convince you.
Fact is: there is no single evidence indicating the photos and videos are 100% made on July 17. Show me the proof.
The fact that all of these are released just after the shotdown is no evidence these were made on July 17. No judge will accept that.
I think like a judge. You think like the lawyer of Ukraine. That is a big big difference.
About match with the weather: I am not so sure about that.
How many eyewitness are there who wrote on their Twitter/vKontakte they saw a BUK? The BUK was a rare sight. In such a dense area you would expect many eyewitness mentioning the BUk.
That launch plume is also not 100% confirmed to be geolocated at Snizhne.
Just be a bit more patient. In a future blogpost I will present all the doubt.
So this comes down to an argument about which philosophy to follow when assessing reality.
You can follow the philosophy that “We can only use evidence as evidence when it has clearly established as genuine.”, which is a subjective philosophy, were the “genuine” part can be argued until the cows come home or later.
Or we can follow the scientific method, which can NEVER prove a correct statement (or piece of evidence) to be correct, but if CAN prove an incorrect statement (or lie) to be incorrect.
Which means that we should focus our energy on proving incorrect statements (and evidence) to be FALSE rather than asking the statements (and evidence) we have to be more genuine.
And if we do that scientific debunking process diligently, then the TRUTH magically appears.
Rob: your philisophy is: the earth is flat and because this cannot be debunked this is a fact.
My philosophy: we can only be sure if the earth is flat when someone walked to the edge and fell of.
From not a single photo we have EXIF information. We do not know the names of the photograper so we are unable to check the story of the photographer.
It all does not look to be spontaneous photos and videos.
I do believe there were one or more BUKs around Snizhne. I very much doubt if the PM BUK was indeed delivered in the morning of July 17 towards Snizhne.
I think the BUK was near Snizhne earlier which means Ukraine had knowledge of this BUK about 24 hours before the fatal missle was shot.
Please tell me by which philosophy YOU want to obtain the TRUTH about what happened to MH17, Marcel.
Because it would save you and me and other commenters here a LOT of time if you would state and act according to the scientific method instead of your current “We can only use evidence as evidence when it has clearly established as genuine.” philosophy.
Rob: it is not mandatory to comment on this forum not read. If reading comments are wasting your time or does not fit your opinion, refrain from comments or reading.
admin said “Rob: Your opinion is clear. Russia did it without any doubt. ”
Here you go again. This is NOT about opinion. And certainly not mine.
In fact, I have NOT stated my opinion in any of the posts I made on your blog (unless I explicitly stated that it was my opinion). Why do you even state that you know what my opinion is ?
admin said “evidence is genuine when it is confirmed.”
Confirmed by whom, admin ? When is evidence “genuine” enough ?
admin said “Fact is: there is no single evidence indicating the photos and videos are 100% made on July 17. Show me the proof.”
I can’t.
Nobody can.
In FACT, nobody can even say if the theory of gravitation is 100 % certain to be correct.
Again : don’t waste your energy trying to prove the truth. It’s impossible.
Using the scientific method, the ONLY way you can find out the truth is by dis-proving false statements.
That is, if you WANT to find out the truth.
Because if you DON’T want to find out the truth, you should keep on casting doubt on the evidence.
Yet that is called “propaganda”.
Your website.
Your choice.
Rob: so nobody can tell if these photos were made on July 17??
We are not talking about proving a rocket can reach Mars or not. These photos were made by people. People can testify. Like that PM photographer. People have names.
There are EXIF meta data. The EXIF of the plume pics was never released. Why not?
Why does the world have to trust a couple of photos posted on deleted social media accounts for the evidence? Why did the US never release satellite photos showing the BUK parked in Donetsk?
The US can make exactly clear what happened by releasing their intel.
Boggled:
I have no idea what you are trying to show. The APC is obviously damaged – its missing its tracks.
The Torez and Zhures photos are consistent and internally correct.
Rob:
“1) They match with the upload time of the 2 videos and other 2 pictures of this BUK movement from Donetsk to Snizhne on the 17th.”
As near as I can tell, every single image was only uploaded at the earliest several hours after MH17 crashed. What exactly is the match?
What two videos of a BUK on a truck going to Snizhne are you referring to?
“2) They match with the weather.”
Maybe. That is not established as a fact. For example, the Snizhne BUK photo peeking behind a building seems to show overcast weather. But a picture taken supposedly around the same time (early afternoon) in Snizhne of rebels on an APC shows blue sky with small cumulus clouds.
“3) They match the eye witness accounts of locals and international journalists alike”
You can’t be an eyewitness without providing a name. Who is the international journalist? The AP reporter who said he/she saw a BUK? Did he/she also see a BUK on a truck? That wasn’t his/her statement on July 17.
I’ve previously demonstrated the lack of consistency of the three or four twitter users vs. the pictures. You did not wish to discuss.
“4) They match with the launch plume picture, geolocated south of Snizhne.”
This is an endless loop. We don’t have anything to show this photo was not manipulated. No one else seems to have taken such a photo. The burnt field could be from an artillery launch or hit. The dark smoke at the base of the white smoke is obviously coming from a different loation. Etc.
“5) They match with audio tapes of phone conversations between separatists (well, to be honest: Russian FSB officers).”
On those tapes, General Petrovskey says he received BUK-M in the morning and used it to shoot down an SU-25. Which morning was that? When did he hit the SU-25? I think I have asked you this three times already.
It also talks about Cossacks shooting down the plane from Chornukhino. Please, lets not forget about that launch theory.
“6) They match with the Pentagon statement of a launch from Snizhne.”
I believe the Pentagon’s terminology was a launch from apparent “rebel held” or “rebel controlled” territory. I believe it is the US State Department that has specifically mentioned Snizhne. Can you produce the statement you are referring to?
“7) They match with the Vostok tank convoy moving along the same route.”
I fail to see the connection. The Vostok convoy on the same route does not include a BUK or a truck. Also, it did not supposedly move from Russia through Ukrainian held Bile.
admin said “admin said “Fact is: there is no single evidence indicating the photos and videos are 100% made on July 17. Show me the proof.”
and when I explain that there can never be proof for the truth, admin replies :
“so nobody can tell if these photos were made on July 17??
We are not talking about proving a rocket can reach Mars or not.”
That would be easy. Given the parameters of the rocket, any scientist can tell you if it can reach Mars or not.
and
“These photos were made by people. People can testify. Like that PM photographer. People have names.”
How does that give you “proof” that these ParisMatch pictures were taken on the 17th ?
Let me give you an example.
Suppose that TWO people with names step forward, that both claim they took the ParisMatch pictures.
One says he took these pictures at 11:30 on July 17.
The other says he took these pictures at 10:30 on July 17.
Which one is the photographer ?
And why does it matter who the photographer is >
Oh, to make the point clear, there may be a third guy who swears he took that picture on the 16th, at about noon.
Now what ?
Of course we don’t have three people who claim to have taken that picture.
There is only one. A journalist from ParisMatch who prefers to stay out of the mud-throwing war. Instead, he lets another ParisMatch journalist say this :
” L’équipe de Paris Match avait justement photographié un tel lance-missile en bordure de Donetsk, sur la route de Snijne au matin du jeudi 17 juillet, quelques heures avant le drame qui a coûté la vie à 298 personnes.”
http://www.parismatch.com/Actu/International/EXCLU-MATCH-Un-camion-vole-pour-transporter-le-systeme-lance-missiles-577289
What does that mean exactly ?
Rob:
“and when I explain that there can never be proof for the truth”
That is a completely bogus excuse!
I have loaded the rebel artilleryman on Saur Mogila picture Max Van der Werff obtained onto my iPad and it says I now have a picture from Saur Mogila, Ukraine, taken on July 17, 2014, and 16:28 pm.
Why can’t I load any of the rebel BUK photos or Aleynikov’s plume photos onto my iPad and obtain the same result?
If the photos are real, someone has the original file and can provide them in the same way as the rebel did.
Andrew, the images all show an almost exact same angle when comparing the skirt to what the level of the sign with the numbers are.
You just glance at them all, and because of a curved windshield and dirty one at that, you cannot tell exactly where the bed accurately is on the PM photo.
BUT with all of them, they follow the same angle, even the APC.
The APC regardless of having its tracks or not, the axle wheels should be sitting on the bed of the trailer.
They are not.
All the photos are consistent with the angle of the bed they sit on and how they were loaded and how each of the photos appear.
All angles of skirts line up.
I think one of the biggest things that throws everyone off is the smear with a finger down the windshield that is in both PM images.
It shows just how dirty the windshield is in part.
Maybe even on the inside of the windshield from a spilled cup of coffee or soda is my guess.
They all line up correctly and are all images of the BUK on the trailer at the same day.
Proving the date is the hard thing, but the PM image is consistent and genuine and it conforms like the others to the bed of the trailer and how the BUK was positioned from loading.
PM – https://wp4553-flywheel.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/PM2-BUK-Snijne17072014.jpeg
APC – https://wp4553-flywheel.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Separatist-and-low-loader.jpg
BUK travelling – https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaMirrorCache/58f787c0ec7d49904525fb14684c94fc.jpg
BUK stationary – https://www.metabunk.org/sk/961dee17e5feed3f5b40e33c24f1a907__255_RGB8_2014-07-21_15-03-56_2014-07-21_15-04-00.jpg
The APC just goes to show the trailer is not flat, and if you have ever pulled a sting on a 50 foot trailer, you would know the deflection.
IF you blow up the left image of the APC, you can plainly see the rear of the trailer bed drops from about the middle tire of the three tires to the ramps.
Fare thee well
Small correction – my last comment reads
‘BUT with all of them, they follow the same angle, even the APC.’
Should read,
‘BUT with all of them, except those when it is not on the trailer and the one from Luhansk as it is returning to either a warehouse to hide from satellites or to RF, they follow the same angle even the APC.
It appears the BUK was loaded differently at this time.’
And to remind you, there are 6 different locations the BUK was filmed, 2 videos, and 5 still images.
2 ParisMatch, Zuhres, Tores, and Snizhne are the images.
Videos Luhansk and Snizhne.
All collected here for easy viewing.
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/11/08/origin-of-the-separatists-buk-a-bellingcat-investigation/
The images after locations found –
https://wp4553-flywheel.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/81.jpg
The two BUK images (one snapshot from video) WITH NO trailer in Snizhne.
https://wp4553-flywheel.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/31.jpg
Fare thee well
And yes, I have read Barry Hamill’s and others analysis of the floating BUK, and they are wrong.
And your wrong for repeating his false analysis.
He even compares the way the loading is on the Luhansk video to justify his analysis because all the other images of the BUK on the trailer would not work with his theory.
That makes it misinformation, lies, or propaganda.
You take your pick.
Barry’s site – http://fakemh17photo.blogspot.com/
To his credit, he did give a photo of the ‘floating’ APC on the page, but the rest of his analysis is just BS and FSB misdirection and misinformation set out there to confuse those easily gullible conspiracy theorists.
Fare thee well
And Andrew, if you look at the BUK video admin posted on the other article at 27 seconds in you will see how much a flat track rolls and changes with just the shocks.
I imagine there are also manual controls such as hydraulics for loading that allows the BUK to settle to a not so top heavy aspect, ie they manually level it out for transport or for use in the field.
A level BUK is a happy BUK for targeting, less errors and work for the software to figure out.
video –
Fare thee well
Boggled:
The APC has been blown up. Its missing its turret and tracks and is obviously severely damaged. Its hardly comparable to the supposedly working rebel BUK. Its rear wheels likely don’t sit level because the frame and armor of the vehicle was warped by the explosion.
You can see how the Paris Match BUK floats here:
http://i61.tinypic.com/2agkc9k.jpg
I invite an explanation for how the rear wheels do not sit on the line of the trailer.
First off Andrew, the APC’s undercarriage was not so damaged it or the axle wheels that the tracks ride on would not be sitting on the bed.
It is an APC, it does not have a turret everytime.
Yes, the BTR 80 does have a small one, but it looks more similar to this one that does not.
http://fm.cnbc.com/applications/cnbc.com/resources/img/editorial/2014/04/22/101600502-485938545.530×298.jpg?v=1398146525
Also, it is unlikely they would have picked it up if the frame was bent, they would have let it sit and rust.
It would have taken quite a lot of heat to warp it as much as you claim.
Also, I remind you to put a straightedge on the bed of the trailer in the APC image and look! there is a lot of deflection across the bed of the trailer.
Blow it up on your 60 inch TV and use a yard stick.
Only gets more pronounced as you get closer to the actual size.
Now to the lay of the trailer with a BUK on it.
First, you have to pick the right line of what the base of the trailer is. You missed it.
Then you have to pick how far forward or backwards the BUK sits on the trailer when you load it, tie down points.
Kind of interesting how in both of your markings of the axles of the tracks your following the vents of the FIAT isn’t it?
Now really look at these next two images, and tell me does the skirt follow the pitch of the sign which is the same pitch of the road?
https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaMirrorCache/58f787c0ec7d49904525fb14684c94fc.jpg
https://www.metabunk.org/sk/961dee17e5feed3f5b40e33c24f1a907__255_RGB8_2014-07-21_15-03-56_2014-07-21_15-04-00.jpg
Don’t you see that there is something wrong with your analysis and ALSO with the loading of the BUK, which is done correctly in the Luhansk video?
TOP of sign is parallel the road.
The BUK skirt is parallel the road in the Luhansk video.
The SKIRT is NOT parallel the road in any of the other images where it is on a trailer, including the two ParisMatch images.
I am not an expert on tank tracks and can tell you if it is like a chopped and lowered Impala or Merc, or if it has some type of idler wheel for adjustment to control the ride over various terrain or for transport.
Doesn’t it make sense to you that when it gets in position for targeting and firing, or when in transport, that it would want to squat as low as possible and put as much contact with the ground lowering its center of gravity?
There are reasons why the Luhansk video and all the others that are properly loaded sit parallel to the road and the various BUK images from that day INCLUDING ParisMatch all have them sitting with the TELAR end higher and pitched not parallel.
We cannot say it is the trailer as the direct cause, because the Luhansk video plainly shows the skirt parallel to the ground.
So it must be another reason.
Stronger tie down force used on the back shocks in the Luhansk video? Could be.
And the angle of the skirt of all the other images and the the Paris Match ones are on the same angle compared to both the sign and the road the sign is parallel to.
I know your not blind, and I know your not stupid, so you must see this in all the analysis that you have done.
So am I wrong? It will just be a KaPOW! moment?
Or what?
You just do not see it?
Or refuse to?
The BUK is not floating.
It is not photoshopped, it is consistent with the others.
Remember, the sign is always parallel to the road.
The bed of the trailer is NOT always parallel to the road but it is closer then the BUK’s suspension in the images before MH17’s destruction on the trailer.
Do not go with the UNFOCUSED axle wheels location in a camera image that is smeared with coffee and has a glare from the sun shining in the passenger window.
Go with the skirt to compare where the track should be and use the ALL the other images.
Finally, the semi’s tires are not all the same size, the front two are taller then the rear drive wheels.
The trailer tires are even smaller.
You take a ruler and go along from the top of the rim on the back two drive tires and go parallel to the top of the sign (which is parallel to the road in ALL images).
That is where the top of the bed is.
And if you follow that line you will not see the BUK floating any differently then it is in the other images.
And if you do that on the APC image, you will notice the back of the trailer drops a few inches starting just in front of the APC.
Fare thee well
This does not look right:
https://wp4553-flywheel.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/PM2-BUK-Snijne17072014.jpeg
vs
https://wp4553-flywheel.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Paris-Match.jpg
But there is so much distortion by the windshield, that it’s hard to tell why the first photo look so wrong.
I wonder what car is used by photographer?
Sotilaspossi – I believe I read somewhere it was a FIAT, but I do not remember make or model they described.
The two photos are two snapshots taken one after the other.
The first one looks as if the camera did not focus in the right spot.
Getting a camera or a camera phone with less then 5 MP (I think) to get a good photo while your moving in a car with a heavy sunshine glare coming in the side of the car would make it difficult to get a clear image.
I think the second image is more clear because some of the sunshine is blocked.
In your first image, you can see the dash of the car in the reflection image captured from the windshield in a lot of clarity.
In the second, that changes.
You can read the number clear in one image but not the other.
Take your camera out side and hold down the button to take continuous snapshots.
Holding the camera but move it while trying to stay centered on the same object as your holding the button down, no tripod allowed.
It is even more pronounced if you take off image stabilization.
Upload the images to your computer and look at them closely.
I bet you will find half of them out of focus blurry and other problems.
Then the dirty windshield and cracked dash and glare come into play as well.
They may not look right, but I believe they are not images of a trailer a BUK was ‘inserted’ on, ie photoshopped.
Fare thee well.
One other item to keep in mind is the fingertip line that is drawn through the stain (coffe? soda?) on the inside of the dirty windshield that shows up identically location, size and shape in both ParisMatch images.
Fare thee well
I found this metabunk thread interesting as far as describing the precise types of vehicles that fled Ukraine to Russia.
– ‘At 2am (local time) on Friday July 18, about 8 hours after the plane came down, in a region of Ukraine near the Russian border, two big trucks each carrying a BUK system – one with a missing missile, were seen heading for Russia.
At 4am on Saturday morning three more such trucks moved over the border into Russia. One had a BUK-M1, one was empty, and the third carried a tracking module that runs the system.’
I also believe it goes on in page 2 describing the 6 busloads of vehicle type anti aircraft technicians and trainers that were shipped out of Ukraine that same day from Luhansk through the same suspected border crossing.
https://www.metabunk.org/claim-buk-launcher-trucked-out-of-ukraine.t3977/
Fare thee well